Rodriguez Cardona v. Blanche et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MARCO RODRIGUEZ CARDONA,
Petitioner,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-2770
TODD BLANCHE, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Marco Rodriguez Cardona ("Petitioner") , a citizen of Honduras,
entered the country without inspection in 2002.1 On November 29,
2023, Petitioner was detained by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement ("ICE") and served with a Notice to Appear charging
with inadmissibility 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."2 Petitioner was
released from custody on bond on January 29, 2024.3 On March 19,
2026, Petitioner was trans to ICE custody from the Harris
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Habeas Petition"),
Docket Entry No. 1, p. 5 i 18. 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.
2Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion
for Summary Judgment {"Respondents' MSJ"), Docket Entry No. 5, p.
2; Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 5 i 21.
3Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 5 i 21.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 05, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02770 Document 7 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

County Jail and his immigration bond was cancelled.4 He 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 due process and separation of powers
principles.5
Also pending before the court is Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 5). Respondents argue that
Petitioner can legally be detained under§ 1225(b)(2) because he
an applicant for admission.6 Petitioner has filed a reply.7
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.'" � at *2 (quoting Demore v.
Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 1721-22 (2003)). Moreover, 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 §
4.I.Q...... at 5-6 <JI 23; Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, p. 2.
5Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp.
6Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, p. 1.
11 <JI<J[ 40-56.
7 Petitioner's Reply Brief & Opposition to Respondents' Motion
for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 6.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-02770 Document 7 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

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.
Petitioner's "claims related to separation of powers 1
because habeas corpus is available as a judicial remedy to
challenge immigration detention." Maldonado Lozano v. Blanche,
Civil Action No. 4:26-CV-02983, 2026 WL 1138372, at *1 (S.D. Tex.
Apr. 21, 2026) (citing Jimenez y. Noem, Civil Action No. H-25-5853
(S.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2026)).
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 5) 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 5th day of June, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-02770 Document 7 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3