Fleites Gomez v. Noem et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
YOANGEL JAVERQUI FLEITES
GOMEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-0561
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Yoangel Javerqui Fle Gomez ("Petitioner"), a citizen of
Cuba, entered the United States on March 6, 2022. 1 On October 15,
2025, Petitioner was taken into immigration custody by Immigration
and Customs Enforcement under§ 1225(b)(2). 2 Petitioner remains in
immigration custody.
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that his detention without
a bond hearing violates the (1) Immigration and Nationality Act,
(2) due process, and (3) the Administrative Procedure Act. 3
1Plaintiff's Original Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Request for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief, ("Habeas Petition11 ), Docket Entry No. 1, p. 4 !
16. 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 5 <JI 1 7.
at 11-16.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 13, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00561 Document 15 Filed 04/13/26 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. 11). 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 Fifth Circuit explained in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), § 1225(b} (2) applies to aliens who
were already present in the United States at the time of their
arrest. Is;L_ at 498, 508. The Fifth Circuit's analysis and holding
applies in this case.
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.'" Id. at *2 (quoting Demore v.
Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 1721-22 (2003)). Moreover, as explained in
Jacobo-Ventura, Civil 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 § 1225(b)(2)
mandates detention of applicants for admission until certain
4 Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 11, pp. 1-2.
5 Petitioner's Reply to Respondents' Response to Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus, Docket Entry No. 14.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-00561 Document 15 Filed 04/13/26 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. 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' Response to the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment
(Docket Entry No. 11) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Original Verified
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and
Request for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Docket Entry No. 1)
is DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 13th day of April, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-00561 Document 15 Filed 04/13/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3