Hechavarria-Vasquez v. Doe et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
YOCEL ADONIS HECHAVARRIA
VASQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-1266
RANDY TATE, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Yocel Adonis Hechavarria-Vasquez ("Petitioner"), a citizen of
Cuba, entered the United States without inspection on September 11,
2019, and was removed on January 31, 2020.1 On December 5, 2023,
Petitioner entered the United States with inspection and was
paroled into the country until April 18, 2025. 2 On January 7,
2026, Petitioner was issued a Notice to Appear, charging him with
rernoveability pursuant to 8 u.s.c. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), "as an alien
present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or
who arrived in the United States at any time or place other than as
designated by the Attorney General. "3 On February 17, 2026,
Petitioner was taken into immigration custody by Immigration and
1Federal Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment and Response
to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Respondents' MSJ"),
Docket Entry No. 6, p. 2. 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.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 21, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-01266 Document 8 Filed 05/21/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

Customs Enforcement under § 1225(b) (2). 4
immigration custody.
Petitioner remains in
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus ("Habeas Petition") (Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner
argues that his detention without a bond hearing violates due
process and is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative
Procedure Act ("APA") . 5 Petitioner also argues that his
warrantless arrest violates the Accardi doctrine. 6
Also pending before the court
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 6).
Respondents' Motion for
Respondents argue that
Petitioner can legally be detained under§ 1225(b) (2) because he is
an applicant for admission.' Petitioner has filed a reply. 8
Petitioner argues that because he was previously released on
his own recognizance, his detention without a bond hearing violates
procedural due process. 9 However, as explained in Jacobo-Ventura
v. Dickey, 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
5Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 10.
7Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 6, pp. 1-2.
8 Petitioner's Response to Respondents' Motion for Summary
Judgment and Reply to Response to Petition, Docket Entry No. 7.
9Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 6-8.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-01266 Document 8 Filed 05/21/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

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. Moreover, Petitioner's detention
without a bond hearing does not violate substantive due process.10
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.'"
(quoting Demore v. Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 1721-22 (2003)).
at *2
Finally, Petitioner cannot seek habeas rel under the
Accardi doctrine or the APA. Although Petitioner alleges he was
arrested without a warrant in violation of 8 CFR §
287.B(c) (2) (ii), 11 "an illegal arrest has no bearing on the legality
of detention following that arrest." Carnesolta v. Tate, Civil
Action Number 4:26-cv-01006, 2026 WL 948727, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Apr.
8, 2026). Moreover, as explained in Jiminez v. Bradford, Civil
Action No. H-25-5853 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2026), because Petitioner
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 judi al review.") (emphasis added).
lOid.
11 Id. at 8-10.
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-01266 Document 8 Filed 05/21/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 6) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 21st day of May, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
Case 4:26-cv-01266 Document 8 Filed 05/21/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4