Gomez Jalomo v. Bradford et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CESAR GOMEZ JALOMO, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-1322
BRET BRADFORD, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Cesar Gomez Jalomo ("Petitioner"), a citizen of Mexico,
entered the United States without inspection in 2000. 1 On February
24, 2025, Petitioner was transferred to the custody of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement from the Montgomery County Sheriff's
Office. 2 That same day Petitioner was served with a Notice to
Appear, charging him with inadmissibility pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1182(a)(6)(A)(i), "as an alien present in the United States without
being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the United States at
any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney
General."3 On March 24, 2025, Petitioner was granted a bond by an
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Habeas Petition"),
Docket Entry No. 1, p. 22 � 82. For purposes identification,
all page numbers refer to the pagination imprinted at the top of
the page by the court's Electronic Case Filing system.
2Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion
for Summary Judgment ("Respondents' MSJ"), Docket Entry No. 11, p.
2.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-01322 Document 13 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

immigration judge and was released from immigration custody. 4 On
December 26, 202 5, ICE encountered Petitioner in Hunstsville,
Texas, and took him into custody. 5 On March 25, 2026, an
immigration judge pretermitted Petitioner's relief applications and
ordered him removed from the United States to Mexico. 6 Petitioner
has appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. 7
His appeal is pending and Petitioner remains in immigration
custody. 8
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that his detention without
a bond hearing violates (1) the Immigration and Nationality Act
("INA"), (2) due process, and (3) the Suspension Clause, and is
arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act
("APA"). 9 Petitioner also argues that his warrantless arrest
violates the Accardi doctrine. 10
Also pending before the court is Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 11).
4Id. at 3.
51.9...,_
6Id.
71..d_,_
al._d__._
Respondents argue that
9Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 2 4-34, 36-46 '3[<_![
93-134, 144-183.
lOl._d__._ at 34-36 <_j[<_j[ 135-143.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-01322 Document 13 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

Petitioner is legally detained under§ 1225(b)(2) because he is an
applicant for admission.11 Petitioner has led a reply.12
Because "presence without admission deems [Petitioner] to be
[an] applicant [] for admission," Petitioner subject to mandatory
detention under § 1225(b)(2).13 Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166
F.4th 494, 498, 502 (5th Cir. 2026). Moreover, the court declines
v. Santacruz, Case No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D.
Cal. Nov. 25, 2025), as
Mendez.14
does not control in light of Buenrostro-
Petitioner's detention without a bond hearing does not violate
substant or procedural due process. As explained in Garcia De
La Cruz v. Bondi, Civil Action No. H-25-5577, 2026 WL 309939 (S.D.
11Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 11, pp. 1-2.
12Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Response to the Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Opposition to the Motions for Summary
Judgment, Docket Entry No. 12.
13Given that Petitioner is detained under § 1225(b)(2), his
argument that his detention without a bond hearing violates 8
C.F.R.§§ 236.1, 1236.1, and 1003.19 is without merit because those
federal regulations "provide that aliens detained under§ 1226(a)
receive bond hearings at the outset of detention." Shiv. Lyons,
812 F.Supp.3d 698, 707 (S.D. Tex. 2025).
14Other district courts have found that they are not bound by
Bautista because the Central District of California lacked the
authority to issue the opinion. See, e.g., Calderon Lopez v.
Lyons, No. l:25-CV-226-H, 2025 WL 3683918, at *14 (N.D. Tex. Dec.
19, 2025) (holding that the Central District lacked authority to
issue the orders in Bautista because the orders are advisory and
because the orders "violate the INA's limits on judicial review");
Jandres-Ordonez v. Bondi, No. 6:25-CV-084-H, 2026 WL 274493, at *l
(N.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2026) {same).
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-01322 Document 13 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

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, 1721 2 (2003)). Moreover, as explained in
Jacobo-Ventuxa v. Dickey, 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 proceedings have concluded, Petitioner is not entitled to
a bond hearing as a matter of procedural due process.
Moreover, Petitioner cannot seek habeas relief under the
Accardi doctrine. Although Petitioner alleges he was arrested
without a warrant in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(ii), "an
illegal arrest has no bearing on the lity of detention
following that arrest." Carnesolta v, Tate, Civil Action Number
4:26-cv-01006, 2026 WL 948727, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2026}.
Finally, as explained by Jimenez v. Noem, Civil Action No. H-
25-5853 (S. D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2026), Petitioner's claims that his
detention violates the Suspension Clause and the APA are
foreclosed.
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 11) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's
-4-
Case 4:26-cv-01322 Document 13 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED.
The court wi enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 24th day of June, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-5-
Case 4:26-cv-01322 Document 13 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5