Cifuentes Lopez v. Warden, El Valle Detention Center

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
EDGUAR H. C. L., 1 	§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-cv-693
§
WARDEN, EL VALLE DETENTION 	§
CENTER, 	§
Respondents. 	§
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY PETITIONER’S HABEAS PETITION
Before the Court is Petitioner’s “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” (Dkt. No. 1)
(“Petition”). For the following reasons, the Court should deny the Petition.2
Petitioner, a noncitizen who entered without inspection, is awaiting a decision from
the Board of Immigration Appeals, see Dkt. No. 1, p. 3. Therefore, Petitioner is detainable
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir.
2026), and, as pleaded, Petitioner’s constitutional claims are not viable. Detention “during
removal proceedings,” even where such detention is without a bond hearing, is generally a
“constitutionally permissible part of that process.” Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 531 (2003).
While the Court has acknowledged the possibility of instances where such detention could
strain constitutional limits, see, e.g., id. at 532 (Kennedy, J., concurring), Petitioner has not
raised that family of issues in this Petition, see Dkt. No. 1, p. 7-8. Moreover, Petitioner’s
immigration detention began on April 22, 2026, and he has yet to file an appeal to the Board
of Immigration Appeals, see Dkt. No. 1, p. 5. Petitioner’s deadline to appeal the Board of
Immigration Appeals expires on July 8, 2026, see Dkt. No. 1, p. 3.
It is therefore recommended that the Court (1) DENY the Petition (Dkt. No. 1) and
1 Due to significant privacy concerns in immigration cases and noting that judicial opinions are not subject to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, any opinion, order, judgment, or other disposition in this case will refer to the petitioner
only by first name and last initial.
2 Petitioner proceeds pro se, without a legal representative, and receives the benefit of liberal construction of his
claims. See Kaltenbach v. Richards, 464 F.3d 524, 527 (5th Cir. 2006).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 26, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:26-cv-00693 Document 7 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
(2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections, if any, with the United
States District Judge assigned to the instant case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When filing an
objection, a party must object to specific facts or legal findings in this Report and
Recommendation. The District Judge is not required to consider frivolous, conclusive, or
general objections. Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir.
1987).
If any party fails to timely object to any factual or legal findings in this Report and
Recommendation, the District Judge is not required to conduct a de novo review of the record
before adopting these findings. If the District Judge chooses to adopt such findings without
conducting a de novo review of the record, the parties may not attack those findings on
appeal, except on the grounds of plain error. Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C.,
875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017).
Signed on June 26, 2026.
Karen Betancourt
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00693 Document 7 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2