Perez v. Bondi et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JOSE ANGEL PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-0755
PAMELA BONDI, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Jose Angel Perez ("Petitioner"), a citizen of Venezuela,
entered the United States on November 14, 2021.1 On December 4,
2025, 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. 3 Petitioner also asks this court to judicially
1Verified Petition
Petition"), Docket Entry
of identification, all
imprinted at the top of
Filing system.
2Id. at 11 <Il 39.
31...!;L_ at 21-24.
for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Habeas
No. 1, pp. 8 1 23, 10 1 30. For purposes
page numbers refer to the pagination
the page by the court's Electronic Case
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 10, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00755 Document 9 Filed 04/10/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

estop the Government from "asserting that Petitioner is subject to
mandatory detention under 1225(b)(2) (A) . "4
Also pending before the court is Respondents' Response to the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment
("Respondents' MSJ") (Docket Entry No. 7). Respondents argue that
Petitioner can legally be detained under§ 1225(b)(2) because he is
an applicant for admission. 5 Petitioner has filed a reply. 6
As the Fifth Circuit explained in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
166 F.4th 494 (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. 7
Petitioner's detention without a bond hearing does not violate
substantive or procedural due process. 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.'" l.ct.,,_ at *2 {quoting Demore v.
4 Id. at 24-25.
5Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 7, pp. 1-2.
6 Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Response to Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry
No. 8.
7Because § 1225{b) (2) applies to aliens who were already
present in the United States at the time of their arrest, the
Government is not judicially estopped from asserting that
Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under§ 1225(b)(2){A).
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-00755 Document 9 Filed 04/10/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

.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
proceedings have concluded, Petitioner is not entitled to a bond
hearing as a matter of procedural due process.
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Response to the
Pet ion for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion to Dismiss and, in
the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 7) is
GRANTED, and Petitioner's Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Docket Entry No. 1) DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 10th day of April, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-00755 Document 9 Filed 04/10/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3