Ramirez Guzman v. Noem et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
LEONEL RAMIREZ GUZMAN, 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-cv-2932-E (BT)
§
KRISTI NOEM, et al., 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case is one of many habeas petitions recently filed challenging federal detention
pending removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
Petitioner Leonel Ramirez Guzman, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United
States without being inspected, admitted, or paroled by an immigration officer. In 2023, Petitioner
was arrested for a DWI, taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, and
released. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) then initiated removal proceedings,
charging Petitioner with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as an alien present in the
United States without being admitted or paroled.
On October 28, 2025, ICE agents arrested Petitioner and detained him without a bond
hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The next day, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus and a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction (TRO) to enjoin
DHS from continuing to detain him under § 1225(b)(2), or, alternatively, to order a bond hearing
at which the Government bears the burden of demonstrating flight or safety risk by clear and
convincing evidence. ECF Nos. 1, 2. A few weeks later, Petitioner filed an amended habeas
petition and TRO request seeking the same relief. ECF Nos. 10-12.
Case 3:25-cv-02932-E-BT Document 17 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

2
A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy.” Miss. Power & Light Co v. United
Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985). To obtain injunctive relief, a movant must
establish (1) a substantial likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits; (2) a substantial
threat that irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury
outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant; and (4) that granting the preliminary injunction
will not disserve the public interest. Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987) (citing
Canal Auth. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572-73 (5th Cir. 1974)). The party seeking preliminary
injunctive relief carries the burden of persuasion on all four elements. Bluefield Water Ass’n, Inc.
v. City of Starkville, 577 F.3d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 2009).
Recently, the Fifth Circuit issued its published decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
No. 25-20496, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026), holding that aliens like Petitioner—
“alien[s] present within the United States who ha[ve] not been admitted” by lawful means, see 8
U.S.C. §§ 1225(a)(1), 1101(a)(13)(A)—are deemed to be “applicants for admission,” and unless
they show themselves to be “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” they “shall be
detained” pending their removal proceeding under § 1225(b)(2)(A). In view of this new
precedential authority, Petitioner cannot establish a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on
the merits of his claim that he is wrongly detained under § 1225(b)(2) or that he is entitled to a
bond hearing under § 1226. Thus, the Court DENIES his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and 	Preliminary Injunction and 	Amended 	Motion 	for Temporary 	Restraining 	Order 	and
Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 2, 11).
SO ORDERED THIS 19 th day of February 2026.
_________________________________
ADA BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-02932-E-BT Document 17 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>