Duverger Rodriguez et al v. Powell

UNIT ED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRJCT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DARCY DUVERGER RODRIGUEZ and 	§
ELIE XAND ER RODRJGUEZ 	§
DUVERG ER, 	§
Petitioners,
VS.
WARD EN , JOE CORL EY PROC ESSING
CENT ER,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00584
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Darcy Duverger Rodriguez fil ed this immigration habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 as Next Friend to the petitioner, Eliexander Rodriguez Duverger , to challenge his
ongoing immigration detention. Doc. No. 1. E liexander Rodriguez Duverger is in custody
of 	United 	States 	Department 	of 	Homeland 	Security, 	Immigration 	and 	Customs
Enforcement ("IC E" ) officials at the Joe Corley Processing Center in Conroe, Texas.
Respondent has filed a response, Doc . No. 8, and Duverger has filed a reply, Doc. No. 9.
The undisputed facts in the record show that Petitioner entered the United States as
an arriving alien not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, or
other entry document as required under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Doc. No. 8-
1 at 1. 	Petitioner contends that he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C . § 1226(a),
the statute permitting discretionary bond , and that he has been erroneously categorized as
1 / 2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 25, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00584 Document 10 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

a detainee subject to mandatory detention under 8 U. S.C. § 1225(b ). Petitioner's arguments
regarding sections 	1225 	and 	1226 are 	foreclosed by 	the Fifth Circuit' s decision 	in
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). 	Likewise, his Fifth
Amendment Due Process Clause claims are precluded, at this juncture, by Demore v. Kim,
538 	U.S. 	510, 	531 	(2003), 	because 	"[d]etention 	during 	removal 	proceedings 	is 	a
constitutionally permissible part of that process." Id. (citations omitted); s ee also Jennings
v. Rodriquez, 583 U.S. 281 , 297(2018) (explaining that " §§ 1225(b )(1) and 1225(b )(2) thus
mandate detention of applicants for admission until certain proceedings have concluded" ).
He does not otherwise state a claim for which habeas relief may be granted.
2 / 2
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. I) is DENIED.
2. 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. 	All other pending motions, if any , are DENIED as MOOT.
SO ORDERED .
SIGNED on this
~
U 	day of March 2026.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00584 Document 10 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2