Vindel-Romero v. Tate et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DEYLIN CHELIZA VINDEL ROMERO,
Petitioner,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-1167
RANDY TATE, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Deylin Cheliza Vindel Romero ("Petitioner"), a citizen of
Honduras, entered the United States on September 18, 2024.1 On
November 19, 2025, Petitioner was taken into immigration custody by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Petitioner remains in immigration custody.
under § 1225 (b) (2).2
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Pet ioner argues that her detention without
a bond hearing violates due process and equal protection, and is
arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act
("APA") .3
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 ("Habeas Petition"), Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3; Response to the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment
("Respondents' MSJ"), Docket Entry No. 6, p. 2. For purposes of
identification, all page numbers refer to the pagination imprinted
at the top of the page by the court's Electronic Case Filing
system.
2Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 4.
3Id. at 6-15; Petitioner's Reply in Support of Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus, Docket Entry No. 7, pp. 2-8; see also
(continued... )
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 20, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-01167 Document 8 Filed 04/20/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

Also pending before the court is Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 6). Respondents argue that
Petitioner can legally be detained under § 1225(b)(2) because she
is an applicant for admission.4 Petitioner has filed a reply.5
First, as the Fifth Circuit explained in Buenrostro-Mendez v.
Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), § 1225(b)(2) applies to
iens who were already present in the United States at the time of
their arrest. .I.Q..:.. at 498, 508. The Fifth Circuit's analysis and
holding appl s in this case.
Pet ioner'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.'" lJi.... at *2 (quoting Demore v.
Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 172 2 (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)
3( •••continued)
Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 6, p. 10 (interpreting
Petitioner's arbitrary and capricious claim as a claim under the
APA.).
4 Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 6, pp. 1-2.
5Petitioner's Reply in Support of Pet ion for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, Docket Entry No. 7.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-01167 Document 8 Filed 04/20/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

mandates detention of applicants for admission until certain
proceedings have concluded, she is not entitled to a bond hearing
as a matter of procedural due process.
Additionally, as explained in Jiminez v. Bradford, Civil
Action No. H-25-5853 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2026), because Petitioner
is able to challenge her detention by filing a writ of habeas
corpus, she is not entitled to relief under the APA. See 5 U.S.C.
§ 704 ("Agency action made reviewable by statute and final agency
action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are
subject to judicial review.") (emphasis added).
Finally, Petitioner's "Fifth Amendment equal protection claim
is unavailing because [s]he fails to identify a similarly situated
class that is treated more favorably than noncitizens who entered
the country without inspection, and [s]he does not state facts to
show that [s]he falls outside of the statutory definition of an
applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) as interpreted by
the Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro-Menendez." Soy v. Blanche, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-02808, 2026 WL 1018345, at *l (S.D. Tex. Apr.
15, 2026).
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 6) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED.
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-01167 Document 8 Filed 04/20/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 20th day of April, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
Case 4:26-cv-01167 Document 8 Filed 04/20/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4