Vera Zarate v. Bradford et al

SAUL VERA ZARATE,
Petitioner,
vs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
§
§
§
§
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-02369
§
BRET BRADFORD, et al. , 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Saul Vera Zarate, 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 detention. Doc. No. 1.
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
The petition reflects that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States
without inspection in 2011. 	Doc. No. 1 at 4. Petitioner does not plead facts to show that
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.
1/ 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 02, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02369 Document 4 Filed 04/02/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

he has been lawfully admitted into the United States, and he does not so contend. 	He has
been detained for less than a month to date.
Petitioner argues that, because he has been present in the United States for over two
years at the time he was taken into mandatory detention, he is entitled to a bond hearing
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the statute permitting discretionary bond, and that he has been
miscategorized 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-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir.
Feb. 6, 2026). 	Because Petitioner entered without inspection and has not obtained lawful
status, he is an applicant for admission subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b )(2). 	See id. 2 Thus,
his detention is mandated by statute.
In addition, Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process 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").
Finally, Petitioner's claims regarding the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA")
are unavailing for two reasons. First, the AP A claim fails because an "a dequate remedy in
2 The petition does not acknowledge the binding precedent in Buenrostro-Mendez that forecloses
his claims regarding his detention under section 1225(b)(2) versus section 1226(a) and the related
Immigration and Nationality Act and Administrative Procedure Act claims which rest on an
interpretation of the INA that has been rejected by the Fifth Circuit.
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-02369 Document 4 Filed 04/02/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

a court" is available via habeas corpus. 	5 U.S.C. § 704. 	Second, Petitioner's arguments
regarding the APA hinge on his contention that he is being held under section 1226(a), but
as explained above, he is being held under section 1225(b)(2) as a noncitizen who entered
without inspection and is therefore an applicant for admission. 	See Buenrostro-Mendez,
166 F.4th at 498 .
3 / 3
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
-'-"~
SIGNED on this 	2--- 	day of April 2026.
vi<SlhANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-02369 Document 4 Filed 04/02/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3