Ferrer Valle v. Tate et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:26-cv-03665 Document9 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Pagelof4

United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT June 24, 2026

FOR THE SCUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

TRAEL FERRER VALLE,
Petitioner,
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-3665

Ve

RANDALL TATE, et al.,

WA tA a WA Wa A a WA

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

irael Ferrer Valle (“Petitioner”}, a citizen of Cuba, entered
the United States on December 7, 2023, through the CBP One process
and was paroled into the country through December 7, 2025.1 On
December 7, 2023, Petitioner was served with a Notice to Appear,
classifying him as an arriving alien and charging him with
removability pursuant to § 212(a) (7) {A) (i) (I) of the Immigration

ww

and Nationality Act, as an immigrant who, at the time of
application for admission, is not in possession of a valid
unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing card, or
other valid entry document required by the Act, and a valid

unexpired passport, or other suitable travel document, or document

of identity and nationality as required under the regulations

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 (“Habeas Petition”), Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3 9 11. 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.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
GPO

Case 4:26-cv-03665 Document9 _ Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

issued by the Attorney General.”

On February 28, 2025, Petitioner
filed a Form 1-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or
Adjust Status under the Cuban Adjustment Act.* The application
remains pending.’ On April 6, 2026, Petitioner was transferred to
immigration and Customs Enforcement custody from local 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.*® Petitioner also argues that
his warrantless arrest violates the Accardi doctrine.’

Also pending before the court is Respondents’ Motion for
Summary Judgment and Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (“Respondents’ MSJ%}) (Docket Entry No. 5). Respondents
argue that Petitioner is legally detained under § 1225(b) (2)
because he is an applicant for admission and that the legality of

his arrest cannot be used to challenge the legality of his

detention.® Petitioner has filed a reply.?

*Notice to Appear, Exhibit i to Advisory to the Court, Docket
Entry No. 8-1, pp. 1, 4.

‘Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3 @ 11.
‘Id.

Id. at 4 9 12.

*Td. at 14-15 99 41-47.

"Id. at 15-16 GY 48-54.

*"Respondents’ MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, pp. 1-2, 10.

°Petitioner’s Reply in Support of His Petition for Writ of
(continued...}

-?-

Case 4:26-cv-03665 Document9_ Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 3of4

Because “presence without admission deems [Petitioner] to be
tan] applicant[] for admission,” Petitioner is subject to mandatory

detention under § 1225 (b) (2). Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166

F.4th 494, 498, 502 {5th Cir. 2026).%° This mandatory
detention 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 ($.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.’” Id. 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 § 1225(b) (2) mandates detention of applicants

for admission until certain proceedings have concluded, Petitioner

°(...continued)
Habeas Corpus and in Opposition to Respondents’ Motion for Summary
Judgment, Docket Entry No. 6.

“On June 23, 2026, the court entered a memorandum opinion and
order finding that because there was no evidence that Petitioner
had been “served with a Notice to Appear denying him admission into
the United States,” Respondents had not shown that Petitioner is
subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b) (2). Memorandum
Opinion and Order, Docket Entry No. 7, pp. 2-3. On June 23, 2026,
Respondents submitted evidence that Petitioner had been served with
a Notice to Appear on December 7, 2023. Advisory to the Court,
Docket Entry No. 8, p. 1. Because the Notice to Appear classifies
Petitioner as an arriving alien and charges him removability, it is
clear that Petitioner has not been admitted to the United States.
Notice to Appear, Exhibit 1 to Advisory to the Court, Docket Entry
No. 8-1, pp. 1, 4.

-3-

Case 4:26-cv-03665 Document9 _ Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 4of4

is not entitled to a bond hearing as a matter of procedural due
process.

Moreover, Petitioner cannot seek habeas relief under the
Accardi doctrine. Aithough Petitioner alleges he was arrested
without a warrant in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c) (2) (i), “an
iilegal 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).
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 24th day of June, 2026,

<A

x SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE