Vasquez-Argueta v. Thompson et al

UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRJCT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JOSUE VIRGILIO VASQUEZ-
ARGUETA,
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00610
§
RAYMOND E THOMPSON, et al., 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Josue Virgilio Vasquez-Argueta, is a detainee in the custody of
United States Department of Homeland Security, Iimnigration and Customs Enforcement
("ICE") officials. 	Through counsel, petitioner filed an amended petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his detention. Doc. No. 3.
The Court may dismiss a habeas petition on the pleadings "[i]f it plainly appears
from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule
4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (authorizing
preliminary review and summary dismissal of habeas petitions on the pleadings ). 1
The petition and attached exhibits reflect that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered
the United States without lawful status about twelve years ago and has since been placed
1 A district court may apply any of the rules governing habeas petitions filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 to those filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Rule l(b), Rules Governing§ 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts.
1 / 2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 25, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00610 Document 4 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

in removal proceedings. Doc. No. 3 at 1; Doc. No. 1-2 at 8. Petitioner does not plead facts
to show that he has been lawfully admitted into the United States.
Because Petitioner entered without inspection and has not obtained lawful status, he
is an applicant for admission subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b )(2). See Buenrostro-Mendez v.
Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). His arguments regarding bond hearings
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations are foreclosed by Buenrostro-
Mendez. 	His detention is mandated by statute under section 1225(b)(2). 	Accordingly,
Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process 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);
see also Jennings v. Rodriquez, 583 U.S. 281, 297 (2018) (explaining that "§§ 1225(b)(l)
and 	1225(b )(2) 	thus 	mandate 	detention 	of applicants 	for 	admission 	until 	certain
proceedings have concluded"). 	Petitioner does not otherwise plead facts to show that his
detention is unconstitutional.
Therefore, 	the 	Court 	ORDERS 	that 	the 	amended 	petition 	(Doc. 	No. 	3) 	1s
DISMISSED without prejudice, and this case is CLOSED.
_/-\'----
SIGNED on this 	C ~ 	day of June 2026.
~\~ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 / 2
Case 4:26-cv-00610 Document 4 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2