Mouzgui v. Noem et al

KHALID MOUZGUI,
Petitioner,
vs.
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRJCT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
§
§
§
§
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00996
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Khalid Mouzgui, is a detainee in the custody of United States
Department 	of Homeland 	Security, Immigration 	and 	Customs 	Enforcement 	("ICE")
officials. Through counsel, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 , challenging his continued detention. Doc. No. 1.
At the time the petitioner filed this petition, the Fifth Circuit had just 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 1(b ), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts.
113
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 04, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00996 Document 4 Filed 03/04/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

The pleadings reflect that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States
without inspection. 	The attachments to the pleadings show that petitioner was placed in
removal proceedings in 2002 and his removal order may be final because there are no future
hearings scheduled for his case. 	See Doc. No. 	2-1 at 5 (Automated Case Information for
Petitioner showing that "The immigration judge ordered REMOVAL" with a decision date
of April 23 , 2002; the appeal was dismissed on August 28 , 2002; and there are no future
hearings for this case). 	If petitioner has a final order of removal, he is being held under 8
U.S.C. § 123 l(a), not 8 U.S .C. § 1225 or 8 U.S.C. § 1226. 	Any detention claim under
Zadvydas v. Davis, 121 S. Ct. 2491 (2001), is premature because the petitioner does not
allege or show that he has been detained for more than six months and that "there is no
significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. " Id. at 250 5.
Petitioner does not allege that his removal order is final and instead contends that
he 	is 	entitled to 	a bond 	hearing under 	8 U.S.C. 	§ 	1226(a), the 	statute permitting
discretionary bond in removal proceedings prior to a final order of removal, and that he has
been miscategorized as 	a detainee subject to 	8 U.S.C. 	§ 1225(b)(2), the 	mandatory
detention statute. Even if Petitioner' s order of removal is not final, his arguments regarding
sections 1225 and 1226 are foreclosed by Buenrostro-Mende z, supra.
In addition, Petitioner's Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause claim is precluded,
at this juncture, by Demore v. Kim , 53 8 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
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-00996 Document 4 Filed 03/04/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

"§§1225(b)(l) and 1225(b)(2) thus mandate detention of applicants for admission until
certain proceedings have concluded" ).
Petitioner' s claims under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), for a stay of
removal, and under the Suspension Clause are also unavailing. 	The AP A claim fails
because an "adequate remedy in a court" is available via habeas corpus. 	5 U.S.C. § 704.
The stay of removal claim fails because this court lacks jurisdiction to order any stay of
removal. 	Finally, the Suspension Clause claim fails because Petitioner has not been
deprived of the opportunity to file a habeas petition regarding his detention claim.
3 I 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 Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, supra, Petitioner is granted leave
to file a motion for reconsideration or initiate a separate petition.
SO ORDERED.
4 -t'--SIGNED this ___ _ day of March 2026.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00996 Document 4 Filed 03/04/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3