Aguilar Parada v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DAYANIS AGUILAR PARADA, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS.
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00748
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Dayanis Aguilar Parada, is a detainee in the custody of United States
Department 	of Homeland 	Security, 	Immigration 	and 	Customs 	Enforcement ("ICE")
officials. 	Through counsel, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S .C . § 2241, challenging her continued detention. Doc. No. 1.
While this case was pending, the Fifth Circuit decided Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
--- F.4th ----, No. 25-20496, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). 	The Court may
dismiss a habeas petition on the pleadings "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
§ 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts ( authorizing preliminary review and
summary dismissal of habeas petitions on the pleadings). 1
1 A district court may apply any of the rules governing habeas petitions filed under 28 U .S .C.
§ 2254 to those filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Rule l(b), Rules Governing§ 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts.
1/ 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 27, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00748 Document 5 Filed 02/27/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

The petition and attached exhibits reflect that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered
the United States in 2020 and has been charged with having entered the United States
without admission or inspection. 	Doc. No. 1 at 2. 	Petitioner contends that she is entitled
to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C . § 1226(a), the statute permitting discretionary bond, and
that she has been erroneously categorized as a detainee subject to mandatory detention
under 8 U .S .C . § 1225(b).
Petitioner 's arguments regarding sections 1225 and 1226 and their implementing
regulations are foreclosed by Buenrostro-Mendez, supra. Likewise, Petitioner 's arguments
regarding the class action in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, --- F .Supp.3d ----, 2025 WL
3713987 (C .D. Cal. Dec. 18 , 2025), fail because they are based on an interpretation of
sections 1225 and 1226 that was rejected in Buenrostro-Mendez. See Maldonado Bautista,
2025 WL 3713987, at *8 -1 2. 	In addition, Petitioner's Fifth Amendment Due Process
Clause claims are precluded, at this juncture, by Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 531 (2003),
because "[d]etention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of
that process." Id. (citations omitted); see also Jennings v. Rodriquez, 583 U.S . 281 , 297
(2018) (explaining that"§§ 1225(b )(1) and 1225(b )(2) thus mandate detention of applicants
for admission until certain proceedings have concluded").
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED.
2. 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-00748 Document 5 Filed 02/27/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3 / 3
4. 	If the Fifth Circuit, en bane, or the United States Supreme Court enters a decision
that is contrary to the decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, supra, Petitioner
is granted leave to file a motion for reconsideration or initiate a separate petition.
SO ORDERED.
~
SIGNED this 	L --1 	day of February 2026.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRJCT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00748 Document 5 Filed 02/27/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3