Quesada-Oberto v. Noem, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
YAQUELIN QUESADA-OBERTO,
Petitioner,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-0944
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER.
Yaquelin Quesada-Oberto ("Petitionern), a izen of Cuba,
entered the United States approximately five years ago. 1 On
December 3, 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 her detention without
a bond hearing violates the (1) Immigration and Nationality Act and
(2) due process. 3
Also pending before the court is Respondents' Response to the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment
("Respondents' MSJ") (Docket Entry No. 5). Respondents argue that
1Petition for Writ of Habeas
("Habeas Petition"), Docket Entry
purposes of identification, all
pagination imprinted at the top
Electronic Case Filing system.
2Id. at 2 <JI 19.
3.l9..:... at 3.
Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
No. 1, p. 2 <J[<JI 16, 18. For
page numbers refer to the
of the page by the court's
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 10, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00944 Document 7 Filed 04/10/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

Petitioner can legally be detained under§ 1225(b) (2) because she
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. J..d..... at 498, 508. The Fifth Circuit's analysis and holding
applies 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 a constitutionally
permissible part of that process.'" Id. at *2 (quoting Demore v.
Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 172 2 (2003)). Moreover, as explained
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, Pet ioner is not entitled to a bond
hearing as a matter of procedural due process.
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Response to the
Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment
4 Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, pp.
5 Petitioner's Response Opposition to Respondent's Motion
for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 6.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-00944 Document 7 Filed 04/10/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

(Docket Entry No. 5) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus Under 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.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-00944 Document 7 Filed 04/10/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3