Valdespino Gonzalez v. Tate

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTIIERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
YUSMERY DE LA CARIDAD
VALDESPINO GONZALEZ, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
V. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-6406
RANDY TATE, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Yusmery De La Caridad Valdespino Gonzalez ("Petitioner"), a citizen of Cuba, entered the
United States without inspection on April 29, 2019.1 On June 29, 2022, an immigration judge
ordered Petitioner removed from the United States to Cuba.2 On July 14, 2026, Petitioner was taken
into immigration custody.3 Petitioner remains in immigration custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and
Respondents are working to remove her to Mexico.4
1Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Emergency
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, Stay of Removal, Request to
Preserve This Court's Jurisdiction, and Request for an Individualized Custody Determination
("Habeas Petition"), Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3; Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and
Motion for Summary Judgment ("Respondents' MSJ''), Docket Entry No. 5, p. 2; Declaration of
Yusmery De La Caridad Valdespino Gonzalez Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, Docket Entry No. 9,
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.
2Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 12, p. 2.
3Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3.
4Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, pp. 2, 5.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
October 15, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-06406 Document 13 Filed 10/15/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition (Docket Entry No. 1).5 Petitioner
argues that her detention is unreasonable. 6 Also pending before the court is Respondents Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 12). Respondents argue that Petitioner's Habeas Petition
should be denied because she failed to show that her detention violates Z,adyydas.7
When a petitioner is subject to a final order of removal, she may challenge continued
detention under Zadyydas v. Davis, 121 S. Ct. 2491 (2001), which "limits an alien's post-removal
period detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien's removal from the United
States." Id:. at 2498. Under Zadyydas, a detention period of six months after a final order ofremoval
has been issued is presumed to be reasonable. Asmerom v. Martinez, CIVlL ACTION NO. 4:26-
CV-00793, 2026 WL 1707195, at* 3 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 11, 2026). Petitioner was ordered removed
on June 29, 2022 but has only been detained since July 14, 2026. Thus Petitioner has been detained
under a final order of removal for approximately three months. "Because [Petitioner] has not been
in custody past the presumptively reasonable period [ofsix months] outlined in Zadyydas, [s]he does
not demonstrate that h[er] detention violates the Constitution and [s]he does not state an actionable
claim for relief." Parker v. Sessions, CIVlL ACTION NO. H-18-2261, 2018 WL 11491450, at*2
(S.D. Tex. July 16, 2018).
5Petitioner has also filed her Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Docket
Entry No. 2), her Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket Entry No. 4), her
Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal (Docket Entry No. 5), her Emergency Motion to Preserve
this Court's Jurisdiction and to Prevent Transfer (Docket Entry No. 6), her Emergency Motion for
an Individualized Custody Determination (Docket Entry No. 7), and her Emergency Motion for
Release on Bond or, in the Alternative, Release Under Appropriate Conditions of Supervision
Pending Habeas Review (Docket Entry No. 8).
6Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 4-5. Petitioner's claims are not clear. However,
because Petitioner is pro se and because she is under a final order of removal, the court will address
her general claims as a Z,adyydas claim.
7Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 12, pp. 1-2.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-06406 Document 13 Filed 10/15/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket
Entry No. 12) is GRANTED. Because Petitioner's detention may become unlawful in the future
under Zadyydas, Petitioner's Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, Stay of
Removal, Request to Preserve This Court's Jurisdiction, and Request for an Individualized Custody
Determination (Docket Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature.
Accordingly, Petitioner's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Docket Entry No.
2), her Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket Entry No. 4), her Emergency Motion
- for Stay of Removal (Docket Entry No. 5), her Emergency Motion to Preserve this Court's
Jurisdiction and to Prevent Transfer (Docket Entry No. 6), her Emergency Motion for an
Individualized Custody Determination (Docket Entry No. 7), and her Emergency Motion for Release
on Bond or, in the Alternative, Release Under Appropriate Conditions of Supervision Pending
Habeas Review (Docket Entry No. 8) are DENIED.
Petitioner may re-file her petition if (1) she has not been removed after the six-month time
period has expired, (2) she has exhausted all available administrative remedies, and (3) she can show
that she has cooperated with ICE in obtaining travel documents to effect her removal. 8 U.S.C. §
123 l(a)(l)(C).
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 15th day of October, 2026.
7 SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-06406 Document 13 Filed 10/15/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3