Acosta v. Frink, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
OSCAR LOPEZ ACOSTA, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
vs.
MARTIN L FRINK, et al.,
R es pondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00063
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Oscar Lopez Acosta, is a detainee in the custody of United States
Department 	of Homeland 	Security, Immigration 	and 	Customs 	Enforcement ("ICE")
officials. Through counsel, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 , challenging his continued detention. Doc. No. 1. 	Respondents have filed
a motion for summary judgment. Doc. No. 10. Petitioner has not responded to the motion,
and his time to do so has passed.
The pleadings reflect that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States
without inspection around 2002 or 2003 and has since been placed in removal proceedings.
Doc. No. 1 at 9. Petitioner do es not plead facts to show that he has been lawfully admitted
into the United States.
Because Petitioner entered the United States without inspection and has not been
admitted legally, he is an applicant for admission subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). 	See
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). 	His arguments
1/2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 25, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00063 Document 17 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

regarding bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations are
foreclosed by Buenrostro-Mendez. 	His detention is mandated by statute under section
1225(b)(2).
In addition, Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process claims are precluded, at this
juncture, by Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 	510, 531 	(2003), because "[ d]etention during
removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of that process." Id. ( citations
omitted); see also Jennings v. Rodriquez, 583 U.S. 281 , 297 (2018) (explaining that
"§§1225(b)(l) and 1225(b)(2) thus mandate detention of applicants for admission until
certain proceedings have concluded").
2 / 2
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows :
1. 	Respondents' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED.
2. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED.
3. All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
/ ~
SIGNED on this 	"L--:i 	day of June 2026.
~ 	lbANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00063 Document 17 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2