Morales-Vasquez v. Tate et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JUAN EDUARDO MORALES-VASQUEZ, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v.
RANDY TATE, et al.,
Respondents.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-3382
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Juan Eduardo Morales-Vasquez ("Petitioner"), a citizen of
Ecuador, entered the country without inspection on December 1,
2024. 1 That same day Petitioner was arrested by the Texas
Department of Public Safety for criminal trespass and was taken
into Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") custody.2 On
December 14, 2024, Petitioner was served with a Notice to Appear
charging him with inadmissibility pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1182 (a) (6) (A) (i), "as an alien present in the United States without
being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the United States at
any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General"
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 ("Habeas Petitionu ), Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3 ! 4; Response to
the Pet ion for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary
Judgment ("Respondents' MSJ"), Docket Entry No. 5, p. 2. For
purposes of identification, page numbers refer to the
pagination imprinted at the top of the page by the court's
Electronic Case Filing system.
2Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, p. 2.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 18, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-03382 Document 7 Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

and was released on his own recognizance.3 On November 10, 2025,
Petitioner filed an application for asylum and withholding of
removal.4 On April 21, 2026, Petitioner was taken into ICE custody
for ling to be present a scheduled home visit. 5 Petitioner
remains in immigration custody.6
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues his detention without
a bond hearing violates due process and equal protection.7
Petitioner also alleges an as-applied challenge.8
Also pending before the court is Respondents' Motion
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 5). Respondents argue that
4 On May 22, 2026, Petitioner fil
application. Id. an amended asylum
7 Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 4-10 <_H<j[ 20-52.
Petitioner also argues that his detention without a bond hearing is
arbitrary and capricious under the Fifth Amendment Due Process
Clause. at 10-12 <j[<j[ 5 60. This claim wi be addressed as
part of Petitioner's broader Due Process claim. Betancourth v,
�, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-cv-01169, 2026 WL 638482, at *1 n.2
(S.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2026). However, to the extent that Petitioner
alleges this claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, it is
foreclosed as a matter of law. Garcia v. Venegas, CIVIL ACTION NO.
l:26-CV-266, 2026 WL 1580638, at *1 n.3 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 2, 2026).
8 Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 12-13 <J[<J[ 61-65.
Petitioner's as-applied challenge fails because "he presents no
authority to support his claim that his circumstances present a
viable as-applied due process challenge" and because § 1225(b)(2)
authorizes his continued detention. Garcia, 2026 WL 1580638, at
*2.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-03382 Document 7 Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

Petitioner's detention under § 1225 (b) (2) does not vio due
process or equal protection because he is an applicant for
admission. 9 Petitioner has filed a reply. 10
Pet ioner's detention without a bond hearing does not violate
substant 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 a constitutionally
permissible part of that process.'" Id. at *2 (quoting Demore v.
Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 1721 2 (2003)). Moreover, as explained in
Jacobo-Ventura v. Dickey, Civil Action No. H-25-6117 (S.D. Tex.
Feb. 19, 2026), because Pet ioner 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.
Moreover, Petitioner's "Fifth Amendment equal protection claim
is unavailing because he ls 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
that he s outside of the statutory definition of an applicant
for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) as interpreted by the Fifth
9Respondents' MSJ, Doc Entry No. 5, pp. 1 2.
10 Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Respondents' Motion
for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 6.
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-03382 Document 7 Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

Circuit in Buenrostro-Menendez."11 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. 5) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 18th d
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11Although Petitioner argues that noncitizens who overstayed
their visas are a similarly situated class that is treated more
favorably than noncitizens who entered the country without
inspection, "Petitioner is comparing himself to a distinct group of
noncitizens who are in removal proceedings on entirely different
grounds." Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, pp. 11-12
(explaining that "entry into the United States without inspection
is a criminal offense, [while] overstaying a visa is a civil
infraction").
-4-
Case 4:26-cv-03382 Document 7 Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4