Martinez Zepeda v. Frink et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
NORMA YESENIA MARTINEZ ZEPEDA, §
§
Petitioner, §
§
v. §
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-4065
MARTIN FRINK, et al., §
§
Respondents. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Norma Yesenia Martinez Zepeda ("Petitioner"), a citizen of
Salvador, entered the United States without inspection on September
11, 2009.1 On September 25, 2009, Petitioner was arrested by the
United States Border Patrol in Laredo, Texas. 2 That same day
Petitioner was released into the United States on her own
recognizance after being served with a Notice to Appear.3 In 20
Petitioner filed an application for asylum and for withholding of
removal. 4
1Veri Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 and Complaint Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
("Habeas Petition"), Docket Entry No. 1, p. 4 ! 18; Response to the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment
("Respondents' MSJ"J, Docket Entry No. 7, p. 1. For purposes of
identi ion, all page numbers refer to the pagination imprinted
at the top of the page by the court's Electronic Case Filing
system.
2Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, Exhibit 2 to
Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 7-2, p. 3.
4Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 7, p. 1.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 17, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-04065 Document 11 Filed 07/17/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

On December 25, 2025, Petitioner was arrested for assault and
battery by the police in Chelsea, Massachusetts. 5 On December 26,
2025, Petitioner was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement
custody as she was leaving her arraignment on the assault and
battery charge. 6 On February 10, 2026, Petitioner was served with
a Notice to Appear, charging her with removability 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. "1 On June 15, 2026, an immigration judge denied
Petitioner's application for asylum and ordered her removed to
Salvador. 8 Petitioner reserved an appeal and remains in
immigration custody. 9
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. 10 Also pending before the court is Respondents' Motion
for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 7}. Respondents argue that
6.If;;L_ at 2.
7Notice to Appear, Exhibit 4 to Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry
No. 7-4, pp. 1, 4.
8Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 7, p. 2.
10Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 6-8 ii 42-56.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-04065 Document 11 Filed 07/17/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

Petitioner's detention under § 1225(b)(2) does not violate due
process because she is an applicant for admission.11 Petitioner has
filed a reply. 12
Because "presence without admission deems [Petitioner] to be
[an] applicant[] for admission," Petitioner is subject to mandatory
detention under § 1225(b} (2}. Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166
F.4th 494, 498, 502 (5th . 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 a
constitutionally permissible part of that process.'" l.d..... 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-2 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.13
11Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 7, pp. 3-12.
12Pet ioner's Reply in Support of Habeas Petition and
Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket
Entry No. 9.
13Petitioner argues that she is entitled to a bond hearing
(continued ...)
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-04065 Document 11 Filed 07/17/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 7) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's
Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Docket
Entry No. 1) is DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 17th day of July, 2026.
/cl?
SIM LAKE7
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12 ( ••• continued)
Petitioner's Notice of Supplemental Authority, Docket
p. 1. However, that opinion has been vacated.
Ortega, No. 26-50183, 2026 WL 2014647 (5th Cir. Jul.
-4-
Entry No. 10,
Rodriguez v.
10, 2026).
Case 4:26-cv-04065 Document 11 Filed 07/17/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4