Paredes Zapata v. Frink et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MA HERMILA PAREDES ZAPATA, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS.
MARTIN L. FRINK, et al.,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-01827
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Ma Hermila Paredes Zapata, is a detainee in the custody of United
States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE")
officials. Through counsel, she filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S .C.
§ 2241, challenging her continued detention. Doc. No. 1.
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
The pleadings reflect that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States
without inspection around 2005 , was apprehended in December 2025, and is being held
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.
1/2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-01827 Document 4 Filed 03/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) as an applicant for admission. See Doc. No. 1 at
3, 5-6. Petitioner contends that she is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S .C. § 1226(a),
the statute permitting discretionary bond in removal proceedings prior to a final order of
removal, and that she has been miscategorized as a detainee subject to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b )(2).
Petitioner's arguments regarding sections 1225 and 1226 and their implementing
regulations are foreclosed by the Fifth Circuit's recent decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v.
Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). 	In addition, Petitioner's Fifth Amendment
Due Process Clause claim is 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)(l) and 1225(6)(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.
L1..\'-
SIGNED this 	7- 	day of March 2026.
/~l~
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 / 2
Case 4:26-cv-01827 Document 4 Filed 03/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2