Oviedo Membreno v. Frink et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ANGELL Y ALEJANDRA OVIEDO
MEMBRENO,
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS.
MARTIN FRINK, et al.,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-03783
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Angelly Alejandra Oviedo Membreno, 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 Honduran national who
entered the United States without inspection and without lawful status as an infant in 2006
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 / 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 15, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-03783 Document 6 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

and has been charged with being a noncitizen "present in the United States without having
been admitted or paroled." Doc. No. 1 at 8; Doc. No. 1-3 at 1. 	Petitioner does not plead
facts to show that she has been lawfully admitted into the United States. Because Petitioner
entered without possessing valid entry documents and has not obtained lawful status, she
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). Therefore, to the extent she argues that
she should receive a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. 	§ 1226(a) and its implementing
regulations, that claim is foreclosed by Buenrostro-Mendez . Her detention is mandated by
statute under section 1225(b )(2).
In addition, Petitioner' s Fifth Amendment due process claims also fail. Petitioner 's
procedural due process claim is unavailing because the statute mandates detention. 	Se e
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" ). 	Hence, a bond hearing to determine whether she is a danger to the
community or a flight risk is futile where it would have no bearing on her mandatory
detention.
Likewise, Petitioner' s substantive due process claim is 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, 583 	U.S. 	at 297; Carlson v. 	Landon, 342 U.S. 	524, 538 (1952)
("Detention is necessary a part of th[e] deportation procedure."); Wong Wing v. United
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-03783 Document 6 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

States , 163 U.S . 228, 235 (1896) ("Proceedings to exclude or expel would be vain if those
accused could not be held in custody pending the inquiry into their true character, and whi le
arrangements were being made for their deportation."). Petitioner does not plead facts that
show that she has been detained indefinitely or otherwise show that her detention presently
violates the Constitution.
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows :
1. 	This petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
I 'ik-
SIGNED this ____ day ofMay 2026.
kLl ~AN DREWS. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-03783 Document 6 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3