Sandoval Rocha v. Noem et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
HANS LEONARDO SANDOVAL ROCHA, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
V.
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-25-6032
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Visa Waiver Program ("VWP") "permits eligible nationals
from certain designated countries to apply for admission to the
United States for ninety days or less as non-immigrant visitors
without first obtaining a visa." McCarthy v. Muk.asey, 555 F.3d
459, 459-60 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). In 2024 Hans Leonardo
Sandoval Rocha ("Petitioner"), a citizen of Chile, was admitted to
stay in the country until July 10, 2024, as a Visa Waiver Visitor.1
On April 14, 2025, Petitioner was arrested in Van, Texas, for
"public order crimes."2 That same day, Petitioner was transferred
1Response to Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28
U.S. C. § 2241 ("Respondents' Response"), Docket Entry No. 11,
pp. 1-2. For purposes of identification, all page numbers refer to
the pagination imprinted at the top of the page by the court's
Electronic Case Filing system.
2 Id. at 2.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 18, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-06032 Document 20 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

to immigration custody.3 On April 16, 2025, Immigration and
customs Enforcement ("ICE") issued a notice of intent to remove
Petitioner for remaining in the United States beyond the ninety-day
period. 4 ICE issued an order of removal the same day. 5
On June 11, 2025, Petitioner filed an application for asylum. 6
In October of 2025 ICE referred Petitioner to asylum processing.7
Although Petitioner claimed fear of returning to Chile in June of
2025, his first hearing before an immigration judge was not held
until February 26, 2026. 0
remains pending.9
Petitioner's application for asylum
ICE has possession of Petitioner's passport "to facilitate
coordination of removal efforts should an Immigration Judge deny
any of Petitioner's applications for relief or protection." 10 ICE
"is not aware of any impediments to removal to Chile if legally
3 Id.
4 Id. at 2-3.
5Id. at 3.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id.; Petitioner's Reply in Support of Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("Petitioner's Reply"), Docket
Entry No. 17, p. 3.
9 See Respondents' Response, Docket Entry No. 11, pp. 3-4.
10Id. at 3-4.
-2-
Case 4:25-cv-06032 Document 20 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

authorized to remove Petitioner.1111 Petitioner remains in
immigration custody.12
Pending before the court is Petitioner 1 s Petition for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S. C. § 2241 ( "Habeas Petition'1) (Docket
Entry No. 1). Petitioner challenges his detention on statutory
grounds, arguing that he is entitled to a bond hearing under U.S.C.
§ 1226(a).13 Petitioner also challenges his detention on
constitutional grounds, arguing that his continued detention
without a bond hearing violates due process.14
Respondents have filed a Response, arguing that Petitioner 1 s
Habeas Petition should be denied. 15 Respondents first assert that
because Petitioner has not filed an appeal in his asylum case, he
11Id. at 4.
12 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 u.s.c.
§ 2241 By a Person Subject to Indefinite Immigration Detention,
Docket Entry No. 1, p. 14; Respondents 1 Response, Docket Entry
No. 11, p. 2.
13 Petitioner's Reply, Docket Entry No. 17, p. 6.
at 6-8. Petitioner also argues that his detention is
unreasonable because of the delay in processing his asylum
application. Id. at 3-5. The court is skeptical it has
jurisdiction over this claim. Bonilla Chicas v. Warden, CIVIL
ACTION NO. S:26-CV-00131, 2026 WL 539475, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 20,
2026) (�[D]istrict courts may not review claims 'arising from the
decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings,
adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders. 1" (quoting 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(g)). Moreover, it is clear from the record that Petitioner
has been provided an opportunity to pursue protection-based claims
before an immigration judge. Respondents 1 Response, Docket Entry
No. 11, pp. 2-3; Petitioner's Reply, Docket Entry No. 17, p. 4.
Petitioner's claim will therefore be denied.
15Respondents' Response, Docket Entry No. 11, p. 1.
-3-
Case 4:25-cv-06032 Document 20 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

has failed to exhaust administrative remedies and therefore cannot
seek habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.16 But because Petitioner
is not asking the court to review the merits of his asylum claim,
his failure to appeal his asylum claim to the Board of Immigration
Appeals is not an impermissible failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.
Respondents also argue that Petitioner's Habeas Petition must
be denied because he is subject to mandatory detention under
8 U.S.C. § 1187(c)(2)(E).17 However, "Respondents' cited authority
for detaining Petitioner does not authorize detention. 11
Nicolas T. V. Noem, CIVIL ACTION NO. l:25-cv-313, 2026 WL 1010750,
at *l (S.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2026), report and recommendation adopted,
Osorio Toro v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Civil
Action No. l:25-CV-00313, 2026 WL 1010110 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 14,
2026). Title 8 U.S.C. § 1187(c)(2) (E) reads as follows:
The government of the country accepts for repatriation
any citizen, former citizen, or national of the country
against whom a final executable order of removal is
issued not later than three weeks after the issuance of
the final order of removal. Nothing in this subparagraph
creates any duty for the United States or any right for
any alien with respect to removal or release. Nothing in
this subparagraph gives rise to any cause of action or
claim under this paragraph or any other law against any
official of the United States or of any State to compel
the release, removal, or consideration for release or
removal of any alien.
16 Id. at 4-5.
17 Id. at 5-7.
-4-
Case 4:25-cv-06032 Document 20 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

"This provision does not contain language authorizing
detention, much less mandatory detention." Nicolas T., 2026
WL 1010750, at *l. The statute therefore "does not authorize
detention generally or to Petitioner in particular." Id.
Petitioner's Habeas Petition will therefore be granted in part and
denied in part.
Also pending before the court is Petitioner's Motion for
Appointment of Counsel Under the Criminal Justice Act
("Petitioner's Counsel Motion") (Docket Entry No. 19). Habeas
corpus proceedings in federal court are civil actions; there is
generally no constitutional right to the assistance of counsel.
See Fairman v. Anderson, 188 F.3d 635, 642 (5th Cir. 1999)
(explaining that "there is no constitutional right to counsel on
habeas review"). The issues presented in the Habeas Petition do
not present any extraordinary circumstances, and there is no basis
for appointment of counsel in this case.
Motion will therefore be denied.
Petitioner's Counsel
Because 8 u.s.c. § 1187(c)(2)(E) does not authorize detention,
Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (Docket Entry No. 1) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Respondents are therefore ORDERED to release Petitioner or provide
him a bond hearing by June 4, 2026. The parties are further
ORDERED to file a status report with the court by June 11, 2026.
-5-
Case 4:25-cv-06032 Document 20 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

Additionally, for the reasons explained above, Petitioner's
Motion for Appointment of Counsel Under the Criminal Justice Act
(Docket Entry No. 19) is DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 18th day of May, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-'6-
Case 4:25-cv-06032 Document 20 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6