Davalos v. McGregor et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Horacio Rafael Lopez Davalos,
Petitioner,
v.
Christopher D McGregor, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-26-00316-PHX-MTL (JFM)
ORDER
I.
Petitioner, a Mexican citizen, has been present in the United States since December
2001. (Doc. 1 ¶ 31.) He was placed in removal proceedings, which were administratively
closed in January 2016. (Id. ¶ 32.) On October 28, 2025, Petitioner was detained by the
Department of Homeland Security. (Id. ¶ 8.) Petitioner filed this habeas corpus action
challenging his immigration detention and seeking a bond determination hearing under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Doc. 1.) Respondents argue that Petitioner is subject to mandatory
detention without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). (Doc. 6 at 2.)
II.
For the reasons explained in Chavez v. Noem, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2026 WL 381618,
at *1-2 (D. Ariz. Feb. 9, 2026), the Court finds that a person who entered the United States
illegally and is clearly and beyond a doubt not entitled to admission, is subject to mandatory
detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). See also Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, — F.4th —, 2026
WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026).
Case 2:26-cv-00316-MTL--JFM Document 13 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Based on this record, the Court finds that Petitioner is present without having been
admitted and is therefore treated as an applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1).
The Court further finds that an immigration officer has not determined Petitioner clearly
and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, and therefore mandatory detention under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies. Plaintiff’s statutory and regulatory claims must be denied.
As far as Petitioner alleges that his detention violates his due process rights, he is
mistaken. The government began removal proceedings against Petitioner under procedures
set forth in the INA. An alien unlawfully present in the United States “has only those rights
regarding admission that Congress has provided by statute.” Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v.
Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 140 (2020); see also Espinoza Lopez v. Noem, 26 Civ. 00345
(JHR), 2026 WL 266597, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2026).
In this case, Petitioner received due process in two respects. First, he was afforded
the procedural protection of the INA. Second, he was subject to the determination
procedures established by Congress in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration
Responsibility Act where an immigration officer determined that he was not entitled to a
bond hearing. These procedures represent the due process as provided by Congress in
statute. Petitioner is entitled to nothing further under the Constitution.
The Court also rejects Petitioner’s argument that relief should be granted here
because he is a member of the Bautista class. See Calderon Lopez v. Lyons, — F. Supp.
3d —, 2025 WL 3683918, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2025). Further, on March 6, 2026,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily stayed the Bautista declaratory judgment,
pending a ruling on the Government’s emergency motion for a stay pending appeal. See
Bautista v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 26-1044 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026). If Petitioner
believes he is entitled to further relief under the judgment in Bautista, he must seek relief
in the Central District of California.
Finally, the Court rejects Petitioner’s claims his detention violates the
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), as being arbitrary and
capricious. Petitioner cannot assert an APA claim. Under 5 U.S.C. § 704 (emphasis added),
Case 2:26-cv-00316-MTL--JFM Document 13 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“[a]gency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no
other adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial review.” By bringing a habeas
petition, Petitioner has an adequate remedy in court, so he cannot also bring an APA claim.
See Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. 670, 674 (2025) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (stating that
“habeas corpus, not the APA,” was the “proper vehicle” for claims involving alien transfers
because § 704 provides that “claims under the APA are not available when there is another
adequate remedy in a court” (quotation marks omitted)); see also id. at 672 (majority
opinion) (per curiam) (describing the claims as “within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas
corpus and thus must be brought in habeas”).
Even on the merits, however, Petitioner’s claim fails. Because Petitioner was
classified and treated as the INA requires, the government has not acted arbitrarily or
capriciously. See F.C.C. v. NextWave Personal Commc’ns Inc., 537 U.S. 293, 300 (2003)
(“The Administrative Procedure Act requires federal courts to set aside federal agency
action that is ‘not in accordance with law . . . .’” (emphasis added) (quoting 5 U.S.C.
§ 706(2)(A))).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Doc. 1) is DENIED. This action is dismissed, all pending motions are denied as moot,
and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 11th day of March, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-00316-MTL--JFM Document 13 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 3