Palacios Esquivel v. Bondi et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JAIME PALACI OS ESQUIVEL, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
vs.
PAMELA JO BONDI, et al.,
Respondents .
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-01532
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Jaime Palacios Esquivel, 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 detention without a bond hearing. Doc. No. 1.
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 § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (authorizing
preliminary review and summary dismissal of habeas petitions on the pleadings). 1
The petition and attached exhibits reflect that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered
the United States without lawful status about 25 years ago in 2000 and has since been
1 A district court may apply any of the rules governing habeas petitions filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 22 54 to those filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Rule l(b), Rules Governing§ 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts.
1 / 2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 03, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-01532 Document 6 Filed 04/03/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

placed in removal proceedings. 	Doc. No. 1 at 4, Doc. No. 1-3 at 1. 	Petitioner does not
plead facts to show that he has been lawfully admitted into the United States, and he does
not so contend.
Because Petitioner entered without inspection and has not obtained lawful status, he
is an applicant for admission subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b )(2). See Buenrostro-Mendez v.
Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). 	Thus, his detention is mandated by
statute. 	Accordingly, Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process 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"). Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:
2 / 2
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
r:21~
SIGNED this __-0__ day of April 2026.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-01532 Document 6 Filed 04/03/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2