Vicente Perez v. Bondi et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
HUMBERTO DAVID VICENTE PEREZ, 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00970
§
PAMELA BONDI, et al. , 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Humberto David Vicente Perez, 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 his continued detention. 	Doc. No. 1. 	He has also
filed a "Motion for Order to Show Cause" (Doc. No. 4) and a "Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order" (Doc. No. 6).
While this case was pending, the Fifth Circuit decided Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
--- F.4th ----, No. 25-20496, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). 	The Court may
dismiss a habeas petition on the pleadings "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
1 / 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 03, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00970 Document 7 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

§ 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (authorizing preliminary review and
summary dismissal of habeas petitions on the pleadings).'
The petition reflects that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States
without inspection. 	Doc. No. 1 at 2. 	Petitioner does not plead facts to show that he has
been lawfully admitted into the United States, and he does not so contend. He argues that,
because he was already present in the United States at the time he was taken into mandatory
detention, he was not "seeking admission" and that he is entitled to a bond hearing under
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the statute permitting discretionary bond. 	He argues that he has been
miscategorized as a detainee subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(6 ).
Petitioner's arguments regarding sections 1225 and 1226 and their implementing
regulations are foreclosed by Buenrostro-Mendez, supra. 	In addition, Petitioner's 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 )(1) and 1225(6)(2) thus
mandate detention of applicants for admission until certain proceedings have concluded").
In sum, Petitioner's pleadings show that he is a noncitizen who entered without inspection
and, therefore, he is an applicant for admission categorized under section 1225(6 )(2), which
provides for mandatory detention. See Buenrostro-Mendez, supra.
1 A district court may apply any of the rules governing habeas petitions filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 to those filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Rule l(b), Rules Governing§ 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts.
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-00970 Document 7 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3 / 3
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1), "Motion for Order to Show Cause" (Doc. No. 4), and
"Motion for Temporary Restraining Order" (Doc. No. 6) are DENIED .
2. 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
4. 	If the Fifth Circuit, en bane, or the United States Supreme Court enters a decision
that is contrary to the decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, supra, Petitioner
is granted leave to file a motion for reconsideration or initiate a separate petition.
SO ORDERED.
3 ,cl
SIGNED on this ____ day of March 2026.
ANDREWS. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00970 Document 7 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3