MUNOZ LEAL v. Bondi et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SEL VIN DANIEL ESTUARDO MUNOZ 	§
LEAL, 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-06072
§
PAMELA BONDI, et al. , 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER
On June 5, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents:
[To) respond regarding the effect, if any, of the California class action on
this case. 	Any response shall also address whether the Petitioner has been
granted deferred action based on the approval and placement on the waiting
li st for a U-visa, and what effect that deferred action has on his impending
removal and ongoing detention. See, e .g. , Benitez v. Wilkinson , 987 F .3d 46
(1st Cir. 2021); Guerra Rocha v. Barr, 951 F.3d 848 (7th Cir. 2020).
Doc. No. 	25 	at 	1-2 	(emphasis 	added). 	Respondents 	filed 	a 	submission 	that 	was
nomesponsive to the Court's Order and wholly failed to address the issues as ordered.
Respondents do not contest that Petitioner is a member of the nationwide class
action regarding relief for those who have been granted deferred action on the U-visa
waiting list in Immigration Center for Wom en and Children, et al. v. Noem, et al. , Civ. No.
2:25-cv-09848-AB-AS (C.D. Cal. May 20 , 2026) (hereinafter " ICWC ' ), at Doc. No. 57.
They do not dispute that the class action regarding relief for U-visa waiting list deferred
action noncitizens applies nationwide (as set forth in ICWC) or contest the holding in that
1 / 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 26, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-06072 Document 30 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

case granting a preliminary injunction to the class. They do not answer the Court's inquiry
regarding whether Petitioner has been granted deferred action, and Petitioner 's evidence
on the record indicates that he is on the waiting list, approved for a U-visa with deferred
action on his immigration status. See Doc. No. 18-9 at 2-3.
Petitioner now informs the Court that he has been approved for a U-visa and has
legal status. 	See Doc. No. 29, 29-1. 	Even if Petitioner were still on the waiting list for a
U-visa on deferred action, the Court finds the reasoning in ICWC persuasive and finds that
Petitioner has shown his entitlement to release.
2 / 3
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	Respondents' Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment
(Doc. No. 10) is DENIED.
2. 	Petitioner's Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. No. 18-1), is
GRANTED.
3. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
4. 	Respondents must release Petitioner in a public place agreed on by the parties
within three days of the date this Order is entered. Respondents must notify
his counsel of the exact time and location of release at least four hours before
his release, and such release must be before 5 p.m. on the day of release.
5. 	The 5-day notice provision from the Court's Order entered on December 30,
2025 (Doc. No. 5) , REMAINS IN EFFECT. The parties shall provide the Court
with a status update concerning Petitioner's release by July 1, 2026, at 5:00
Case 4:25-cv-06072 Document 30 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3 / 3
p.m. The parties should also notify the Court of the conditions, if any, of his
release.
6. 	By July 10, 2026, the parties shall file a joint status update and indicate whether
this case rnay be closed.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED on this
~
~ 	day of June 2026.
ANDREWS. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-06072 Document 30 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3