Washington, Dec 30 (AHN) A federal judge in California has directed US immigration officials to justify the detention of an Indian national after finding his legal challenge credible enough to proceed.

The order was issued on December 24 by the US District Court for the Southern District of California, which asked the government to respond to a habeas corpus petition filed by Naveen Naveen, an Indian citizen contesting the legal basis of his continued immigration detention.

In his order, the judge said the petition shows sufficient potential merit and should not be dismissed at an early stage. Under federal rules, a habeas petition may move forward as long as it raises a legally cognizable claim and does not plainly show that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.

Court records state that Naveen, a citizen of India, entered the United States on April 18, 2023, from Mexico without inspection. He was apprehended by Customs and Border Protection shortly after crossing the border and was later released on an Order of Release on Recognizance.

On the same date, immigration authorities issued him a Notice to Appear in immigration court, charging him as an alien present in the United States without admission or parole.

According to the petition, Naveen was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on November 3, 2025, during a pre-scheduled ICE check-in. ICE has concluded that he is subject to mandatory detention under section 1225(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and is therefore ineligible for release on bond.

Naveen disputes that interpretation. He argues that his detention should instead be governed by section 1226(a) of the statute, which allows for release on bond or conditional parole while immigration proceedings are pending.

In his order, Judge Andrew G. Schopler said the challenge meets the threshold required at this stage of the case. Citing recent appellate guidance, the court noted that summary dismissal is not appropriate “as long as a petition has any potential merit.”

The judge also pointed to a growing body of federal court rulings across the country that have examined similar detention disputes. In many of those cases, courts have found that petitioners were likely to succeed on the merits or have granted relief after determining that section 1226(a), rather than section 1225(b)(2), governs detention in comparable circumstances.

The order referred to several similar decisions from federal courts in New York, California, Nevada, and Washington. It noted that a large majority of opinions addressing the issue have ruled in favor of detainees or questioned the government’s interpretation of the statute.