Rosales Colindres v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
NOHEL JOSE ROSALES COLINDRES , 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-01467
§
KRISTI NOEM, et al., 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Nohel Jose Rosales Colindres, is a detainee in the custody of United
States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE")
officials. Through counsel, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S .C. § 2241, challenging his detention. Doc. No. 1.
The Court may dismiss a habeas petition on the pleadings "[i]f it plainly appears
from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule
4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (authorizing
preliminary review and summary dismissal of habeas petitions on the pleadings). 1
The petition and attached exhibits reflect that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered
the United States without lawful status in 2006 and has since been placed in removal
1 A district court may apply an y of the rules governing habeas petitions filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 to those filed under 28 U.S .C. § 2241. See Rule 1(b ), Rul es Governing § 2254 Cases in the
United States District Court s.
1 / 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 03, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-01467 Document 5 Filed 04/03/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

proceedings. Doc. No. 4 at 2, 33. Petitioner does not plead facts to show that he has been
lawfully admitted into the United States, and he does not so contend.
Because Petitioner entered without inspection and has not obtained lawful status, he
is an applicant for admission subject to 8 U.S.C . § 1225(b)(2). See Buenrostro-Mendez v.
Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). His arguments regarding bond hearings
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations are foreclosed by Buenrostro-
Me ndez. 	His detention is mandated by statute under section 1225(b)(2). 	Accordingly,
Petitioner' s Fifth Amendment due process claims are precluded, at this juncture, by
Demore 	v. 	Kim , 	538 	U.S . 	510, 	531 	(2003), 	because 	"[d]etention 	during 	removal
proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of that process." Id. ( citations omitted);
see also Jennings v. Rodriquez, 583 U.S . 281 , 297 (2018) (explaining that "§§1225(b)(l)
and 	l 225(b )(2) 	thus 	mandate 	detention 	of 	applicants 	for 	admission 	until 	certain
proceedings have concluded").
Likewise, his 	arguments regarding the class action in Maldonado Bautista v.
Santacruz, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2025 WL 3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), fail because
they are based on an interpretation of sections 	1225 and 	1226 that was rejected in
Buenrostro-Mendez. See Maldonado 	Bautista, 2025 	WL 	3713987, at 	*8-12, appeal
pending sub nom. Bautista, et al. v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al. ,
No. 26-1044 (9th Cir. Mar. 31 , 2026) (granting a stay of the declaratory judgment insofar
as it extends beyond the Central District of California).
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-01467 Document 5 Filed 04/03/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

Finally, his claims under the Administrative Procedure Act ("AP A") fail because an
"adequate remedy in a court" is available via habeas corpus. 	5 U.S.C. § 704; accord
Jimenez v. Noem, Civ. A. No. H-25-5853, at Doc. No. 10 at 5 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 10 , 2026)
(holding that the petitioner was not entitled to relief under the AP A where he was able to
challenge his detention through habeas corpus).
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows :
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
( cL
SIGNED this 	':) 	day of April 2026.
G<hJ~ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRJCT JUDGE
3 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-01467 Document 5 Filed 04/03/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3