Zapon-Rosales v. Martinez et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JORDAN DANIEL ZAPON-ROSALES, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v.
GABRIEL MARTINEZ, et al.,
Respondents.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
6-4121
Jordan Daniel Zapon-Rosales ("Petitioner"), a citizen of
Guatemala, entered the United States without inspection on June 22,
2013.1 On June 23, 2013, Petitioner was served with a Notice to
Appear, charging him 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. "2 That same day Petitioner was taken to a juveni
shelter. 3 On August 1, 2013, Pet ioner was released on his own
recognizance to his sister.4 On September 4, 2014, Petitioner was
1Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion
for Summary Judgment ("Respondents' MSJ"), Docket Entry No. 4, p.
2. For purposes of identification, all page numbers re to the
pagination imprinted at the top the page by the court's
ectronic Case Filing system.
2Notice to Appear, Exhibit 1 to Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry
No. 4-1, p. 1.
3Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 4, p. 2.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 20, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-04121 Document 6 Filed 07/20/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

ordered removed in absentia. 5 On May 6, 2026, Petitioner presented
himself to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Houston office and was taken into Immigration and Customs
Enforcement custody.6 On May 19, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion
to reopen the removal order, which placed an automatic stay on
removal.7 Petitioner's motion to reopen the removal order was
granted on May 21, 2026.8 His proceedings are ongoing and
Petitioner remains in immigration custody.9
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus ("Habeas Petition") (Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner
argues that his detention without a bond hearing violates due
process.10 Petitioner also argues that he entitled to rel
under Bautista v. Santacruz, Case No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025
WL 3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025).11 Also pending before
7.ill.:,_
10Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 9 11 27-28.
11 Id. The Central Dist ct of California issued three orders
in its decision to vacate the Department of Homeland Security's
interpretation and application of § 1225 (b) (2) on a class-wide
basis. Bautista v. Santacruz, Case No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025
WL 3289861 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025) (granting partial swnmary
judgment favor of the Petitioners); Bautista v. Santacruz, Case
No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25,
(continued...)
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-04121 Document 6 Filed 07/20/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

court is Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No.
4). Respondents argue that Petitioner's detention under §
1225(b)(2) does not violate due process because he is an applicant
for admission. 12 Petitioner has filed a reply. 13
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). The court declines to enforce
the Central District of California's holding in Bautista, as
does not control in light of the Fifth Circuit's holding in
Buenrostro.14
11 ( ••• continued)
2025) ( ss certification); Bautista v. Santacruz, Case No. 5:2
CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025)
(vacating the DHS' policy under the APA).
12Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 4, pp. 1-2.
13Response to Respondents' Response to Pet ion for Habeas
Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 5.
Petitioner argues in his reply that he is ent led to a bond
hearing based on the Fifth Circuit's recent opinion in Rodriguez v.
Ortega, No. 26-50183, 2026 WL 1906557 (5th Cir. Jul. 2, 2026).
� at 4. However, that opinion has been vacated. Rodriguez v.
Ortega, No. 26-50183, 2026 WL 2014647 (5th Cir. Jul. 10, 2026).
14Other district courts have found that they are not bound by
Bautista because the Central District of California lacked the
authority to issue the opinion. See, e.g., Calderon Lopez y.
Lyons, No. 1:25-CV-226-H, 2025 WL 3683918, at *14 (N.D. Tex. Dec.
19, 2025) (holding that the Central District ked authority to
issue the orders in Bautista because the orders are advisory and
because the orders "violate the INA's limits on judicial review");
Jandres-Ordonez v. Bondi, No. 6:25-CV-084-H, 2026 WL 274493, at *1
(N.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2026) (same).
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-04121 Document 6 Filed 07/20/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

Petitioner's 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.'n Id. at *2 (quoting Demore v. Kim, 123 s. Ct.
1708, 1721 2 (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, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 4) 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 20th day July, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
Case 4:26-cv-04121 Document 6 Filed 07/20/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4