Morasen Napoles v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRJCT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MARIUSKA MORASEN NAPOLES, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS.
KRJSTI NOEM, et al. ,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-06277
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Mariuska Morasen Napoles, is a detainee in the custody of United
States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE")
officials. Through counsel, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 , challenging her continued detention. 	Doc. No. 1. Respondents have filed
a motion for summary judgment. Doc. No. 5. Petitioner has not responded to the motion,
and her time to do so has passed.
The pleadings reflect that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States
without inspection in 2021 and has since been placed in removal proceedings. Doc. No. 1
at 17. Petitioner does not plead facts to show that she has been lawfully admitted into the
United States.
Because Petitioner entered the United States without inspection and has not been
admitted legally, she is an applicant for admission subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). 	See
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). 	Her arguments
1 / 2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 25, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-06277 Document 6 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

regarding bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations are
foreclosed by Buen ro str o-Me ndez. 	Her detenti on is mandated by statute under section
1225 (b)(2).
In addition, Petitioner 's Fifth Amendment due process claims are precluded, at this
juncture, by Demore v. Kim , 538 U.S . 510, 531 	(2003), because "[d]etention during
removal proceedings is a constitutionally permi ss ible part of that process." Id. ( citations
omitted); see also Jennings v. 	Rodriquez, 583 U.S. 281, 297 (2018) (explaining that
"§§1225(b)(l) and 1225(b)(2) thus mandate detention of applicants for admi ss ion until
certain proceedings have concluded").
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	Respondents ' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 5) is GRANTED.
2. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED.
3. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
SIGNED on this 	~y of June 2026.
~l~
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 / 2
Case 4:25-cv-06277 Document 6 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2