Fatima Del Rosario Betancourt v. Mullin et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
FATIMA DEL ROSARIO
BETANCOURT,
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-03379
§
MARK WAYNE MULLIN, et al. , 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Fatima Del Rosario Betancourt, 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 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 petition and attached exhibits reflect that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered
the United States without lawful status in December of 2022 and has since been placed in
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
May 18, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-03379 Document 4 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

removal proceedings. Doc. No. 1 at 2. Petitioner does not plead facts to show that she has
been lawfully admitted into the United States.
Because Petitioner entered without inspection and has not obtained lawful status,
she is an applicant for admission subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). See Buenrostro-Mendez
v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). 	Her arguments regarding bond
hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations are foreclosed by
Buenrostro-Mendez. 	Her detention is mandated by statute under section 1225(b )(2).
Accordingly, Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process 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)(l) and 1225(b)(2) thus mandate detention of applicants for admission until
certain proceedings have concluded").
Likewise, her arguments regarding the class action in Maldonado Bautista v.
Santacruz, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2025 WL 3713987 (C .D . Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), fai l 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 	*8-12, 	appeal
pending sub nom. Bautista, et al. v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al. ,
No. 26-1044 (9th Cir. Mar. 31 , 2026) (granting a stay of the declaratory judgment insofar
as it extends beyond the Central District of California).
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-03379 Document 4 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

Finally, her claims under the Administrative Procedure Act ("AP A") fail because
an "adequate remedy in a court" is available via habeas corpus. 	5 U.S .C. § 704; accord
Jimenez v. Noem, Civ. A. No. H-25-5853 , at Doc. No. 10 at 5 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 10 , 2026)
(holding that the petitioner was not entitled to relief under the AP A where he was able to
challenge his detention through habeas corpus).
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
SIGNED on this 	l ~ 	day of May 2026.
ANDREWS. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-03379 Document 4 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3