Tinoco v. Noem et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
EVER ORTEGA TINOCO, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-1312
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER
On February 18, 2026, Ever Ortega Tinoco ("Petitioner") filed
a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 On
February 20, 2026, the court entered an order (Docket E�try No. 4)
stating:
Unless Petitioner can distinguish her case from the
decisions of this court cited above within 10 days from
the entry of this order, the court will deny Petitioner's
Petition for Writ Habeas Corpus (Docket Entry No. 1) and
will dismiss this action.
Petitioner filed a response arguing that she is not bound by
the Fifth Circuit's decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166
F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), because she has never conceded that she
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Docket Entry No. 1.
-1-
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 20, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-01312 Document 6 Filed 03/20/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

is an applicant for admission within the meaning of§ 1'225(a) (1).2
Petitioner also argues that despite the Fifth Circuit's decision in
Buenrostro-Mendez, the court should enforce the Central District of
California's holding ln Bautista v. Santacruz, Case No. 5:25-CV-
01873-SSS-BFM, 2026 WL 468284 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026), because it
was decided after Buenrostro-Mendez.3
However, the Fifth Circuit has held that§ 1225(b)(2) applies
to aliens who were already present in the United States at the time
their arrest. Buenrostro-Mendez, 166 F.4th at 498, 508. The
Fifth Circuit's analysis and holding applies in this case.
Moreover, the court declines to enforce the Central District of
California's holding in Bautista. The fact that the Central
District of California issued another opinion after the Fifth
Circuit decided Buenrostro-Mendez does not change the fact that
this court is bound by its holding, which the court finds very
persuasive.
Because Petitioner has failed to distinguish her case from the
decisions of this court, Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED, and a final judgment will be
entered dismissing the action with prejudice.
The clerk will provide a copy of this order and the Final
2Response to Order to Distinguish, Docket Entry No. 5, pp.
2-3.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-01312 Document 6 Filed 03/20/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

Judgment to counsel for the Petitioner and to the United States
Attorney.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 20th day of March, 2026.
SIM LA.KE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-01312 Document 6 Filed 03/20/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3