Yanez Resendiz v. Mullins et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
REFUGIO YANEZ RESENDIZ, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-2961
MARK WAYNE MULLINS, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Refugio Yanez Resendiz ("Petitioner"), a citizen of Mexico,
entered the United States in April of 1989.1 On November 20, 2025,
Petitioner was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and
was issued a Notice to Appear.2 On March 25, 2026, Petitioner
submitted an amended application for cancellation of removal. 3
Petitioner's removal proceedings remain pending before the
immigration court and he remains in immigration custody. 4
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that his detention without
a bond hearing violates (1) the Immigration and Nationality Act
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Habeas Petition"),
Docket Entry No. 1, p. 9 1 27; Response to the Pet ion for Writ of
Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment, ("Respondents'
MSJ"), Docket Entry No. 5, p. 1. 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. 10 1 29.
3Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, p. 2.
4Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 9-10 11 28-29.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 08, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02961 Document 7 Filed 06/08/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

("INA"), (2) due process, (3) equal protection, and (4) the
Suspension Clause, and is arbitrary and capricious under the
Administrative Procedure Act ("APA").5 Petitioner also argues that
his warrantless arrest violates the Accardi doctrine.6
Also pending before the court is Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 5). Respondents argue that
Petitioner is legally detained under§ 1225(b)(2) because he an
applicant for adrnission. 7 Petitioner has led a reply.8
First, as explained by Jimenez v. Noem, Civil Action No. H-2
5853 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2026) Petitioner's claims that his
detention violates the Suspension Clause and the APA are foreclosed
because (1) a petitioner is foreclosed from ief under the APA
because he is able to challenge his detention by filing a writ of
habeas corpus and (2) a claim under the Suspension Clause fails
5.15;h_ at 28-42 !JICJI 91-153. In his Response to Respondents'
Motion for Summary Judgment, Petitioner argues that his detention
violates due process because he has been detained for six months.
Petitioner's Response to the Respondents' Motion for Summary
Judgment and Request for Grant of Writ of Habeas Corpus, Docket
Entry No. 6, pp. 5-8. However, "pre-removal-order detention
authorized by 8 U.S.C.§ 1225(b)(2) (A) doesn't violate substantive
due process whi deportation proceedings are pending even when it
exceeds the six-month period set out in Zadvydas v, Davis, [121 S.
Ct. 2491] (2001), as to post removal order detention." Escalante
v. Thompson, CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 4:26-cv-03710, 2026 WL 1602277, at
*2 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 2, 2026).
6Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 42 44 !Jii 154-164.
7Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, pp. 1, 4.
8 Petitioner's Response to the Respondents' Motion for Summary
Judgment and Request for Grant of Writ of Habeas Corpus, Docket
Entry No. 6.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-02961 Document 7 Filed 06/08/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

because§ 1252 does not strip this court of jurisdiction over these
petitions.
Petitioner's detention does not violate the INA. As the Fifth
Circuit explained in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494
(5th Cir. 2026), because "presence without admission deems
[Petitioner] to be [an] applicant[] for admission," Petitioner is
subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). .Id.... at 498,
502.
Petitioner'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.'" .Id.... at *2 (quoting Demore v.
Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 1721-22 (2003)). Moreover, as explained in
Jacobo-Ventura v. Dickey, 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) mandates detention of applicants for admission until
certain proceedings have concluded, Petitioner is not entitled to
a bond hearing as a matter of procedural due process.
Petitioner's "Fifth Amendment equal protection claim is
unavailing because he fails to identify a similarly situated class
that is treated more favorably than noncitizens who entered the
country without inspection, and he does not state facts to show
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-02961 Document 7 Filed 06/08/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

that 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}.
Finally, Petitioner cannot seek habeas relief under the
Accardi doctrine. Although Petitioner alleges he was arrested
without a warrant in violation of 8 CFR § 287. 8(c}(2)(ii), "an
illegal arrest has no bearing on the legality of detention
following that arrest." Carnesolta v. Tate, Civil Action Number
4:26-cv-01006, 2026 WL 948727, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2026).
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 5) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 8th day of June, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
Case 4:26-cv-02961 Document 7 Filed 06/08/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4