Ramirez-Acenso v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JE SUS RAMON RAMIREZ-ACENSO, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS .
KRISTI NOEM, et al. ,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO . 4:26-CV-00571
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
At the time the petitioner, Jesus Ramon Ramirez-Acenso, filed this petition for a
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his continued detention, he was
confined at the Montgomery Proce ss ing Center in Conroe, Texas, as a detainee in the
custody of United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement ("ICE") officials. Doc. No. 1. Respondents have filed a response and motion
for summary judgment. Doc. No. 6.
The undisputed facts in the record show that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered
the United States without inspection and without having been admitted or paroled. 	Doc.
No. 1 at 15. 	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.
Petitioner' s arguments regarding sections 1225 and 1226 and their implementing
regulations are foreclosed by the Fifth Circuit' s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
1/2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 23, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00571 Document 7 Filed 03/23/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). Likewise, his Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause
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 permissible 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
admission until certain proceedings have concluded").
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED.
2. 	Respondents' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 6) is GRANTED.
3. 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
4. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED on this
I ~
;)--3 	day of March 2026.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2/2
Case 4:26-cv-00571 Document 7 Filed 03/23/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2