Rugama Moncada v. Lyons et al

SANDRA VIOLETA
MONCADA,
v.
TODD LYONS, et
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
RUGAMA §
§
§
Petitioner, §
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO.
§
al., §
§
Respondents. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
H-26-3670
Sandra Violeta Rugama Moncada ("Petitioner"), a citizen of
Nicaragua, entered the United States without admission or parole on
December 13, 2022.1 On August 12, 2024, Pet ioner was served with
a Notice to Appear, charging her with inadmissibility pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a) (6) (A) (i) (I), "as an alien present in the United
States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the
Untied States at any time or place other than as designated by the
Attorney General."2 On March 5, 2026, Petitioner was taken into
1Pet ion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Habeas Petition"),
Docket Entry No. 1, p. 4 113; Response to the Pet ion for Writ of
Habeas Corpus and Motion to Summary Judgment ("Respondents' MSJ"),
Docket Entry No. 7, p. 2. 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.
2Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 7, p. 2.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 23, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-03670 Document 10 Filed 06/23/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody from the Bell County
Jail.3 Petitioner remains in immigration custody. 4
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that her detention without
a bond hearing violates due process.5 Also pending before the
court is Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No.
7). Respondents argue that Petitioner is legally detained under§
1225(b)(2) because she is an applicant for admission.6 Petitioner
has filed a reply.7
Because "presence without admission deems [Petitioner] to be
[an] 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 (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.'" .lg_._ at *2 (quoting Demore v.
Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 1721-22 (2003)). Moreover, as explained in
3 Id.
4 Id.
5Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 9 ':[':Jr 21-35.
6Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 7, pp. 1-2.
7 aintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment, Docket Entry No. 9.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-03670 Document 10 Filed 06/23/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

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 is not entitled to
a bond hearing as a matter of procedural due process.
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 7) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's
Petition for a 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 23rd of June, 2026.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-03670 Document 10 Filed 06/23/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3