Interiano Enamorado v. Noem et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
WENDY INTERIANO ENAMORADO §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-25-5937
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Wendy Interiano Enamorado ("Petitioner"), a citizen of
Honduras, entered the country without inspection.1 In July 2025,
Petitioner was taken immigration custody by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement under § 1225 (b) (2) and was ordered removed.2
Petitioner has appealed her order of removal and remains in
immigration custody.3
Pending before the court is Petitioner' s Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that her detention without
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 and Complaint for Declaratory and unctive Relief, ("Habeas
Petition"), Docket Entry No. 1, p. 14 <[ 34; Response to the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment
("Respondents' MSJ"), Docket Entry No. 9, p. 2. For purposes of
identification, all page numbers refer to the pagination imprinted
at the top of the page by the court's Electronic Case ling
system.
2Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 14-15 11 36, 38, 40;
Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 9, p. 2.
3Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 14 1<[ 36, 38.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 12, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05937 Document 13 Filed 05/12/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

a bond hearing violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and due
process. 4
o pending before the court is Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 9) . Respondents argue that
Petitioner can legally be detained under§ 1225(b)(2) because she
is an applicant for admission. 5 Petitioner filed a Motion for
Leave to Amend Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket Entry No.
10), which the court granted. 6 The court ordered Petitioner to
submit her amended petition by April 28, 2026.7
Pet ioner has failed to do so.
However,
As the Fifth Circuit explained in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), § 1225(b)(2) applies to who
were already present in the United States at the time of their
arrest. Id. at 498, 508. The Fifth Circuit's analysis and holding
appl in this case.
Petitioner's detention without a bond hearing 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
4 at 15-17 11 39-49.
5Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 9, pp. 1-2.
6Order, Docket Entry No. 12, p. 1.
7 Id.
-2-
Case 4:25-cv-05937 Document 13 Filed 05/12/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

permissible part of that process.'" Id. at *2 (quoting Demore v.
Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 1721-22 (2003)). Moreover, as explained in
Jacobo-Ventura v. Dickey, Civil Action 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. 9) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Docket Entry No.
1) is DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 12th day of May, 2026.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Case 4:25-cv-05937 Document 13 Filed 05/12/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3