Arango-Presibal v. Venegas et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
MARIA L. A.-P., 1 	§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-cv-218
§
MIGUEL VERGARA, et al., 	§
in their official capacities, 	§
Respondents. 	§
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY PETITIONER’S HABEAS PETITION
Before the Court is Petitioner’s “Verified Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or Order to Show Cause” (Dkt. No. 1) (“Petition”) and
Respondents’ “Response to Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for
Summary Judgment” (Dkt. No. 5) (“MSJ”). The Court should deny the Petition.
Petitioner is detainable under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. 2026), and, as pleaded, Petitioner’s constitutional claims are not
viable. Detention “during removal proceedings,” even where such detention is without a
bond hearing, is generally a “constitutionally permissible part of that process.” Demore v.
Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 531 (2003). While the Court has acknowledged the possibility of
instances where such detention could strain constitutional limits, see, e.g., id. at 532
(Kennedy, J., concurring), Petitioner has not raised that family of issues in this Petition, see
Dkt. No. 1 at 11-16. 	Petitioner is currently awaiting an opinion from the Board of
Immigration Appeals in which she appeals her final order of removal to Cuba. Dkt. No. 5 at
2.
It is therefore recommended that the Court (1) DENY the Petition (Dkt. No. 1); (2)
and DENY the MSJ (Dkt. No. 5) as moot; (3) DENY Petitioner’s Motion for a Video
1 Due to significant privacy concerns in immigration cases and noting that judicial opinions are not subject to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, any opinion, order, judgment, or other disposition in this case will refer to the petitioner
only by first name and last initial.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 22, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:26-cv-00218 Document 9 Filed 06/22/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
Hearing (Dkt. No. 6), Motion for Status Conference (Dkt. No. 7) and Amended Opposed
Motion for Status Conference (Dkt. No. 8) as moot; and (4) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to
close the case.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections, if any, with the United
States District Judge assigned to the instant case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When filing an
objection, a party must object to specific facts or legal findings in this Report and
Recommendation. The District Judge is not required to consider frivolous, conclusive, or
general objections. Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir.
1987).
If any party fails to timely object to any factual or legal findings in this Report and
Recommendation, the District Judge is not required to conduct a de novo review of the record
before adopting these findings. If the District Judge chooses to adopt such findings without
conducting a de novo review of the record, the parties may not attack those findings on
appeal, except on the grounds of plain error. Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C.,
875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017).
Signed on June 22, 2026.
Karen Betancourt
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00218 Document 9 Filed 06/22/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2