Chen v. Perez et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LAREDO DIVISION
QUINGHUA CHEN §
§
§
§
§
VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:26-CV-419
ORLANDO PEREZ et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Quinghua Chen’s (“Petitioner”) Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Dkt. No. 1), and Respondents’ Motion for Summary
Judgment, (Dkt. No. 7). On May 18, 2026, United States District Judge Marina
Garcia Marmolejo referred these matters to the Undersigned for a hearing and Report
and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 10). For the reasons below, the Undersigned
RECOMMENDS Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Dkt. No. 1), and
Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 7), be DENIED as moot.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner filed her Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on March 17, 2026,
asking this Court to order her immediate release. (Dkt. No. 1 at 10). Respondents
filed a Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary
Judgment on March 30, 2026. (Dkt. No. 7). To which, Plaintiff filed a timely reply,
which she amended. (Dkt. Nos. 8, 9). Pursuant to the District Judge’s referral order,
(Dkt. No. 10), an evidentiary hearing was held before the Undersigned on June 2,
2026. (Min. Entry June 2, 2026).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 06, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 5:26-cv-00419 Document 19 Filed 07/06/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

2
Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, entered the United States without
inspection on June 27, 1995. (Dkt. Nos. 1 at 4; 7 at 2). On the same date, Petitioner
was issued a Form I-221 Order to Show Cause and a Notice of Hearing, placed into
deportation proceedings, and released on bond. (Dkt. Nos. 1 at 4; 7 at 2; 7-1 at 1). On
August 15, 1996, Petitioner’s application for asylum and withholding of removal was
denied, but the immigration judge granted voluntary departure until September 15,
1996, with an alternate of order of deportation to China. (Dkt. No. 7-1 at 1). Petitioner
appealed the order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and the appeal was
dismissed on July 31, 1997. (Dkt. Nos. 7 at 2; 7-1 at 2). After failing to comply with
the voluntary departure order, the order converted into a final order of deportation.
(Id.).
On March 5, 2002, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement
Removal Operations (“ERO”) emailed Petitioner a Warning to Alien Ordered
Removed or Deported Form I-294 and requested that Petitioner report on April 29,
2002, with a valid passport to depart to China. (Id.). Petitioner failed to appear. (Id.).
On September 22, 2011, Petitioner was released from custody on an Order of
Supervision (“OSUP”) and she continued to report to ERO until March 26, 2014. (Dkt.
No. 7-1 at 2). Throughout that period, ERO asked Petitioner to obtain a valid
passport. (Id.). Petitioner was later detained on April 29, 2014, after continuous
noncompliance with her OSUP in obtaining a passport. (Dkt. No. 7 at 2–3; 7-1 at 2).
Petitioner was again released from custody on April 30, 2014. (Dkt. Nos. 7 at 3; 7-1
Case 5:26-cv-00419 Document 19 Filed 07/06/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

3
at 2). Petitioner continued to report to ERO until she failed to appear at her scheduled
ERO appointment on October 11, 2024. (Id.).
On February 13, 2025, Petitioner was apprehended again by ICE/ERO after
failing to obtain a passport. (Id.). Between March 29, 2025, and June 2, 2025, ERO
requested Petitioner’s travel documents from the Embassy of China on six different
occasions. (Dkt. Nos. 7 at 3; 7-1 at 3). On October 31, 2025, and December 12, 2025,
ERO was notified that China was unable to verify Petitioner’s identity. (Id.). China
verified Petitioner’s nationality on June 1, 2026. (Dkt. No. 12-1 at 4).
On June 10, 2026, Respondents advised that ICE scheduled Petitioner for
removal to China on June 23, 2026. (Dkt. No. 13). In Petitioner’s response to the
advisory, she argues that until Respondents “establish through competent evidence
that removal is significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, Petitioner’s
challenge to her continued detention remains live and should be adjudicated on the
full evidentiary record.” (Dkt. No. 14 at 4). On June 26, 2026, Respondents advised
that Petitioner was in fact removed from the United States on June 23, 2026, and
provided documentation in support of that assertion. (Dkt. Nos. 18; 18-1).
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
The primary federal habeas corpus statute confers jurisdiction upon federal
courts to hear claims that a person is being held in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56 provides that “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
Case 5:26-cv-00419 Document 19 Filed 07/06/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

4
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). To defeat summary
judgment, “the nonmovant must set forth specific facts showing the existence of a
genuine issue for trial.” Smith v. Olsen, 562 F. App’x. 233, 234 (5th Cir. 2014). In
reviewing the evidence, a court is “obliged to construe all the evidence and reasonable
inferences deduced therefrom in a light most favorable to . . . the nonmoving party.”
Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1260 (5th Cir. 1991). “As a general
principle, Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, relating to summary
judgment, applies with equal force in the context of habeas corpus cases.” Clark v.
Johnson, 202 F.3d 760, 764 (5th Cir. 2000).
In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689 (2001), the Supreme Court held 8
U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) “limits an alien’s post-removal period detention to a period
reasonably necessary to bring about the alien’s removal from the United States.”
Detention during a six-month removal period is presumptively reasonable, and an
alien may be held in confinement beyond the six-month period “until it has been
determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably
foreseeable future.” Id. at 701.
If an alien meets their burden of demonstrating that there is “good reason to
believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable
future, then the Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that
showing.” Id. The parameters of a “reasonably foreseeable future” shrink as the
period of post-removal confinement grows. Id.
When removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable, post-removal detention is
Case 5:26-cv-00419 Document 19 Filed 07/06/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

5
no longer reasonable, unless a special circumstance exists involving highly contagious
diseases, terrorism, violent mental disorders, or other special dangers to the public.
Id. at 699; 8 C.F.R. § 241.14. If removal is reasonably foreseeable, the court should
consider “the risk of the alien’s committing further crimes as a factor potentially
justifying confinement within that reasonable removal period.” Id. at 700.
III. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner filed her Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus asking this Court to
order her immediate release. Given that Respondents have presented evidence that
Petitioner has already been removed to China and is no longer in custody within the
United States, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS to the District Judge that
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Dkt. No. 1), and Respondents’
Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 7), be DENIED as moot.
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The Clerk shall file this Report and Recommendation and transmit a copy to
each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy
of the Report and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the
United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), General Order No. 2002-13, United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendation in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except
Case 5:26-cv-00419 Document 19 Filed 07/06/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

6
upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed
factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. Douglass v.
United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
SIGNED on the 6th day of July, 2026.
Christopher dos Santos
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:26-cv-00419 Document 19 Filed 07/06/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6