Rodriguez Hernandez v. Mullin et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ENOHELIA RODRIGUEZ HERNANDEZ ,§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO . 4:26-CV-03155
§
MARK.WAYNE MULLIN, eta !., 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Enohelia Rodriguez Hernandez, 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 her 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 inspection and has since been placed in removal proceedings.
1 A district court may apply any of the rules governing habeas petitions filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 to those filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Rule l(b), Rules Governing§ 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts.
1 / 4
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 21, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-03155 Document 4 Filed 04/21/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

Doc. No. 1 at 13. 	Petitioner does not allege or show that she has been lawfully admitted
into the United States. Because Petitioner entered without inspection and has not obtained
lawful status, she is an applicant for admission subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(6)(2). 	See
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). 	Her arguments
regarding bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations are
foreclosed by Buenrostro-Mendez .
In addition, 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(6)(1) and 1225(6)(2) thus mandate detention of applicants for admission until
certain proceedings have concluded").
Likewise, her Fifth Amendment equal protection claim is unavailing because she
fails to identify a similarly situated class that is treated more favorably than noncitizens
who entered the country without inspection, and she does not state facts to show that she
falls outside of the statutory definition of an applicant for admission under 8 U.S .C. §
1225(b) as interpreted by the Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro-Mendez. See Reno v. Flores, 507
U.S. 292, 306 (1993) (rejecting equal protection claims regarding continued detention
brought by alien juveniles who did not have close relatives to serve as guardians because
they were distinct from alien juveniles with close relatives available to serve as guardians
and different from American juveniles in delinquency proceedings who were citizens).
2 / 4
Case 4:26-cv-03155 Document 4 Filed 04/21/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

In addition, her claims under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") 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); see also Trump v. JG .G ., 604 U.S.
670, 674 (2025) (Kavanaugh, J. , concurring) (agreeing with the majority "that habeas
corpus, not the APA, is the proper vehicle" where habeas corpus is an available remedy).
Finally, her claims regarding the procedures used for her arrest under the Accardi
doctrine 2 fai l because the regulation she invokes, 8 C.F .R. § 287 .8, does not provide a cause
of action in federal court because § 287.12, outlining the scope of part 287, provides, in
relevant part: "These regulations do not, are not intended to, shall not be construed to, and
may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law
by any party in any matter, civil or criminal." 	8 C.F.R. § 287 .1 2. Therefore, she has no
substantive claim in this habeas proceeding under Accardi regarding the procedures used
for her arrest.
2 See United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954) (asserting the principle
that agencies are bound to abide by their own regulations or internal procedures).
3/4
Case 4:26-cv-03155 Document 4 Filed 04/21/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4 / 4
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follow s:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
',.J..-
SIGNED this 	?.. t 	day of April 2026.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-03155 Document 4 Filed 04/21/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4