Bhupinder Singh v. Scarlet Grant, et al.

Singh v. Grant · United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma · May 27, 2026 · No. CIV-26-289-R

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma reviews and adopts a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation concerning the revocation of Bhupinder Singh’s immigration bond. The court finds that Respondents failed to demonstrate compliance with applicable bond-revocation procedures and that the summary revocation violated Singh’s Fifth Amendment due process rights. The petition for habeas relief is granted, and Respondents are ordered to immediately release Singh under his prior bond conditions.

Holdings

  1. Singh adequately raised claims that ICE violated applicable bond-revocation regulations and procedures and that his detention violated due process.
  2. A party waives de novo and further appellate review of issues in a Report and Recommendation when it fails to make timely and specific objections to those issues.
  3. Respondents failed to establish compliance with the procedures governing revocation of Singh's immigration bond, including the requirement that an authorized official exercise discretion and that the original warrant be used for the rearrest.
  4. On the record before the court, Respondents violated Singh's Fifth Amendment due process rights by summarily revoking his bond without notice or other adequate procedural safeguards.
  5. The regulatory and due process violations alleged in this case were cognizable in habeas and warranted Singh's release from immigration detention.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Singh's petition adequately raised claims that ICE violated its bond-revocation regulations and procedures.
  2. Whether Respondents waived de novo review by failing to make timely and specific objections to the magistrate judge's findings concerning the authorized revocation of bond and the arrest warrant.
  3. Whether revoking Singh's bond without notice or other procedural safeguards violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights.
  4. Whether the alleged regulatory and constitutional violations were cognizable in habeas and warranted release from immigration detention.

Disposition

writ_granted

Cases Cited (10)

  • Hall v. Miller, No. CIV-25-00518-JD, 2025 WL 2630738, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 12, 2025)(followed)
  • United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059-60 (10th Cir. 1996)(followed)
  • Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)(followed)
  • Ewere v. Cerna, No. CIV-26-320-SLP, 2026 WL 1207088, at *2 (W.D. Okla. May 4, 2026)(followed)
  • Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)(followed)
  • Kholmurodov v. Warden, Cimarron Correctional Facility, No. CIV-26-678-SLP, 2026 WL 1266124, at *4 (W.D. Okla. May 8, 2026)(followed)
  • Li v. Bondi, No. CIV-25-1480-J, 2026 WL 475133, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 19, 2026)(followed)
  • Nguyen v. Hyde, 788 F. Supp. 3d 144, 152 (D. Mass. 2025)(followed)
  • Owdetallah v. Bondi, No. CIV-25-1546-SLP, 2026 WL 483648, at *4-5 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 20, 2026)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…