Jayar Perez v. Tate et al

DOMINGO JAYAR
v.
RANDY TATE, et
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
PEREZ, §
§
Petitioner, §
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO.
§
al., §
§
Respondents. §
MEMORANDUM QPINION AND ORDER
H-26-3276
Domingo Jayar Perez ("Petitioner"), a citizen of Cuba, entered
the United States without admission or parole on June 27, 2021.1
On July 6, 2021, Petitioner was apprehended, processed, and
released on his own recognizance.2 On February 4, 2026, Petitioner
was served with a Notice to Appear.3 On an unknown date Petitioner
was redetained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.4 He remains
in immigration custody.5
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that his detention without
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Habeas Petition"),
Docket Entry No. 1, p. 1 i 2; United States' Response and Motion
for Summary Judgment ("Respondents' MSJ"), Docket Entry No. 5, p.
3. 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. 2 i 2.
3Notice to Appear, Exhibit B to Habeas Petition, Docket Entry
No. 1-2, p. 2.
4Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 2 i 2.
5Id.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 11, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-03276 Document 7 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

a bond hearing violates due process. 6 Also pending before the
court Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No.
5). Respondents argue that Petitioner is legally detained under§
1225 (b) (2) because he is an applicant for admission. 7 Petitioner
has filed a reply.8
Because "presence without admission deems [Petitioner] to be
[an] applicant [] for admission," Petitioner subject to mandatory
detention under § 1225 (b) (2). Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166
F.4th 494, 498, 502 (5th Cir. 2026). This mandatory detention 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.'" ,lg_._ 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 Pet ioner 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 not entitled to
a bond hearing as a matter procedural due process.
6 Id. at 8 9.
7 Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, pp. 1
8Brief in Reply to Respondents Response to Petition and Motion
for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 6.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-03276 Document 7 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 5) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 11th da
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-03276 Document 7 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3