Just this week, a US federal judge delivered major relief to three Indian citizens in the United States who had been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on three separate occasions. In yet another similar development, US courts have once again ruled two Indian nationals’ detention without hearings as unlawful.
Both orders were issued this week by the US District Court for the Eastern District of California, according to IANS. Both separate rulings involving Indian citizens Kirandeep K and Rohit K were delivered by Chief US District Judge Troy L Nunley. He has since ordered the immediate release of both individuals.
Case 1: ICE said Indian woman living in California missed an appointment
In the first case highlighted this week, a woman named Kirandeep had been living in California for over four years.
The factual and procedural background of Kirandeep’s case determined that the US noncitizens from India had entered America with inspection on December 17, 2021, seeking asylum. Upon her arrival in the US, federal agents ended up briefly detaining her, but also determined that she was not a flight risk or danger to the community.
She was consequently released on her own recognizance with a notice to appear for removal proceedings.
Court documents, as seen online, indicated that the Indian national attended all scheduled appointments with the ICE and US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) during that 4-year period.
Last year, in September, ICE took her into custody as she came in for a routine check-in. At the time of detention, US immigration authorities asserted that Kirandeep had violated the terms of her release by missing a single appointment.
Court filings, which are also available online, determined that the woman had provided a valid excuse for the absence and checked in the day after her missed appointment. ICE had accepted it as a replacement check-in at the time.
Under the Conclusion section of the US court documents, Judge Nunley ruled, “Petitioner Kirandeep K. shall be RELEASED IMMEDIATELY from Respondents’ custody. Respondents shall not impose any additional restrictions on her, unless such restrictions are determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing.”
Kirandeep’s legal win against immigration authorities has now also barred them re-arresting or re-detaining her without constitutional protections. This includes a seven-days’ notice and a hearing.
Court documents: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/caedce/1:2026cv00156/478266/6/0.pdf
Case 2: Indian citizen feared political persecution in home country
The second separate ruling pertains to another Indian citizen named Rohit K, who has a pending asylum claim. Akin to Kirandeep’s case, Judge Nunley has also ordered the Indian man be released immediately.
According to court documents available online, Rohit came to the US without inspection on November 22, 2021. Following his entry, the Indian citizen claimed a fear of returning to India, citing political persecution fears. He was then detained by ICE.
Last year, in June, ICE ended up re-detaining him, compelling him to remain in custody for more than seven months without a bond hearing. In its ruling, the US court declared that the Indian man had built community ties and the government failed to provide him with a hearing or any firm explanation.
As in Kirandeep’s case, the judge concluded in Rohit’s instance too: “Petitioner Rohit K. shall be RELEASED IMMEDIATELY from Respondents’ custody. Respondents shall not impose any additional restrictions on him, unless such restrictions are determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing.”
In both cases, Judge Nunley cited the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause prohibiting government deprivation of an individual’s life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
The court documents in each case also reiterated that the ‘Due Process Clause’ applies to all “persons” within the borders of the US, regardless of their immigration status. Therefore, it is applicable to noncitizens as well whether their presence in the country be lawful, unlawful, temporary or permanent.
Court documents: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/caedce/1:2026cv00232/478440/4/0.pdf