Leal v. Blanche et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JOSE RICHARD LEAL,
Petitioner,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-4620
TODD BLANCHE, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Jose Richard Leal ("Petitioner"), a citizen of Venezuela,
entered the United States without inspection on May 6, 2023.1
Shortly after his entry into the United States, the Department of
Homeland Security conducted a credible interview and found
that Petitioner had a credible fear of persecution in Venezuela. 2
On June 12, 2023, 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 or place other than as designated by the Attorney
General."3 On August 1, 2023, Petitioner was released on his own
1Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Habeas
Petition"), Docket Entry No. 1, p. 6 <j[ 21. For purposes of
identi cation, all page numbers refer to the pagination imprinted
at the top of the page by the court's Electronic Case Filing
system.
3Notice to Appear, Exhibit 3 to Habeas Petition, Docket Entry
No. 1-3, p. 1.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-04620 Document 9 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

recognizance. 4 On January 2, 2024, an immigration judge dismissed
Petitioner's removal proceedings. 5
On December 13, 2024, Petitioner was granted temporary
protected status until April 2, 2025. 6 On February 8, 2024,
Petitioner filed an application for asylum with the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services.7 On May 14, 2026, Petitioner
was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody at his
asylum application interview. 8 That same day he was served with a
Notice to Appear, charging him with removability pursuant to §
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." 9 Pet oner remains in immigration custody.10
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
{Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that his detention without
a bond hearing violates due process, equal protection, and the
Suspension Clause, and is arbitrary and capricious under the
4 Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 7 9I 24.
5.Is.i._ 9I 25.
6.I.9.:... at 8 9I 26.
7 9I 27.
9Notice to Appear, Exhibit 10 to Habeas Petition, Docket Entry
No. 1-10, pp. 1,4.
10Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 8 9I 28.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-04620 Document 9 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

Administrative Procedure Act ( "APA") . 11 Petitioner also argues that
Respondents should be equitably estopped from asserting that
Petitioner is subject to detention under § 1225 (b) (2) because he
was previously released on his own recognizance.12 Also pending
before the court is Respondents' Response to Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment ("Respondents' MSJ")
(Docket Entry No. 7). Respondents argue that Petitioner's
detention does not violate due process or equal protection because
he is legally detained under § 1225 (b) (2) as an applicant for
admission. 13 Petitioner has filed a reply.14
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 Cir. 2026). This mandatory detention does
not violate substantive or procedural due process. As explained in
11 Id. at 15-26, 28-31 <JI<JI 50-88, 94 104. As explained by
Jimenez v. Noem, Civil Action No. H-25-5853 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 10,
2026), Petitioner's claims under the Suspension Clause and the APA
are foreclosed.
12 Id. at 27 8 ':II<JI 89-93.
13Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 7, pp. 1-2, 4.
Respondents also argue that Petitioner's detention does not violate
the Fifth Circuit's holding in Rodriguez y, Ortega, No. 26-50183,
2026 WL 1906557 (5th Cir. Jul. 2, 2026). Id. at 1-3. However,
the court need not address this argument because that opinion has
been vacated. Rodriguez v. Ortega, No. 26-50183, 2026 WL 2014647
(5th Cir. Jul. 10, 2026).
14Reply to Respondents' Response to the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 8.
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-04620 Document 9 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

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.'" .1d..... 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.
Petitioner's "Fifth Amendment equal protection claim is
unavailing because he fails to identify a similarly situated class
that is treated more favorably than noncitizens who entered the
country without inspection, and he does not state facts to show
that he falls outside of the statutory definition of an applicant
for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) as interpreted by the Fifth
Circuit in Buenrostro-Menendez."15 Soy v. Blanche, CIVIL ACTION NO.
4:26-CV-02808, 2026 WL 1018345, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2026).
15Although Petitioner argues that noncitizens who overstayed
their visas are a similarly situated class that is treated more
favorably than noncitizens who entered the country without
inspection, "Petitioner is comparing himself to a distinct group of
noncitizens who are in removal proceedings on entirely different
grounds." Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 7, p. 5 (explaining
that "entry into the United States without inspection is a criminal
offense, [while] overstaying a visa is a civil infraction").
-4-
Case 4:26-cv-04620 Document 9 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

Finally, Petitioner's equitable estoppel claim fails. "As an
initial matter, generally equitable estoppel will not lie against
the Government as it lies against private litigants." Heredia v.
Bondi, 2026 WL 1587132, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2026) (citations
omitted). Even assuming such a claim could proceed, Petitioner has
not identified any affirmative misconduct by Respondents. "The
Fifth Circuit has made clear that prior enforcement practices do
not override the plain text of the statute." Id. "Thus, the fact
that Petitioner may have previously been released under§ 1226 does
not preclude Respondents from later applying§ 1225 (b) (2) (A)." Id.
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 (Docket Entry No. 1) is
DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 24th day of July, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-5-
Case 4:26-cv-04620 Document 9 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5