WASHINGTON — A federal judge in California has ordered U.S. immigration authorities to justify the continued detention of an Indian national, ruling that his legal challenge raises sufficient questions to proceed.
The order, issued December 24 by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, directs the government to respond to a habeas corpus petition filed by Naveen Naveen, an Indian citizen contesting the legal basis for his ongoing immigration detention.
In the ruling, the judge said the petition shows potential merit and should not be dismissed at an early stage. Under federal court standards, a habeas petition may move forward as long as it presents a legally valid claim and does not clearly show that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.
Court records show that Naveen entered the United States from Mexico on April 18, 2023, without inspection. He was apprehended shortly afterward by Customs and Border Protection and later released on an order of release on recognizance. Immigration authorities issued him a notice to appear in immigration court the same day, charging him with being present in the country without lawful admission or parole.
According to the petition, Naveen was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on November 3, 2025, during a scheduled check-in. ICE determined that he was subject to mandatory detention under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that does not allow release on bond.
Naveen disputes that determination, arguing that a different section of the law applies to his case and permits release on bond or conditional parole while immigration proceedings remain pending.
In his order, Judge Andrew G. Schopler said the challenge meets the legal threshold required at this stage. Citing appellate guidance, the court noted that summary dismissal is improper as long as a petition presents any potential merit.
The judge also referenced a growing number of federal court decisions nationwide that have examined similar detention disputes. In many cases, courts have found that detainees were likely to succeed on the merits or granted relief after concluding that the government relied on the wrong statutory provision.
The order cited rulings from federal courts in several states and observed that a majority of opinions addressing the issue have favored detainees or questioned the government’s interpretation of immigration detention law. (Source: IANS)
