Tenorio Zapata v. Blanche et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
NELSON JAVIER TENORIO ZAPATA, 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-04623
§
TODD BLANCHE, et al., 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Nelson Javier Tenorio Zapata, 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 Nicaraguan national
who entered the United States in 2022 without inspection and has since 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 12, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-04623 Document 5 Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

removal proceedings. Doc. No. 1 at 6. Petitioner does not allege or show that he has been
lawfully admitted into the United States. 	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 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
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").
Likewise, his 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, like him, who are considered "applicants for admission" and
are subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). 	He does not state facts to
show 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-Mendez. See Reno v.
Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993) (rejecting equal protection claims regarding continued
detention brought by alien juveniles who did not have close relatives to serve as guardians
because they were distinct from alien juveniles with close relatives available to serve as
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-04623 Document 5 Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

guardians and different from American juveniles in delinquency proceedings who were
citizens).
In addition, his claims under the Administrative Procedure Act ("AP A") 	fail
because an "adequate remedy in a court" is available via habeas corpus. 	5 U.S.C. § 704;
accord Jimenez v. Noem, Civ. A. No. H-25-5853 , at Doc. No. 10 at 5 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 10 ,
2026) (holding that the petitioner was not entitled to relief under the AP A where he was
able to challenge his detention through habeas corpus); see also Trump v. JG.G., 604 U. S.
670, 674 (2025) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (agreeing with the majority "that habeas
corpus, not the AP A, is the proper vehicle" where habeas corpus is an available remedy).
His claims under the Suspension Clause likewise fail because petitioners like him may
bring a petition for habeas corpus to challenge their immigration detention. Petitioner does
not otherwise plead facts to show that his detention currently violates the Constitution.
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED.
2. All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
~
SIGNED this 	I ?.,-,, 	day of June 2026.
ANDREWS. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT WDGE
3 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-04623 Document 5 Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3