Zelaya-Rosales v. Bradford et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
HAROL STEVEN ZELAYA-ROSALES, 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-04022
§
BRET BRADFORD, et al., 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Harol Steven Zelaya-Rosales, 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 and attached exhibits reflect that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered
the United States without being admitted in November of 2016 and has been placed in
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 l(b), Rules Governing§ 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts.
1 / 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 26, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-04022 Document 7 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

immigration proceedings. Doc. No. 1-2 at 7, 10 . Petitioner does not allege or show that
he has been lawfully admitted into the United States. Because Petitioner entered without
admission and has not obtained lawful status, he is an applicant for admission subject to 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). 	See Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. Feb.
6, 2026). 	His arguments regarding bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its
implementing regulations are foreclosed by Buenrostro-Mendez.
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
remov al 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 )(1) and 1225(b )(2) thus mandate detention of applicants for admission until
certain proceedings have concluded"). Petitioner does not otherwise show that his current
detention violates the Constitution.
Finall y, his claims regarding the procedures used for his arrest under the Accardi
doctrine 2 fail. 	The regulation he invokes, 8 C.F.R. § 287.8, does not provide a cause of
action in federal court because § 287.12, outlining the scope of part 287, provides, in
relevant part: "These regulations do not, are not intended to, shall not be construed to, and
may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law
by any party in any matter, civil or criminal." 	8 C.F.R. § 287.12. 	Therefore, he has no
2 See United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 34 7 U.S. 260 (1954) (asserting the principle
that agencies are bound to abide by their own regulations or internal procedures).
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-04022 Document 7 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

substantive claim in this habeas proceeding under Accardi regarding the procedures used
for hi s arr es t.
3 / 3
Ba sed on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED.
2. 	All other pending motions, if an y, are DENIED as MOOT.
~
SIGNED on this 	~l.. 	day of June 2026.
ANDREWS . HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-04022 Document 7 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3