Verduzco Benitez v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
RUBEN VERDUZCO
BENITEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
BRET BRADFORD, et al,
Respondents.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-06178
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
OPINION AND ORDER ON DISMISSAL
Petitioner Ruben Verduzco Benitez is a citizen of
Mexico who entered the United States without inspection
in or about September 2001. Dkt 1 at ¶70; see also Dkt 1-2
at 10 ¶3 (declaration of Petitioner).
Petitioner and his wife have three children—one DACA
recipient and two US citizens. Dkt 1-2 at 10 ¶4. Petitioner
alleges that he was recently diagnosed with asthma and
has a “documented history of severe persistent asthma
with frequent exacerbations.” Dkt 1 at ¶71; see also Dkt 1-
2 at 18 (letter of Petitioner’s doctor).
In May 2005, Petitioner was arrested for driving while
intoxicated and served eighteen months of probation. Dkt 1
at ¶72; see also Dkt 1-2 at 20–21 (criminal history). He has
no other criminal history. Dkt 1 at ¶72.
On November 7, 2025, Petitioner was detained by ICE
while on his way to work. Id at ¶73. He was charged with
inadmissibility under 8 USC §1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and placed
in standard removal proceedings under 8 USC §1229a.
Id at ¶74. He currently remains in custody at the Houston
Contract Detention Facility. Id at ¶73. Respondents are
sued in their official capacity as officers or employees of the
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 12, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-06178 Document 11 Filed 01/08/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2
United States and are collectively referred to as the
Government.
Pending is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, by
which Petitioner challenges his detention without a bond
hearing. Dkt 1. He asserts that he’s entitled to such
hearing under 8 USC §1226(a), which provides for
discretionary detention during removal proceedings. See id
at ¶¶79–88.
Pending also is a motion by the Government for
summary judgment. Dkt 8. The Government maintains
that no bond hearing is required because Petitioner is an
“applicant for admission” under 8 USC §1225(b)(2)(A),
which provides for mandatory detention during removal
proceedings. Id at 3.
This action presents the same issue of textual
interpretation recently addressed and resolved by the
undersigned in Montoya Cabanas v Bondi, 2025 WL
3171331 (SD Tex); Maceda Jimenez v Thompson, 2025 WL
3265493 (SD Tex); see also Montelongo Zuniga v Lyons,
2025 WL 3755126 (ND Tex) (Hendrix, J). The construction
given 8 USC §§1225 and 1226 in those cases thus controls
here.
The related argument by Petitioner for violation of
bond regulations is also foreclosed by this construction.
Petitioner points to language in such regulations stating,
“Despite being applicants for admission, aliens who are
present without having been admitted or paroled . . . will
be eligible for bond and bond redetermination.” Inspection
and Expedited Removal of Aliens, 62 Fed Reg 10312, 10323
(1997); see Dkt 1 at ¶90, citing same. To the extent that
this or other regulations contradict the plain text of
§1225(b)(2)(A), the statute governs because “a valid statute
always prevails over a conflicting regulation.” Duarte v
Mayorkas, 27 F4th 1044, 1060 n 13 (5th Cir 2022) (citation
omitted).
Such construction also defeats Petitioner’s APA claim.
It proceeds on assertion that “federal regulations and case
law provide the procedure for [him] . . . to seek a bond
Case 4:25-cv-06178 Document 11 Filed 01/08/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3
redetermination by an IJ.” Dkt 1 at ¶107. But that premise
fails because detention without a bond hearing is lawful
under the clear statutory authority of §1225(b)(2)(A).
It’s noted that, although the petition asserts that
Petitioner is a member of the bond-eligible class in
Maldonado Bautista v Santacruz, 5:25-cv-01873 (CD Cal),
his reply clarified that he’s not requesting that the
declaratory judgment in that action be given preclusive
effect, with its citation being only for any persuasive value.
See Dkts 1 at ¶57 & 9 at 13. The arguments raised by the
Government as to Maldonado Bautista thus needn’t be
addressed. See Dkt 8 at 7–10.
Petitioner further maintains that his detention
without a bond redetermination hearing as to whether he
is a flight risk or danger to the community itself violates
due process. Dkt 1 at ¶¶93–104. But the Supreme Court
notes, “In the exercise of its broad power over
naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes
rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.”
Demore v Kim, 538 US 510, 521 (2003), quoting Mathews v
Diaz, 426 US 67, 79–80 (1976). As such, “the Government
may constitutionally detain deportable aliens during the
limited period necessary for their removal proceedings.”
Id at 526. And Petitioner’s citation to Zadvydas v Davis is
unavailing, as there the Supreme Court explicitly
distinguished post-removal-period detention (which has no
obvious termination point, thus requiring a constitutional
constraint on unbounded detention) from “detention
pending a determination of removability.” 533 US 678, 697
(2001). Further, Petitioner hasn’t shown that his detention
is approaching the six-month presumption in Zadvydas.
The related requests for stay of removal and injunctive
relief are also denied. See Dkt 1 at ¶¶110–12, 120–22. A
stay of removal is simply beyond the scope of jurisdiction
in a matter proceeding on habeas corpus because it’s
unrelated to the fact or duration of his detention, which has
been determined to be lawful under §1225(b)(2)(A). See
Pierre v US, 525 F2d 933, 935–36 (5th Cir 1976): “Simply
stated, habeas is not available to review questions
Case 4:25-cv-06178 Document 11 Filed 01/08/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4
unrelated to the cause of detention. Its sole function is to
grant relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody and it
cannot be used properly for any other purpose.” For reasons
stated above, Petitioner also hasn’t established a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits, precluding
issuance of injunctive relief. See City of El Cenizo v Texas,
890 F3d 164, 176 (5th Cir 2018).
* * *
In so concluding, respectful acknowledgement is given
to the seven other district court judges in the Houston
Division who have also recently reached the statutory issue
presented in this case. Each has determined under similar
circumstances in favor of §1226 over §1225. For example,
see Ortega-Aguirre v Noem, 2025 WL 3684697 (SD Tex)
(Bennett, J); Hernandez Lucero v Noem, 4:25-cv-03981 (SD
Tex, Oct 23, 2025) (Ellison, J); Aslamov v Bradford, 4:25-
cv-04299 (SD Tex, Oct 30, 2025) (Hanks, J); Mejia Juarez v
Bondi, 2025 WL 3684693 (SD Tex) (Hoyt, J); Buenrostro-
Mendez v Bondi, 2025 WL 2886346 (SD Tex) (Rosenthal,
J); Reyes-Lopez v Noem, 4:25-cv-04629 (SD Tex, Nov 21,
2025) (Lake, J); Espinoza Andres v Noem, 2025 WL
3458893 (SD Tex) (Hittner, J). Another three judges in this
Division haven’t reached decision, but two have it currently
pending before them. For example, see Romero Moreno v
Tate, 4:25-cv-04903 (SD Tex) (Hanen, J); Martinez-Sarres
v Warden, 4:25-cv-05273 (SD Tex) (Werlein, J).
That said, until the Fifth Circuit gives a definitive
interpretation, it is simply up to each district court judge
to give the text his or her own best reading. And in that
regard, it’s also noted that at least two cases from the
Southern District of Texas are currently pending before the
Fifth Circuit on this issue. See Buenrostro-Mendez v Bondi,
25-20496 (cited above, per Rosenthal, J); Covarrubias v
Vergara, 25-40701 (per Kazen, J, SD Tex, Laredo Division).
Three are also pending from the Western District of
Louisiana. See Kostak v Trump, 25-30620; Ventura
Martinez v Trump, 25-30621; and Lopez-Santos v Noem,
25-30656.
Case 4:25-cv-06178 Document 11 Filed 01/08/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5
* * *
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.
Dkt 1.
The motion for summary judgment by the Government
is GRANTED. Dkt 8.
This action is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on ________________, at Houston, Texas.
__________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
January 09, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-06178 Document 11 Filed 01/08/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5