Leal-Alonzo v. FRINK et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
KATLYN ROSSELY LEAL-ALONZO,
Petitioner,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-0941
MARTIN FRINK, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Katlyn Rossely Leal-Alonzo ("Petitioner"), a citizen of
Venezuela, entered the United States on July 6, 2021.1 On December
12, 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 her detention without
a bond hearing violates the (1) Immigration and Nationality Act,
(2) due process, and (3) the Fourth Amendment.3
Also pending before the court is Respondents' Response and
Motion for Summary Judgment ("Respondents' MSJ"} (Docket Entry No.
7). Respondents argue that Petitioner can legally be detained
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 ("Habeas Petition"}, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 2 i'f[ 9-10. 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 3 'I[ 12.
3Id. at 4-6.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 10, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00941 Document 9 Filed 04/10/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

under § 1225(b)(2) because she 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. at 498, 508. The Fifth Circuit's analysis and holding
applies in this case.
Pet ioner's detention without a bond hearing does not violate
substant or procedural due process. As explained in
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.'" lg_._ 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
proceedings have concluded, Petitioner is not entitled to a bond
hearing as a matter of procedural due process.
Finally, as explained in Portillo v. Tate, 1 Action No. H-
26-0158 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2026), Petitioner's Fourth Amendment
4 Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 7, pp. 1-2.
5 Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Response and Motion for
Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 8.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-00941 Document 9 Filed 04/10/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

claim is foreclosed because it relies on the assertion that the
Government lacks the authority to detain her under § 1225. 6
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Response and
Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 7) is GRANTED, and
Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED.
The court wi enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 10th day of April, 2026.
/sIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 4-5 i� 25 8.
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-00941 Document 9 Filed 04/10/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3