Parras Cumpean v. Warden of Joe Corley Processing Center et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JUAN A. PARRAS CUMPEAN, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-4798
RAYMOND THOMPSON, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Juan A. Parras Cumpean ("Petitioner"), who is a citizen of
Mexico, entered the United States without inspection on an unknown
date . 1 On June 2, 2026, Pet ioner was ined by police
Victoria, Texas, and was transferred to Immigration and Customs
Enforcement custody.2 On June 3, 2026, Petitioner was served with
a Not to Appear, charging him with removability under 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."3 Petitioner remains in immigration custody. 4
1 Pet ion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Habeas Petition"),
Exhibit 1 to Civil Cover Sheet, Docket Entry No. 1-1, p. 7 i 32;
Motion Summary Judgment and Response to Habeas Petition
("Respondents' MSJ"), Docket Entry No. 6, p. 2. For purposes of
identi ion, all page numbers refer to the pagination imprinted
at the top of the page by the court's Electronic Case Filing
system.
2Habeas Petition, Exhibit 1 to Civil Cover Sheet, Docket Entry
No. 1-1, p. 9 i 44.
3Notice to Appear, Exhibit 1 to Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry
(continued .. · .)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 27, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-04798 Document 8 Filed 07/27/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Pet ioner argues that his detention without
a bond hearing violates due process.5 Also pending before the
court is Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No.
6). Respondents argue that Petitioner is legally detained under§
1225(b)(2) because he
has filed a reply.7
an applicant for admission.6 Petitioner
Because �presence without admission deems [Petitioner] to be
[an] applicant [] for admission, 11 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.' 11 .I.d..... at *2
(quoting Demore y. Kim, 123 s. ct. 1708, 1721-22 (2003)).
Moreover, as explained in Jacobo-Ventura v. Dickey, Civil Action
3 ( ••• continued)
No. 6-1, pp. 1, 4.
4 Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 6, p. 2.
5 Habeas Petition, Exhibit 1 to Civil Cover Sheet, Docket Entry
No. , pp. 16-17 <JI<Jl 76-86.
6 Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 6, pp. 1-2.
7 Peti tioner's Reply to Respondents' Answer and Motion for
Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 7.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-04798 Document 8 Filed 07/27/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

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. 6) 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 27th day of July, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-04798 Document 8 Filed 07/27/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3