GARCIA DE LA CRUZ v. Bondi et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JEREMIAS GARCIA DE LA CRUZ, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
V. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-25-5577
PAM BONDI, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Jeremias Garcia De La Cruz (\\Petitioner") brought this action
against Pam Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd Lyons, Bret Bradford, and
Randy Tate (collectively referred to as nRespondents"), seeking a
writ of habeas corpus.1 Pending before the court is Petitioner's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
( \\ Petition for Habeas Corpus") (Docket Entry No. 1) and the
Government's Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and
Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of Respondents
( \\ Respondents' MSJ") (Docket Entry No. 13). For the reasons
explained below, Respondents's MSJ will be granted and Petitioner's
Petition for Habeas Corpus will be denied.
1Petition for Habeas Corpus, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 8-9 1 8.
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.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 05, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05577 Document 18 Filed 02/05/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

I. Background
Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States
without inspection in 1999. 2 On November 9, 2025, Petitioner was
arrested by the Houston Police Department for driving while
intoxicated. 3 After the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"}
issued a warrant for Petitioner's arrest on November 12, 2025,
Petitioner was transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement
("ICE" ) custody and removal proceedings were commenced. 4 On
December 9, 2025, an immigration judge denied Petitioner a bond
hearing, finding that because Petitioner was detained under
§ 1225(b} (2), the immigration court lacked jurisdiction to grant
Petitioner a bond hearing. 5
custody.
Petitioner remains in immigration
On November 19, 2025, Petitioner filed a Petition for Habeas
Corpus. 6 Petitioner argues that his detention without a bond
hearing violates (1) due process,
2 Id. at 10 1 14.
3 Id. at 11 1 21.
(2} the Immigration and
4 Id. at 11 1 23; Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 13, p. 2
1 2; Exhibit 2 to Petition for Habeas Corpus, Docket Entry No. 1-2,
p. 1.
5Rezpondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 13, p. 3 1 5. Under the
Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado,
Petitioner was detained under § 1225(b) (2). Id. at 1.
6 Petition for Habeas Corpus, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 1, 26.
-2-
Case 4:25-cv-05577 Document 18 Filed 02/05/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

Nationality Act ("INA"), (3) the Administrative Procedure Act
("APA"), and (4) the Suspension Clause.7
On December 29, 2025, the Government filed a Response and MSJ
on behalf of Respondents opposing each of Petitioner's claims. 8
Petitioner filed a reply on January 17, 2026.9
II. Analysis
Respondents argue that Petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus
must be denied because (1) he failed to exhaust administrative
remedies and (2) his detention is legal under § 1225 (b) (2) . 10
Neither party disputes that the court has jurisdiction over
Petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus.
Because "In]othing in the record suggests that the BIA would
reconsider [the Hurtado decision], given its recency," Petitioner's
"failure to appeal in these circumstances [is not] counted as an
impermissible failure to exhaust administrative remedies." Cabanas
v. Bondi, Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-04830, 2025 WL 3171331, at *3
(S.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2025). Therefore, the only issue before the
court is whether Petitioner's detention without a bond hearing
7Id. at 16-22.
8Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 13.
9 Reply to Respondents' Response in Opposition, Docket Entry
No. 15.
10Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 13, pp. 1-2.
-3-
Case 4:25-cv-05577 Document 18 Filed 02/05/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

violates (1) the INA, (2) due process, (3) the APA, and (4) the
Suspension Clause.
A. Petitioner can be legally detained under § 1225(b) (2).
As the court explained in Cabriales v. Noem, Civil Action
Number H-25-4908 (S.D. Tex. 2026), § 1225(b) (2) applies to aliens
who were already present in the United States at the time of their
arrest. The court's analysis and holding applies in this case.
B. Petitioner's detention does not violate due process.
Citing Zadyydas v. Davis, 121 S. Ct. 2491 (2001), Petitioner
argues that his detention without a bond hearing to determine
whether he is a flight risk or danger to the community violates due
process . 11
In Zadyydas the Court "explicitly distinguished post-removal
period detention (which has no obvious termination point, thus
requiring a constitutional constraint on unbounded detention) from
'detention pending a determination of removability.'" Benitez v.
Bradford, Civil Action Number 4:25-cv-06178, 2026 WL 82235, at *2
(S.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2026) (quoting Zadyydas, 121 S. Ct. at 2503).
Zadyydas thus does not establish "that detention during removal
proceedings itself violates due process." Sanchez v. Smith, Civil
Action Number 4:25-cv-05384, 2025 WL 3687914, at *3 (S.D. Tex.
Dec. 19, 2025). "Instead, as the Supreme Court in Demore later
11Petition for Habeas Corpus, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 16-18.
-4-
Case 4:25-cv-05577 Document 18 Filed 02/05/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

[held], '[d]etention during removal proceedings is a
constitutionally permissible part of that process.'" Id, (quoting
Demore v. Kim, 123 s. Ct. 1708, 1721-22 (2003)).
C. Petitioner is not entitled to relief under the APA.
Petitioner argues that the change in Department of Homeland
Security detention policy without a notice and comment period
violates the APA.12
\\Section 704 of the APA states, in no uncertain terms, that
'[a]gency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action
for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject
to judicial review.'" Garibay-Robledo v. Noem, No. 1:25-CV-177-H,
2026 WL 81679, at *10 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2026) (quoting 5 U.S.C.
§ 704). In other words, a plaintiff is only entitled to relief
under the APA when there is no other remedy available. Because
Petitioner is able to challenge his detention by filing a writ of
habeas corpus, he is not entitled to relief under the APA.
D. Petitioner's detention does not violate the Suspension Clause.
Petitioner argues that if 8 U.S.C. § 1252 stripped this court
of jurisdiction over his Petition for Habeas Corpus, it would
violate the Suspension Clause as applied to Petitioner.13 But
§ 1252 does not strip this court of jurisdiction over this petition
12 Id. at 19.
13 Id. at 21-22.
-5-
Case 4:25-cv-05577 Document 18 Filed 02/05/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

because Petitioner is challenging the lawfulness of his continued
detention during the pendency of his removal proceedings. See Reno
v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 119 S. Ct. 936, 943
(1999) (holding that § 1252 "applies only to three discrete actions
that the Attorney General may take: her 'decision or action' to
'commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal
orders'" (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g))). The court therefore does
not need to address Petitioner's Suspension Clause claim.
III. Conclusion and Order
For the reason explained above, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 13) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Docket
Entry No. 1) is DENIED. The court will enter a final judgment in
favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 5th day of February, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SRNIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-6-
Case 4:25-cv-05577 Document 18 Filed 02/05/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6