Valiente Rivas v. Tate et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ANDREA VALIENTE RIVAS, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS.
RANDY TATE, etal .,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00819
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Andrea Valiente Rivas, is a detainee in the custody of United States
Department 	of Homeland 	Security, Immigration 	and 	Customs 	Enforcement 	("ICE")
officials. Through counsel, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, challenging her continued detention. Doc. No. 1.
While this case was pending, the Fifth Circuit decided Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
--- F.4th ----, No. 25-20496, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). 	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
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
February 27, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00819 Document 4 Filed 02/27/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

The petition reflects that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States
without inspection in 2016. 	Doc. No. 1 at 3. 	Petitioner contends that she is entitled to a
bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the statute permitting discretionary bond, and that
she has been erroneously categorized as a detainee subject to mandatory detention under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b). 	She also claims to be a member of the class in Maldonado Bautista v.
Santacruz, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2025 WL 3713987 (C .D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025).
Petitioner's arguments regarding sections 1225 and 1226 and their implementing
regulations are foreclosed by Buenrostro-Mendez, supra. Likewise, Petitioner 's arguments
regarding the class action in Maldonado Bautista fail because they are based on an
interpretation of sections 1225 and 1226 that was rejected in Buenrostro-Mendez. See
Maldonado Bautista, 2025 WL 3713987, at *8-12.
2/2
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED.
2. 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. 	If the Fifth Circuit, en bane, or the United States Supreme Court enters a decision
that is contrary to the decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, supra, Petitioner
is granted leave to file a motion for reconsideration or initiate a separate petition.
SO ORDERED.
~
SIGNED this 	1--7 	day of February 2026.
ANDREWS. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00819 Document 4 Filed 02/27/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2