Rodriguez Sanchez v. Noem et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
YAILEN RODRIGUEZ SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-0520
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Yailen Rodriguez Sanchez ("Petitioner"), a citizen of Cuba,
entered the United States in April of 2022.1 On January 14, 2026,
Petitioner was taken into immigration custody by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement under § 1225 (b) (2).2
immigration custody.
tioner remains in
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that her detention without
a bond hearing violates the (1) Immigration and Nationality Act and
(2) due process.3
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, ("Habeas
Petition"), Docket Entry No. 1, p. 16 CJ[ 46. 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.
2 Id. at 16 1 48.
3 Id. at 17-19; Petitioner's Response in Opposition to
Government's Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 8, pp.
4-9.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00520 Document 9 Filed 04/16/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

Also pending before the court is Respondents' Response to the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment
("Respondents' MSJ") (Docket Entry No. 7). Respondents argue that
Petitioner can legally be detained under§ 1225(b)(2) because she
is an applicant for admission. 4 Petitioner has filed a reply. 5
As the Fifth Circuit explained in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), § 1225(b}(2) applies to aliens who
were already present in the United States at the time of the
arrest. Id. at 498, 508. The Fifth Circuit's analysis and holding
appl this case.
Petitioner's detention without a bond hearing does not violate
substantive or procedural due process. As explained in Garcia De
La Cruz v. Bondi, Civil Action No. H-25-5577, 2026 WL 309939 (S.D.
Tex. Feb. 5, 2026), the Supreme Court has made clear that
"' [d] etention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally
permissible part of that process.'" Id. at *2 (quoting Demore v.
Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 172 2 (2003)}. Moreover, as explained in
Jacobo-Ventura, Civil Action No. H-25-6117 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 19,
2026), because petitioner only has those rights regarding admission
that Congress has provided by statute, and because § 1225(b}(2)
mandates detention of applicants for admission until certain
4 Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 7, pp. 1-2.
5 Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Government's Motion
for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 8.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-00520 Document 9 Filed 04/16/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

proceedings have concluded, Petitioner is not entitled to a bond
hearing as a matter of procedural due process.
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 7) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Docket Entry No.
1) is DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 16th day of April, 2026.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-00520 Document 9 Filed 04/16/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3