Vitela-Hernandez v. Noem et al

ANGEL ALFREDO
HERNANDEZ,
v.
KRISTI NOEM,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
VITELA- §
§
§
Petitioner, §
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO.
§
et al., §
§
Respondents. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
H-26-0139
Angel Alfredo Vitela-Hernandez ("Petitioner"), a citizen of
Mexico, entered the United States in 1995.1 In September of 2025,
Petitioner was taken into immigration custody by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement under § 1225(b)(2).2
immigration custody.
Petitioner remains in
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that his detention without
a bond hearing violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and due
process, and is capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.3
1 Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief for an Order to Show Cause,
("Habeas Petition"), Docket Entry No. 1, p. 18 1 49. 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.
2Id. at 19 1 50.
3Id. at 26-29; Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Opposition
to Habeas Corpus Relief, Docket Entry No. 15, pp. 6-8.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00139 Document 16 Filed 04/16/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

Also pending before the court is Respondents' Response to the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment
("Respondents' MSJ") (Docket Entry No. 12). Respondents argue that
Petitioner can legally be detained under § 1225 (b) (2) because he is
an applicant for admission.4 Petitioner has filed a reply.5
As the fth Circuit explained in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), § 1225 (b) (2) applies to aliens who
were ready present in the United States at the time their
arrest. � at 498, 508. The
applies in this case.
fth Circuit's analysis and holding
Petitioner's detention without a bond hearing does not violate
substantive or procedural due process. As explained in 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.'" � at *2 (quoting Demore y,
Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 1721-22 (2003)). Moreover, as explained in
Jacobo-Ventura, c 1 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 § 25 (b) (2)
mandates detention of applicants for admission until certain
4 Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 12, p. 1.
5 Petitioner's Reply to Respondents' Response to Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus, Docket Entry No. 15.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-00139 Document 16 Filed 04/16/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

proceedings have concluded, Petitioner is not entitled to a bond
hearing as a matter of procedural due process.
Finally, as explained in Jiminez v. Bradford, Civil Action No.
H-25-5853 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2026), because Petitioner is able to
challenge his detention by filing a writ of habeas corpus, he is
not entitled to relief under the APA. See 5 U.S.C. § 704 ("Agency
action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which
there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to
judicial review.") (emphasis added).
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 12) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's
Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief for an Order to Show Cause
(Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 16th day of April, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-00139 Document 16 Filed 04/16/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3