Singh v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Background

Taranpreet Singh filed an amended complaint against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, its Secretary, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, its Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and its Acting Director. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief concerning his asylum application and expedited-removal proceedings.

Singh entered the United States without inspection on or about December 3, 2021. Customs and Border Protection issued him a Form I-860, placing him in expedited-removal proceedings. Singh told officials that he feared persecution or torture if returned to India. He alleged that the government was required to refer him for a credible-fear determination but did not do so at that time. DHS later released him from custody pending a credible-fear interview.

Singh filed an affirmative asylum application with USCIS in May 2022 and later received employment authorization. In June 2025, USCIS dismissed his asylum application for lack of jurisdiction, stating that his asylum claim would be considered through the credible-fear screening process. Singh then asserted claims involving agency action, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Motion and Legal Standard

Singh moved for a temporary restraining order, asking the court to prevent a credible-fear interview, removal or deportation based on an alleged expedited-removal order, and actions inconsistent with adjudicating his asylum application on the merits.

A temporary restraining order is emergency relief intended to preserve the existing situation and prevent serious harm until a preliminary-injunction hearing. The applicant must show a likely chance of success, likely irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of hardships favors relief, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. A showing of serious questions on the merits may sometimes suffice if the other requirements are met.

Jurisdiction

The government argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A) barred the district court from reviewing claims relating to the implementation or operation of an expedited-removal order. Singh responded that no final removal order had been entered because the Form I-860 issued to him lacked a required supervisor signature.

The court rejected that basis for avoiding the jurisdictional bar. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the court stated that review of expedited-removal orders is generally barred except for the narrow issues identified in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2), which must be raised in a habeas petition. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Singh’s request to prevent the government from enforcing the expedited-removal order.

Administrative Procedure Act Claim

The court did not decide whether USCIS’s dismissal of Singh’s asylum application was a final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. Instead, it held that the Administrative Procedure Act does not authorize review where another statute precludes judicial review. Because § 1252 barred review of claims relating to the expedited-removal order, the court concluded that it could not consider Singh’s Administrative Procedure Act claim in this action.

Alternative Merits Analysis

The court further held that, even if it had jurisdiction, Singh had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions supporting emergency relief. The court rejected his arguments that the expedited-removal process had to be completed within one year of his arrival, that the government could not revive the process years after his release, and that accepting his asylum application or issuing employment authorization prevented the government from continuing to pursue expedited removal. The court noted that Singh offered no legal authority supporting those arguments.

Disposition

The court stated that it lacked jurisdiction over the claims in Singh’s complaint and that there was no authority supporting the requested relief. It denied Singh’s application for a temporary restraining order and declined to reach the government’s remaining arguments.