Jimenez-Martinez v. Thompson et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
LEAM ELIAS JIMENEZ MARTINEZ §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-25 842
RAYMOND THOMPSON, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Learn Elias Jiminez Martinez ("Petitioner") , a citizen of
Venezuela, entered the United States without inspection on October
3, 2021. 1 On October 8, 2021, Petitioner was arrested, placed in
removal proceedings, and eased from immigration custody on his
own recognizance. 2 On November 14, 2025, Petitioner was taken into
immigration custody at
Enforcement ("ICE") check-in. 3
wife's Immigration and Customs
Under the Board of Immigration
Appeals' decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, Petitioner was
1Pet ion for Habeas Corpus, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 11 i 49;
Passport, Exhibit 1 to Petition for Habeas Corpus, Docket Entry No.
1-1, p. 3. For purposes of identification, all page numbers refer
to the pagination imprinted at the top of the page by the court's
Electronic Case Filing system.
2Pet ion for Habeas Corpus, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 11 i 50;
Order of Release on Recognizance, Exhibit 1 to Petition for Habeas
Corpus, Docket Entry No. 1-1, p. 5.
3Pet ion for Habeas Corpus, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 12 1 56.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 30, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05842 Document 22 Filed 01/30/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

detained under § 1225(b)(2) and is not eligible for a bond
hearing.4 Petitioner remains in immigration custody.
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Petition for Habeas
Corpus (Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner asserts that he is
entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226 because he was already
present in the United States at the time of his arrest. Citing
Zadvydas v, Davis, 121 S. Ct. 2491 (2001), Petitioner also asserts
that his detention without a bond hearing to determine whether he
is a ight risk or danger to the community violates due process. 5
Also pending before the court is the Federal Respondents'
Response to the Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion
Summary Judgement ("Respondents' MSJ") (Docket Entry No. 19).
Respondents argue that Petitioner can legally be detained under §
1225(b) (2) because he is an applicant for admission. 6
As the court explained in Cabriales v. Noem, Civil Action
Number H-25-4908 (S.D. Tex. 2026), § 1225(b)(2) applies to aliens
who were already present in the United States at the time of the
arrest. The court's analysis and holding applies in this case.
Petitioner relies on Zadvydas to argue that his detention
violates due process rights. In Zadvydas the Court "explicitly
4 Id. at 2 ii 4-5.
5.Is;L_ at 14 i 70; Petitioner's Response in Opposition to
Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 21, pp.
12-14.
6Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 19, pp. 13-18.
-2-
Case 4:25-cv-05842 Document 22 Filed 01/30/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

distinguished !2Q..§.1_-removal-period detention (which has no obvious
termination point, thus requiring a constitutional constraint on
unbounded detention) from 'detention pending a determination of
removability.'" Benitez v. Bradford, Civil Action Number 4:25-cv-
06178, 2026 WL 82235, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2026) (quoting
Zadvydas v. Davis, 121 s. Ct. 2491, 2503 (2001)). Zadvydas thus
does not establish "that detention during removal proceedings
itself violates due process." Sanchez v. Smith, Civil Action
Number 4:25-cv-05384, 2025 WL 3687914, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 19,
2025). "Instead, as the Supreme Court in Demore later [held],
' [d]etention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally
permissible part of that process.'" Id. (quoting Demore v. Kim,
123 S. Ct. 1708, 1721-22 (2003)).
Because § 1225 (b) (2) applies to aliens who were already
present in the United States at the time of their arrest and
because detention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally
permissible part of that process, the motion for summary judgment
by the Respondents will be granted, and the petition for a writ of
habeas corpus will be denied.
Respondents' Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus and Motion to Dismiss and, in the Alternative, for Summary
Judgment (Docket Entry No. 19) is GRANTED and Petitioner's Petition
for Habeas Corpus (Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED.
-3-
Case 4:25-cv-05842 Document 22 Filed 01/30/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 30th day of January, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
Case 4:25-cv-05842 Document 22 Filed 01/30/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4