Stivens Lobaina v. Bradford et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
YUNIEL STIVENS LOBAINA, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS . 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00619
§
BRET BRADFORD, et al., 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Yuniel Stivens Lobaina, is a detainee in the custody of United States
Department 	of Homeland 	Security, Immigration 	and 	Customs 	Enforcement ("ICE")
officials at the Houston Contract Detention Facility. 	Through counsel, petitioner filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 , challenging his continued
detention. Doc. No. 1. Respondents have filed a motion for summary judgment, Doc. No.
6. Petitioner has not responded to the motion, and his time to do so has passed.
The uncontroverted evidence shows that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the
United States as an arriving alien without lawful status and has since been placed in
removal proceedings. 	Doc. Nos. 1, 1-2 , 6-1. 	Petitioner does not plead facts to show that
he has been lawfully admitted into the United States, and he does not so contend.
Because Petitioner entered the United States as an arriving alien who has not been
admitted legally, he is an applicant for admission subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(6)(2). 	See
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). 	His arguments
1 / 2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00619 Document 7 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

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).
In addition, 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); s ee 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" ).
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	Respondents' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 6) is GRANTED.
2. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED.
3. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
~
SIGNED this 	2-Uc. 	day of April 2026.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 / 2
Case 4:26-cv-00619 Document 7 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2