Yang v. Bergami et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
DECHANG YANG, 	§
§
Petitioner,
§
§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-cv-02877-B (BT)
§
THOMAS BERGAMI, et al. 	§
§
§
Respondents.
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case is one of many habeas petitions recently filed challenging federal detention
pending removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. _ 1225(b).
Petitioner Dechang Yang, a native and citizen of China, entered the United States in
September 2023 without being inspected, admitted, or paroled by an immigration officer. After a
brief detention, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released her and charged her with
removability under Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 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.” 8 U.S.C. _
1182(a)(6)(A)(i). On September 25, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents
arrested Petitioner and detained her under 8 U.S.C. _ 1225(b)(2) without bond pending her
removal proceedings. On October 23-24, 2025, Petitioner filed a verified petition for habeas corpus
(ECF No. 4) and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No.
Case 3:25-cv-02877-B-BT Document 16 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
3) to enjoin ICE from detaining her under _ 1225(b)(2) or, alternatively, to compel a bond hearing
under 8 U.S.C. _ 1226 at which DHS bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing
evidence, dangerousness or flight risk. ECF No. 1 at 11.
A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy.” Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United
Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985). To obtain injunctive relief, a movant must
establish (1) a substantial likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits; (2) a substantial
threat that irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted; (3) that the threatened
injury outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant; and (4) that granting the preliminary
injunction will not disserve the public interest. Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987)
(citing Canal Auth. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572-73 (5 th Cir. 1974)). The party seeking
preliminary injunctive relief carries the burden of persuasion on all four elements. Bluefield Water
Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Starkville, 577 F.3d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 2009).
Recently, the Fifth Circuit issued its published decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No.
25-20496, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026), holding that aliens like Petitioner—“alien[s]
present within the United States who ha[ve] not been admitted” by lawful means, see 8 U.S.C. __
1225(a)(1), 1101(a)(13)(A)—are deemed to be “applicants for admission,” and unless they show
themselves to be “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” they “shall be detained”
pending their removal proceeding under _ 1225(b)(2)(A). In view of this new precedential
authority, Petitioner cannot establish a substantial likelihood that she will prevail on the merits of
her claim 	that she is wrongly detained under _ 1225(b)(2), or that she is entitled to a bond
hearing under _ 1226. Thus, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Restraining
Case 3:25-cv-02877-B-BT Document 16 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3).
SO ORDERED THIS 18 th day of February 2026.
JANE J. BOYLE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-02877-B-BT Document 16 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>