Vargas Ordonez v. Frink et al

UNITED S TATES DISTRICT C OURT
S OUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MARTIN VARGAS
O RDONEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
MARTIN F RINK, et al,
Respondents.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION N UMBER
4:25-cv-06386
J UDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
OPINION AND ORDER ON DISMISSAL
Petitioner Martin Vargas Ordonez is a citizen of Mexico
who 	entered 	the 	United 	States 	without 	inspection 	on
January 1, 1991. Dkt 1 at ¶¶9, 10. Since that time,
Petitioner has continuously resided in the United States.
Id at ¶11. He is married and has three children, one of
whom is a United States citizen. Ibid. He has no criminal
history. Id at ¶13.
On November 14, 2025, Petitioner was detained by ICE
following a traffic stop. Id at ¶12. He’s currently in custody
at the Houston Contract Detention Facility in Houston,
Texas. Ibid.
On December 30, 2025, Petitioner had a bond hearing
before an immigration court, who 	concluded it lacked
jurisdiction to hold the bond hearing under Matter of
Hurtado, 29 I&N Decision 216 (BIA 2025). Id at ¶14; see
Dkt 1-1 at 11 (order of IJ). Petitioner is scheduled for
further hearing with an immigration judge on January 22,
2026. 	See 	Dkt 	6 	at 	2 	(response 	by 	Government).
Respondents are sued in their official capacity as officers
or employees of the United States and are collectively
referred to as the Government.
Case 4:25-cv-06386 Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
Pending is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and
motion 	for 	temporary 	restraining 	order, 	by 	which
Petitioner challenges his detention without a bond hearing.
Dkt 1. He asserts that he’s entitled to such hearing under
8 USC §1226(a), which provides for discretionary detention
during removal proceedings. See id at ¶¶20–23.
In 	its 	response 	to 	the 	petition, 	the 	Government
maintains 	that 	no 	bond 	hearing 	is 	required 	because
Petitioner is an “applicant for admission” under 8 USC
§1225(b)(2)(A), which provides for mandatory detention
during removal proceedings. Dkt 6 at 3.
As noted in prior order, this action presents the same
issue 	of 	textual 	interpretation 	recently 	addressed and
resolved by the undersigned in Montoya Cabanas v Bondi,
2025 WL 3171331 (SD Tex); Maceda Jimenez v Thompson,
2025 WL 3265493 (SD Tex); see also Montelongo Zuniga v
Lyons, 2025 WL 3755126 (ND Tex) (Hendrix, J). Petitioner
was given opportunity to reply with distinguishing facts or
grounds for reconsideration of that decision. See Dkt 4 at 2.
He hasn’t done so.
The construction given 8 USC §§1225 and 1226 in those
cases thus controls here and forecloses Petitioner’s claim
for violation of the INA. Such construction also forecloses
his Fourth Amendment claim, as it relies on assertion of
the Government’s lack of authority to detain him under
§1225. See Dkt 1 at ¶¶16–19.
The 	due 	process 	claim 	also 	fails. 	On 	this 	point,
Petitioner maintains that the “Fifth Circuit recognizes that
prolonged detention without a hearing raises serious due-
process 	concerns.” 	But 	the 	case 	cited, 	Hernandez 	v
Gonzales, is neither a Fifth Circuit case nor supportive of
that proposition. See 424 F3d 42 (1st Cir 2005). Regardless,
as observed by the Supreme Court, “Detention during
removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part
of that process.” Demore v Kim, 538 US 510, 531 (2003)
(citations 	omitted). 	As 	such, 	“the 	Government 	may
constitutionally 	detain 	deportable 	aliens 	during 	the
Case 4:25-cv-06386 Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
limited period necessary for their removal proceedings.”
Id at 526.
As such, the petition for writ of habeas corpus will be
denied. Dkt 1.
* 	* 	*
In so concluding, respectful acknowledgement is given
to the seven other district court judges in the Houston
Division who have also recently reached the statutory issue
presented in this case. Each has determined under similar
circumstances in favor of §1226 over §1225. For example,
see Ortega-Aguirre v Noem, 2025 WL 3684697 (SD Tex)
(Bennett, J); Hernandez Lucero v Noem, 4:25-cv-03981 (SD
Tex, Oct 23, 2025) (Ellison, J); Aslamov v Bradford, 4:25-
cv-04299 (SD Tex, Oct 30, 2025) (Hanks, J); Mejia Juarez v
Bondi, 2025 WL 3684693 (SD Tex) (Hoyt, J); Buenrostro-
Mendez v Bondi, 2025 WL 2886346, (SD Tex) (Rosenthal,
J); Reyes-Lopez v Noem, 4:25-cv-04629 (SD Tex, Nov 21,
2025) 	(Lake, 	J); 	Espinoza 	Andres 	v 	Noem, 	2025 	WL
3458893 (SD Tex) (Hittner, J). Another three judges in this
Division haven’t reached decision, but two have it currently
pending before them. For example, see Romero Moreno v
Tate, 4:25-cv-04903 (SD Tex) (Hanen, J); Martinez-Sarres
v Warden, 4:25-cv-05273 (SD Tex) (Werlein, J).
That said, until the Fifth Circuit gives a definitive
interpretation, it is simply up to each district court judge
to give the text his or her own best reading. And in that
regard, it’s also noted that the Fifth Circuit has granted a
motion to consider this issue on an expedited basis. See
Buenrostro-Mendez v Bondi, 25-20496 (cited above, per
Rosenthal, 	J), 	Dkt 	80-2 	at 	2; 	see 	also 	Covarrubias 	v
Vergara, 25-40701 (per Kazen, J, SD Tex, Laredo Division),
Dkt 83-2 at 2.
* 	* 	*
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.
Dkt 1.
This action is DISMISSED.
This is a FINAL JUDGMENT .
Case 4:25-cv-06386 Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
SO ORDERED.
Signed on January 20, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
__________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-06386 Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4