Salazar-Gonzalez v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRJCT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SALAZAR-
GONZALEZ,
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
vs.
KRISTI NOEM, et al. ,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-04662
§
§
§
§
ORDER
The Petitioner, Claudio Alejandro Salazar-Gonzalez, is a detainee in the custody of
United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
("ICE") officials at the Joe Corley Processing Center in Conroe, Texas. Through counsel,
he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 , challenging his
mandatory detention without a bond hearing. Doc. No. 1. Respondents have filed a motion
for summary judgment (Doc. No. 10) , to which petitioner has filed a response in opposition
(Doc. No. 13). Respondents have filed a reply (Doc. No. 14).
The undisputed facts in the record show that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered
the United States without inspection. 	Petitioner contends that he is entitled to a bond
hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the statute permitting discretionary bond, and that he has
been erroneously categorized as a detainee subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b )(2), the mandatory
detention statute. His arguments regarding sections 1225 and 1226 and their implementing
1 / 2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 12, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04662 Document 15 Filed 02/12/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

regulations are foreclosed by the Fifth Circuit's recent panel decision in Buenrostro-
Mendez v. Bondi, --- F.4th ----, No. 25-20496, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). In
addition, Petitioner's Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause 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).
2 / 2
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. The petition filed by Claudio Alejandro Salazar-Gonzalez is DENIED.
2. Respondents ' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED.
3. 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
4. 	All other pending motions, if any , are DENIED as MOOT.
5. 	If the Fifth Circuit, en bane, or the United States Supreme Court enters a decision
that is contrary to this Order or to the panel decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v.
Bondi, supra, Petitioner is granted leave to file a motion for reconsideration or
initiate a separate petition.
SO ORDERED.
~t-
SIGNED this 	l 7__, 	day of February 2026.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-04662 Document 15 Filed 02/12/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2