Hernandez Orellana v. Frink et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CHRISTIAN HERNANDEZ ORELLANA, §
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-04632
§
MARTIN FRINK, et al., 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Christian Hernandez Orellana, 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).'
The petition and attached exhibits reflect that Petitioner is a Honduran national who
entered the United States without inspection and without lawful status about six years ago.
Doc. No. 1 at 9. Petitioner does not plead facts to show that he has been lawfully admitted
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 23, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-04632 Document 4 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

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). Therefore, to the
extent he argues that he should receive a bond hearing under 8 U.S .C. § 1226(a) and its
implementing regulations, that claim is foreclosed by Buenrostro-Mendez. His detention
is mandated by statute under section 1225(b )(2).
In addition, Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process claims fail. 	Petitioner' s
procedural due process claim is unavailing because the statute mandates detention. 	See
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"). 	Hence, a bond hearing to determine whether he is a danger to the
community or a flight risk is futile where it would have no bearing on his mandatory
detention.
Likewise, Petitioner' s substantive due process claim is 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 , 583 	U.S . at 297; Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 	524, 538 (1952)
("Detention is necessary a part of th[e] deportation procedure." ); Wong Wing v. United
States, 163 U.S . 228, 235 (1896) ("Proceedings to exclude or expel would be vain if those
accused could not be held in custody pending the inquiry into their true character, and while
arrangements were being made for their deportation."). Petitioner, who alleges that he has
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-04632 Document 4 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

been detained less than a month, does not plead facts that show that he has been detained
indefinitely or otherwise show that his detention presently violates the Constitution.
Fina ll y, his 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 valid entry documents, and 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 guardians
and different from American juveniles in delinquency proceedings who were citizens).
Noncitizens who entered legally with a visa and overstayed are distinct from those who
entered illegally without inspection. 	He does not show that the government has violated
his equal protection rights by treating him differently from those who entered legally.
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	This petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
SIGNED this 	:)._ '---l~~y of June 2026.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 13
Case 4:26-cv-04632 Document 4 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3