Sin Johal v. Bondi et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SIN JOHAL, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-1408-J
)
PAMELA BONDI, et al., )
)
Respondents. )
ORDER
Petitioner, a noncitizen from India, filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Pet.) [Doc. No. 1]. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Suzanne Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),(C). Now pending is Judge
Mitchell’s Supplemental Report and Recommendation wherein she recommends granting habeas
relief on Petitioner’s procedural due process claim and ordering Respondents to provide another
bond hearing with Respondents bearing the burden. (Supp. Rep. & Rec.) [Doc. No. 21]. Both
Petitioner and Respondents have objected [Doc. Nos. 22-23], triggering de novo review. For the
reasons discussed below, the Supplemental Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED IN PART
and DECLINED IN PART and habeas relief is DENIED.1
I. Background
Petitioner was admitted to the United States in December 2020 “as a nonimmigrant Alien
in Transit with authorization to remain in the United States for a temporary period not to exceed
1 Because the Court denies habeas relief, it does not address Respondents’ objections to the
Supplemental Report and Recommendation. Petitioner only objected to Judge Mitchell’s
recommended remedy, requesting release rather than a new bond hearing. [Doc. No. 23]. Again,
as habeas relief is denied, the Court declines to address this objection.
Case 5:25-cv-01408-J Document 24 Filed 04/01/26 Page 1 of 6

2
January 25, 2021.” [Doc. No. 14, Ex. 3 at 1].2 In November 2021, on grounds that Petitioner
remained in the United States past his January 25, 2021 deadline, the United States Department of
Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DHS/ICE) began removal
proceedings. On November 17, 2025, Petitioner was afforded a bond hearing where the
Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief because “[n]o material change in circumstances supporting
[Petitioner’s] application for bond” existed. Pet., Ex. 1.
Petitioner asked the IJ to reconsider and/or reopen the bond hearing, arguing that the IJ had
concluded that he was not a flight risk or danger to the community. See [Doc. No. 11, Ex. 2 at 2].
In a written order dated January 5, 2026, the IJ documented the arguments and evidence presented
at the bond hearing and specifically noted that the court had found Petitioner to be a flight risk.
See [Doc. No. 14, Ex. 3 at 1-3].
In this Court, Petitioner claimed that Respondents (Ground One) violated the Immigration
and Nationality Act (INA) by denying him bond after finding that he was neither a flight risk nor
a danger to persons or property, (Ground Two) violated due process through misapplication of
law, and (Ground Three) violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Pet. at 12-14.
Petitioner sought his immediate release or, in the alternative, an order directing “the [IJ] to set a
reasonable monetary bond based on the evidence previously presented to the immigration court.”
Id. at 3.
Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation rejecting Respondents’ challenge to
the Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) and Petitioner’s APA claim. [Doc. No. 15].
Neither party objected to those determinations, and they were adopted. [Doc. No. 17].
2 Page citations refer to this Court’s CM/ECF pagination.
Case 5:25-cv-01408-J Document 24 Filed 04/01/26 Page 2 of 6

3
On Petitioner’s INA claim, and in the absence of any transcript, Judge Mitchell relied on
the IJ’s January 5, 2026 Order which indicated that the IJ had indeed found Petitioner to be a flight
risk at his initial bond hearing. She further found that although the IJ had articulated the wrong
standard, any error was harmless. [Doc. No. 15]. On de novo review, and over Petitioner’s
objection, the Court adopted Judge Mitchell’s recommendation and denied habeas relief. [Doc.
No. 17].
Thereafter, Petitioner gained access to the initial bond hearing transcript and filed a motion
to reconsider. [Doc. No. 19]. The Court granted the motion to reconsider and re-referred the
matter to Judge Mitchell.
II. Bond Hearing Standards
Under the INA, an IJ may release an immigrant following an initial bond hearing if satisfied
that he “would not pose a danger to property or persons, and that the alien is likely to appear for
any future proceeding.” 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8). Thereafter, an immigrant may request another
bond hearing “upon a showing that [his] circumstances have materially changed since the prior
bond determination.” Id. § 1003.19(e).
III. Analysis
In Ground One, Petitioner alleged that the IJ misapplied the INA because he was denied
bond despite the IJ finding that he was neither a flight risk nor a danger to persons or property.
See Pet. at 12. Reviewing the bond hearing transcript, Judge Mitchell disagrees, noting that the
transcript “does not reflect that the IJ ever made such a finding.” Supp. Rep. & Rec. at 6. Neither
party objects to this conclusion, and the Court ADOPTS Judge Mitchell’s finding that Petitioner
is not entitled to habeas relief on Ground One.
Case 5:25-cv-01408-J Document 24 Filed 04/01/26 Page 3 of 6

4
Relatedly, in Ground Two, Petitioner claimed that the IJ violated his due process rights
because the court applied the change-in-circumstances standard relevant only to subsequent bond
hearings. See Pet. at 12-13. In her first Report and Recommendation, Judge Mitchell concluded
that error had occurred but found it harmless. The Court agreed and denied habeas relief. See
supra at 3. In her Supplemental Report and Recommendation, Judge Mitchell again finds that the
application of the incorrect standard was a procedural due process violation; however, without
explanation, she now recommends granting habeas relief and ordering Respondents to hold another
bond hearing. See Supp. Rep. & Rec. at 9. The Court DECLINES this recommendation.
The Court agrees that a procedural due process violation likely occurred. That is, the IJ
initially articulated the correct standard, see [Doc. No. 19, Ex. 1 at 4], and the Government
announced that its objection to bond was based on Petitioner’s flight risk. See id. The IJ then
questioned Petitioner about (1) where he would live if given bond, (2) his marriage, (3) his
employment history, (4) whether he had other family in the United States, (5) his assets, property,
income, and savings, and (6) his immigration applications, etc. See id., Ex. 1 at 1-11. However,
instead of finding that Petitioner was ineligible for a bond because he was a flight risk, the IJ
announced that the bond was denied because there had not been a material change in circumstances
from the initial determination. See id., Ex. 1 at 12. This was the incorrect standard. See supra at
3. But as discussed above, the IJ thereafter issued an Order which clarified the hearing
determination. The IJ wrote, in relevant part:
At the bond hearing, [Petitioner], through counsel, indicated he had been in the
United States for approximately five years, entering in 2020. He asserted he was
not a danger to the community and had no criminal history or arrests in the United
States. [Petitioner] also indicated that he was married to his wife, a [United States
citizen], since September of 2024. [Petitioner] proffered that his wife is pregnant
and was expecting a child. However, evidence presented at the hearing also showed
that his wife did not submit an I-130 petition in this case until October 17, 2025.
[Petitioner] did not indicate that he has any other potential qualifying relatives in
Case 5:25-cv-01408-J Document 24 Filed 04/01/26 Page 4 of 6

5
the US and was working as a commercial truck driver with a Limited Term
California CDL. The evidence does not contain any letters or supporting
documents from an employer verifying [Petitioner’s] employment.
[Petitioner] indicated that he was also seeking asylum. The [G]overnment noted,
however, that the latest update [on this application] shows “referred-ineligible.” In
addition, the Government evidence also showed that during his encounter with ICE,
there was no revelation or disclosure by [Petitioner] that he was a victim of
persecution, torture or human trafficking.
Evidence at the hearing also showed that [Petitioner] did not have significant
property, assets or savings in the United States. He also presented affidavits of
support from his wife and five other individuals. There was no financial
information documents submitted as part of Exhibit 3. The Department opposed
[Petitioner’s] request for bond and believed [Petitioner] was a flight risk.
In balancing relevant factors . . ., the Court did not reach the conclusion [Petitioner]
was a danger to the community. However, the Court found [Petitioner] had not met
his burden to show he was not a flight risk. While [Petitioner] has lived in the
United States for five years, [Petitioner] has limited relief available to him.
Although he has one immediate family member from which an immigration benefit
could be derived, his wife did not submit that application until after [Petitioner] was
placed in detention by the government. . . . The Court found that [Petitioner] was
a flight risk.
[Doc. No. 14, Ex. 3 at 2-3 (cleaned up)].
Based on this, the Court again finds that any procedural due process error that occurred
during the bond hearing was rendered harmless when the IJ clarified that Petitioner’s bond was
denied because he was a flight risk and documented the evidence the IJ relied upon in making that
determination. As such, Petitioner’s request for habeas relief in Ground Two is DENIED.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS IN PART and DECLINES IN PART
the Supplemental Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 21] and again DENIES Petitioner’s
Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1].
A separate judgment will enter.
Case 5:25-cv-01408-J Document 24 Filed 04/01/26 Page 5 of 6

6
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of April, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-01408-J Document 24 Filed 04/01/26 Page 6 of 6