Avila Romero v. Dickey et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ORLANDO ENRIQUE AVILA ROMERO,
Petitioner,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-0684
GRANT DICKEY, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Orlando Enrique Avila Romero ("Petitioner"), a citizen of
Venezuela, entered the United States on September 12, 2021. 1 On
November 19, 2025, Petitioner was taken into immigration custody by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement under § 1225 (b) (2). 2
Petitioner remains in immigration custody.
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that his detention without
a bond hearing violates the (1) Immigration and Nationality Act,
(2) due process, and (3) the Fourth Amendment. 3
Also pending before the court is Respondents' Response to the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion to Dismiss and, in,
the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment ("Respondents' MSJ")
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
2241 ("Habeas Petition"), Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3 <JI
purposes of identification, all page numbers refer
pagination imprinted at the top of the page by the
Electronic Case Filing system.
2Id. at 3 <JI 12.
3Id. at 5-7.
u.s.c. §
9. For
to the
court's
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 10, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00684 Document 17 Filed 04/10/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

(Docket Entry No. 14). Respondents argue that Petitioner can
legally be detained under § 1225(b) (2) because he is an applicant
for admission.4 Petitioner has filed a reply.5
As the Fifth Circuit explained in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), § 1225(b) (2) applies to aliens 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
permissible part of that process.'" Id. at *2 (quoting Demore v.
Kirn, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 1721-22 (2003)). Moreover, as explained in
Jacobo-Ventura, 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.
4Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 14, pp. 1-2.
5 Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Response to Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus, Docket Entry No. 15.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-00684 Document 17 Filed 04/10/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

Finally, as explained in Portillo v. Tate, Civil Action No. H-
I
26-0158 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2026), Petitioner's Fourth Amendment
claim foreclosed because it relies on the assertion that the
Government lacks the authority to detain him under§ 1225.6
For the reasons·explained above, Respondents' Response to the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion to Dismiss and, in
the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 14)
is GRANTED, and Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2241 (Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 10th day of April, 2026.
7 SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 4 11 16-18.
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-00684 Document 17 Filed 04/10/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3