Purbueva v. Frink et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
TATIANA PURBUEVA,
Petitioner,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-3353
MARTIN FRINK, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On November 6, 2021, Tatiana Purbeuva ("Petitioner"),
presented herself at an official port entry and was inspected,
processed, and paroled into the United States unt November 4,
2022.1 On November 6, 2025, Petitioner was detained by Immigration
and Customs Enforcement at a routine immigration check-in under §
1225(b)(2) .2 That same day, Petitioner was served with a Notice to
1First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Complaint for Declaratory Relief and
Injunctive Relief ("Amended Habeas Petition"), Docket Entry No. 6,
p. 4 � 16; Notice to Appear, Exhibit 1 to Response to the Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment
("Respondents' MSJ"), Docket Entry No. 7-1, 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.
2Amended Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 6, p. 5 ii 24-25;
Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 7, p. 2. Although Respondents
argue that Petitioner is detained under§ 1225(b) (1), the Notice to
Appear states that Petitioner has not been admitted or paroled into
the United States. Notice to Appear, Exhibit 2 to Respondents'
MSJ, Docket Entry No. 7-2, p. 1. Because "presence without
admission deems [Pet oner] to be [an] applicant [] for admission,"
Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b} (2).
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498, 502 (5th Cir.
2026).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 12, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-03353 Document 10 Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

Appear, denying her admission into the United States.3 On January
3, 2026, Petitioner filed an application for asylum.4 On February
13, 2026, her application for asylum was denied and an immigration
judge ordered her removed to Russia.5 Petitioner has appealed the
denial of her application for asylum and remains in immigration
custody. 6
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Amended Habeas
Petition (Docket Entry No. 6). Petitioner argues that her
detention without a bond hearing violates due process.7 Petitioner
also alleges an as-applied challenge.8
3Notice to Appear, Exhibit 2 to Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry
No. 7-2, p. 1
4Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 7, p. 2.
5Order of the Immigration Judge, Exhibit 3 to Respondents'
MSJ, Docket Entry No. 7-3, pp. 3, 5.
6Amended Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 6, pp. 6-7 11 29,
38.
7Id. at 9 15 11 51-81. In her response to Respondents' Motion
for Summary Judgment, Petitioner argues that her detention violates
due process because she has been detained for more than six months.
Petitioner's Reply in Support of Her Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus and Response in Opposition to Respondent's Motion for
Summary Judgment ("Petitioner's Reply"), Docket Entry No. 8, p. 9.
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).
8Amended Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 6, pp. 9-13 4:][<J[
51-73. Petitioner's as-applied challenge fails because "[s] he
presents no authority to support h[er] claim that h[er]
(continued...)
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-03353 Document 10 Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

Also pending before the court is Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 7). Respondents argue that
Petitioner's detention does not violate due process.9 Petitioner
has filed a reply. 10
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.
fil.m, 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.
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 7) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's
First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
8 ( ••• continued)
circumstances present a viable as-applied due process challenge"
and because § 1225(b) (2) authorizes her continued detention.
Garcia v. Venegas, CIVIL ACTION NO. l:26-CV-266, 2026 WL 1580638,
at *2 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 2, 2026).
9 Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 7, pp. 5-7.
10 Petitioner' s Reply, Docket Entry No. 8.
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-03353 Document 10 Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

U.S.C. § 2241 and Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Injunctive
Relief (Docket Entry No. 6) is DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 12th day of June, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
Case 4:26-cv-03353 Document 10 Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4