Juarez-Chrisostomo v. Dickey et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ANGEL EDUARDO JUAREZ-
CHRISOSTOMO,
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
vs .
GRANT DICKEY, et al.,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00979
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Angel Eduardo Juarez-Chrisostomo, 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 his continued detention. Doc. No. 1.
While this case was pending, the Fifth Circuit decided Buenrostro-Me ndez 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 thos e fil ed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Rule 1(b ), Rul es Governing § 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts.
1 / 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 03, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00979 Document 4 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

The petition reflects that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States in
2023 , was detained by ICE on November 11 , 2025 , and is being held without a bond
hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 . See Doc. No. 1 at 3-4. 	Petitioner contends that, because
he was already present in the United States at the time of his arrest, he was not "seeking
admission" and that he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C . § 1226(a), the statute
permitting discretionary bond. Id. at 6. He argues that he has been erroneously categorized
as a detainee subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
Petitioner's arguments regarding sections 1225 and 1226 and their implementing
regulations 	are 	foreclosed 	by 	Buenrostro-Mende z, 	supra. 	Likewise, 	his 	Fourth
Amendment claim that he is being held contrary to statutory authority fails because it rests
on his assertion that he is being detained under section 1226(a), but that, in tum, is based
on an interpretation of sections 1225 and 1226 that the Fifth Circuit rejected in Buenrostro-
Mendez . He pleads no facts to show that his detention is contrary to law or that he has been
admitted into this country legally after inspection.
In addition, Petitioner' s 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); 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").
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-00979 Document 4 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3 / 3
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED.
2. 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
4. 	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.
3 ,l_
SIGNED on this ____ day of March 2026.
/'xLl~
ANDREWS . HANEN
UNITED ST ATES DISTRJCT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00979 Document 4 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3