Cervantes-Lopez v. El Valle Detention Facility et al

1/6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
JARED DE JESUS CERVANTES-
LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
§
§
§
v. § Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-541
§
WARDEN, OF EL VALLE
DETENTION CENTER, in his/her
official capacity, et al.,
Respondents.
§
§
§
§
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S SECOND
AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1
Before the Court is Petitioner Jared de Jesus Cervantes-Lopez’s “Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241” (Cervantes-Lopez’s “§ 2241 Petition”). Dkt. No.
1. For the reasons discussed below, it is recommended that the Court: (1) DENY Cervantes-
Lopez’s § 2241 Petition; and (2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2
Cervantes-Lopez, a citizen of Mexico, is in immigration custody at El Valle Detention
Facility (“El Valle”) located in Raymondville, Texas. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. In his § 2241 Petition,
Cervantes-Lopez states that he has been detained at El Valle since April 2, 2026. Id. at 3. The
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) subsequently placed Cervantes-Lopez into
removal proceedings, detaining him under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) (hereinafter, “§
1 The Court issues this Second Amended Report and Recommendation to address Cervantes-Lopez’s claims
in light of the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision to grant a rehearing en banc of Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega,
No. 26-50183, 2026 WL 1906557 (5th Cir. July 2, 2026). “[T]he granting of a rehearing en banc vacates
the panel opinion and judgment of the court and stays the mandate.” 5TH CIR. R. 41.3.
2 Information obtained from Cervantes-Lopez’s § 2241 Petition. See Dkt. No. 1. Cervantes-Lopez’s A-
number is A-223008316, and his country of origin is Mexico. Dkt. No. 1 at 6.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 22, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:26-cv-00541 Document 7 Filed 07/22/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

2/6
1225(b)(2)(A)”). Id. at 3, 9. As a result, Cervantes-Lopez remains in detention pending his
removal proceedings.
On June 26, 2026, the Court issued its “Report and Recommendation” regarding
Cervantes-Lopez’s § 2241 Petition. Dkt. No. 4. On July 10, 2026, the Court issued its
“Amended Report and Recommendation” regarding Cervantes-Lopez’s § 2241 Petition in
light of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega, No. 26-50183, 2026 WL
1906557 (5th Cir. July 2, 2026). Dkt. No. 5. On July 10, 2026, the Fifth Circuit granted an
en banc rehearing of Sosnava Rodriguez, vacating its July 2 panel opinion and judgment.
No. 26-50183 (5th Cir. July 10, 2026) at Dkt. No. 174-1.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Congress authorized district courts to resolve habeas
petitions, including immigration-detention cases. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), (c)(1), (c)(3); see also
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687–88 (2001). Habeas exists solely to “grant relief from
unlawful imprisonment or custody.” Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935–36 (5th Cir.
1976). Thus, for the writ to issue, the petitioner must be “in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A court
considering a habeas petition must “determine the facts, and dispose of the matter as law and
justice require.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
B. 28 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)
Under § 1225(b)(2)(A), in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, “if
the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly
and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under
§ 1229a[.]” When an alien is held under § 1225(b)(2)(A), the statute mandates detention
Case 1:26-cv-00541 Document 7 Filed 07/22/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

3/6
pending the resolution of the alien’s removal proceedings, subject to certain narrow
exceptions3. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 297 (2018).
Under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) (hereinafter, “§ 1226(a)”), “[o]n a warrant issued by the
Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the
alien is to be removed from the United States.” Unlike § 1225(b)(2)(A), § 1226(a) allows, but
does not require, the Attorney General to release detained aliens on bond. 28 U.S.C. §
1226(a)(2)(A)–(B).
On February 6, 2026, the Fifth Circuit issued its ruling in Buenrostro-Mendez v.
Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026). Buenrostro-Mendez held, as a matter of statutory
interpretation, that DHS properly classified and detained noncitizens who are not admitted
to the United States under § 1225(b)(2)(A). Buenrostro-Mendez, 166 F.4th at 502. The Fifth
Circuit held that “presence without admission deems the [aliens] to be applicants for
admission.” Id. Further, the Fifth Circuit held that “seeking admission” is equivalent to being
an “applicant for admission” by operation of law. Id. As a result, aliens who do not show
“clearly and beyond a doubt that” they are entitled to be admitted to the United States “shall
be detained.” See id. (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)).
However, while Buenrostro-Mendez forecloses any statutory claim that might be
raised with respect to an alien’s detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), it does not address any
constitutional claims relating to the alien’s detention under the statute. Accordingly, a court
considering a habeas petition seeking relief with respect to § 1225(b)(2)(A) must still review
any constitutional claims raised by a petitioner.
3 The Secretary of Homeland Security may temporarily parole into the United States “any alien applying
for admission” on a “case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” 8
U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A); see Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. 785, 806 (2022). However, once the purposes of the
parole have been served, the alien must immediately be returned to custody, and his case “shall continue
to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States.” 8
U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A).
Case 1:26-cv-00541 Document 7 Filed 07/22/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

4/6
C. Demore v. Kim
“It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law
in deportation proceedings.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993). However, the
Supreme Court has recognized that detention during deportation proceedings is a
constitutionally valid aspect of the deportation process. Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523
(2003); see also Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 235 (1896); see also Zadvydas
v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 697 (2001).
The Supreme Court reasoned that detention pending an alien’s removal proceedings
“serves the purpose of preventing deportable criminal aliens from fleeing prior to or during
their removal proceedings.” Demore, 538 U.S. at 528. Further, the Supreme Court rejected
the petitioner’s arguments that mandatory detention was unnecessary to prevent aliens from
absconding during removal proceedings, stating that “the Due Process Clause does not
require [the Government] to employ the least burdensome means to accomplish its goal.” Id.
III. DISCUSSION
In his § 2241 Petition, Cervantes-Lopez challenges the Government’s ability to detain
him without an individualized bond hearing under § 1225(b)(2)(A) and the Fifth Amendment
Due Process Clause. Dkt. No. 1 at 8–11.
Case 1:26-cv-00541 Document 7 Filed 07/22/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

5/6
A. Buenrostro-Mendez forecloses any relief with respect to Cervantes-
Lopez’s claim that his continued detention violates the INA.
In his § 2241 Petition, Cervantes-Lopez argues that he is improperly held under
§1225(b)(2)(A) because the statute applies “only to those seeking admission”. Dkt. No. 1 at
11. Cervantes-Lopez states that he is misclassified as an “applicant for admission” under §
1225(b)(2)(A) because he has been physically present in the United States for over seventeen
years. Id. However, in light of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Buenrostro-Mendez, the Court
finds that Cervantes-Lopez is properly classified under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
Cervantes-Lopez states that he initially entered the United States in 2008, as a minor.
Dkt. No. 1 at 6. Critically, Cervantes-Lopez states that he entered “without being admitted or
inspected.” Id. Cervantes-Lopez, then, appears to be properly classified as “an applicant for
admission” who is “seeking admission” under § 1225(b)(2)(A); DHS “shall detain” Cervantes-
Lopez pending his removal proceedings.
B. Cervantes-Lopez’s continued detention does not violate the Fifth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause, as detention during removal
proceedings is constitutionally permissible
Cervantes-Lopez asserts that this § 2241 Petition should not be denied because he
raises an independent constitutional challenge that he “has a private right to a bond hearing
regardless of which statute governs his detention.” Dkt. No. 1 at 9.
As discussed above, Cervantes-Lopez’s detention is proper under § 1225(b)(2)(A). The
Court must then evaluate whether Cervantes-Lopez’s detention pending his removal
proceedings violates his Due Process rights. The Court finds the Supreme Court’s Demore
decision controlling in this instance. While the Demore decision focused on § 1226(c),
requiring mandatory detention for aliens convicted of one of a specified set of crimes, the
Supreme Court did not rely on a prior criminal conviction in reaching its decision. Instead,
the Supreme Court focused on the Government’s interest in ensuring that aliens did not
Case 1:26-cv-00541 Document 7 Filed 07/22/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

6/6
abscond prior to or during their removal proceedings. Id. at 528. Further, it explicitly
addressed the constitutional validity of mandatory detention during removal proceedings. Id.
at 531. The Court, then, finds that same reasoning applies to Cervantes-Lopez’s detention
under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
The Court finds that Cervantes-Lopez’s continued detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A)
without a bond hearing does not violate his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Accordingly, Cervantes-Lopez’s § 2241 Petition should be denied.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Court: (1) DENY Cervantes-
Lopez’s § 2241 Petition; and (2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.
V. NOTICE TO PARTIES
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within fourteen days
after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from
attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions
accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such
consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79
F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
SIGNED on this 22nd day of July, 2026 at Brownsville, Texas.
____________________________
Ignacio Torteya, III
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00541 Document 7 Filed 07/22/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6