Romero Marzo v. Mullin et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
TAHIMI ROMERO MARZO, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-2641
MARK WAYNE MULLIN, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Tahimi Romero Marzo ("Petitioner"), a citizen of Cuba, entered
the United States at a port of entry on an unknown date.1 Upon her
arrival she was charged with removability and was paroled into the
United States.2 A year later, Petitioner applied for adjustment of
status under the Cuban Adjustment Act. 3 On an unknown date,
Petitioner was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.4
On January 28, 2026, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner
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. 5 112; United States' Motion to
File a Late Response, Response, and Motion for Summary Judgment
("Respondents' MSJ"), Docket Entry No. 6, p. 2. 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.
2Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 5 t 12.
31.Q..._ 1 13.
4 .JJ;;L_ <I 14 .
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 05, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02641 Document 8 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

removed.5 Petitioner has appealed that deci on and remains in
immigration custody.6
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that her detention without
a bond hearing violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and due
process, and is ultra vires agency action.7
Also pending before the court is Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment ( Docket Entry No. 6). Respondents argue that
Petitioner can legally be detained under § 1225(b) (2) because she
is an applicant for admission.8 Petitioner has filed a reply.9
As the Fifth Circuit explained in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), because "presence without admission
deems [Petitioner] to be [an] applicant[] for admission,"
Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).
Id. at 498, 502. Moreover, Pet ioner's claim that Respondents are
acting ultra yires "fails because it rests on [her] assertion that
[s]he being detained under§ 1226(a), but that in turn, is based
on an interpretation of §§ 1225 and 1226 that the Fifth Circuit
rejected in Buenrostro-Mendez." Socarras Bastida y. Noem, CIVIL
6.l!;;L_ ':[':[ 15-16.
1.I..d..,,_ at 6-13 i':II 18 49.
8 Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 6, pp. 1-3.
9Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Respondents' Motion
for Leave to File a Late Response and Motion for Summary Judgment,
Docket Entry No. 7.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-02641 Document 8 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00339, 2026 WL 800189, at *l (S.D. Tex. Mar. 23,
2026).
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, 1721-22 (2003)). Moreover, as explained in
Jacobo-Ventura 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.
For the reasons explained above, United States' Motion to File
a Late Response and Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No.
6) GRANTED, and Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Complaint for Declaratory and
Injunctive Rel f (Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 5th day of June, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-02641 Document 8 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3