Ruiz Carrillo v. Frink et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
RONNY EDUARDO RUIZ CARRILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-0914
MARTIN FRINK, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Ronny Eduardo Ruiz Carrillo ("Petitioner"), a citizen of
Venezuela, entered the United States on December 22, 2021. 1 On
January 14, 2026, Petit was taken into immigration custody by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement under § 1225 (b) (2) and was
issued a Notice to Appear.2 On February 26, 2026, Petitioner ed
an I-589 asylum application, withholding of removal, and
withholding of removal under the Convention Against Tqrture. 3 On
March 19, 2026, an immigration judge granted the Government's
motion to pretermit the Petitioner's applications for failure to
1 ion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 ("Habeas Petition"), Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 2-3 !! 9-10. For
purposes identification, all page numbers refer to the
pagination imprinted at the top of the page by the court's
Electronic Case Filing system.
2Respondents' Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment ("Respondents' MSJ"), Docket
Entry No. 6, pp. 1-2.
at 2.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 20, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00914 Document 9 Filed 04/20/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

establish prima facie eligibility for relief.4 Petitioner and the
Government waived their right to appeal the immigration judge's
decision to pretermit the Petitioner's applications.5 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.6
Also pending before the court is Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment ("Respondents' MSJ") (Docket Entry No. 6).
Respondents argue that because Petitioner has a final order of
removal he is detained under 8 U.S.C.§ 1231(a), not§ 1225(b)(2).7
Because a "final 'order of removal' is a final order
'concluding that the alien is deportable or ordering deportation,'"
the court finds that Petitioner has a final order of removal.
Nasrallah y. Barr, 140 s. Ct. 1683, 1691 (2020) (citing 8 u.s.c. §
1101(a)(47) (A)). Petitioner is therefore being held under §
1231(a), not§ 1225(b) (2). Accordingly, any detention claim under
Zadyydas v. Davis, 121 s. Ct. 2491 (2001), is premature because the
5 Id.
6Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 4-6.
7 Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 6, pp. 1-2; Order of the
Immigration Judge, Exhibit 2 to Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No.
6-2, p. 3.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-00914 Document 9 Filed 04/20/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

Petitioner does not allege or show that he has been detained for
more than six months and that "'there is no significant likelihood
of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.'" Mouzgui v.
N,Qfiln, 2026 WL 607993, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2026) (citing
Zadvydas, 121 s. Ct. at 2505).8
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 6) 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 20th day of April, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8Even if his removal order is not final, Petitioner's claims
are precluded. Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th
Cir. 2026) (holding that § 1225(b)(2) applies to aliens who were
already present in the United States at the time of the arrest);
Demore v. Kim, 123 s. Ct. 1708, 1721-22 (2003) (holding that
"[d]etention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally
permissible part of that process"); Jacobo-Ventura, Civil Action
No. H-25-6117 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2026) {holding that detention
under § 1225{b)(2) without a bond hearing does not violate
procedural due process); Portillo v. Tate, Civil Action No. H-26-
0158 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2026) {holding that the petitioner's
Fourth Amendment claim is foreclosed because it relies on the
assertion that the Government lacks the authority to detain him
under§ 1225).
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-00914 Document 9 Filed 04/20/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3