Valdizon Alvarenga v. Tate et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JUAN ADELSO VALDIZON
ALVARENGA,
Petitioner,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-0231
RANDY TATE, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Juan Adelso Valdizon Alvarenga ("Petitioner"), a citizen of El
Salvador, entered the United States on August 12, 2015.1 On
January 4, 2026, Petitioner was taken into immigration custody by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement under § 1225 (b) (2). 2
Petitioner remains in immigration custody.
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that his detention without
a bond hearing violates the (1) Immigration and Nationality Act,
(2) due process, and (3) the Fourth Amendment.3
Also pending before the court is Respondents' Response to the
Emergency Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 ("Habeas Petition"), Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3 '.ll 9. 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.
at 3 11 10-13.
at 4 6.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 09, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00231 Document 8 Filed 04/09/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and
Motion for Summary Judgment ("Respondents' MSJ") (Docket Entry No.
6). Respondents argue that Petitioner can legally be detained
under § 1225(b)(2) because he is an applicant for admission.4
Petitioner has filed a reply.5
As the Fifth Circuit explained in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
166 F.4th 4 94 (5th Cir. 2026), § 1225(b)(2) applies to aliens who
were already present in the United States at the time of their
arrest. Id. at 498, 508. The Fifth Circuit's analysis and holding
applies in this case.
Petitioner's detention without a bond hearing does not violate
substantive or procedural due process.6 As explained in Garcia De
La Cruz v. Bondi, Civil Action No. H-25-5577, 2026 WL 309939 (S.D.
Tex. Feb. 5, 2026), the Supreme Court has made clear that
"' [d] etention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally
permissible part of that process.'" Id. at *2 (quoting Demore v.
Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 1721-22 (2003)). Moreover, as explained in
Jacobo-Ventura, Civil Action No. H-25-6117 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 19,
2026), because petitioner only has those rights regarding admission
that Congress has provided by statute, and because § 1225(b)(2)
mandates detention of applicants for admission until certain
4 Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 6, pp. 1-2.
5 Petitioner's Reply to Government's Response and Opposition to
Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 7.
6Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 17-18.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-00231 Document 8 Filed 04/09/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

proceedings have concluded, Petitioner is not entitled to a bond
hearing as a matter of procedural due process.
Finally, as explained in Portillo v. Tate, Civil Action No. H-
26-0158 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2026), Petitioner's Fourth Amendment
claim is foreclosed because it relies on the assertion that the
Government lacks the authority to detain him under § 1225. 7
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Response to the
Emergency Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and
Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 6) is GRANTED, and
Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
u.s.c. § 2241 (Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 9th day of April, 2026.
7Id. at 4 i1 16-18.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-00231 Document 8 Filed 04/09/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3