Moreno Moriera v. Martinez et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER MORENO MOREIRA, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v.
GABRIEL MARTINEZ, et al.,
Respondents.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-1866
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Christopher Moreno Moreira ("Petitioner"), a citizen of
Nicaragua, entered the United States without inspection in March of
2022.1 A short time after his entry, Petitioner was taken into
immigration custody and issued a notice to appear, denying him
admission into the United States. 2 On March 25, 2022, Petitioner
was released on his own recognizance. 3 Petitioner has since been
taken into immigration custody by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement under § 1225 (b) (2). 4 Petitioner remains in immigration
custody.
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Habeas Petition"),
Docket Entry No. 1, p. 4 1 13. For purposes of identification, all
page numbers refer to the pagination imprinted at the top of the
page by the court's Electronic Case Filing system.
2Id. at 1-2 1 2 (stating that Petitioner was "apprehended,
processed, and released by OHS" and that Petitioner "was placed in
removal proceedings").
3Notice of Custody Determination, Exhibit C to Habeas
Petition, Docket Entry No. 1-2, p. 3.
4 Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 2 1 2.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 20, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-01866 Document 12 Filed 05/20/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that his detention without
a bond hearing violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and due
process.5
Also pending before the court is Respondents' Response and
Motion for Summary Judgment ("Respondents' MSJ") (Docket Entry No.
10). Respondents argue that Petitioner can legally be detained
under § 122 5 (b) (2) because he is an applicant for admission. 6
Petitioner has filed a reply.7
Petitioner argues that because he was detained and released
upon his entry into the United States, he cannot be detained under
§ 1225 (b) (2). 8 However, as the Fifth Circuit explained in
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), an alien
who is present without lawfully being admitted to the United States
is an applicant for admission and is therefore subject to mandatory
detention under § 1225 (b) (2). Id. at 498, 502. The Fifth
Circuit's analysis and holding applies in this case.
Petitioner also argues that because he was previously released
on his own recognizance, his detention without a bond hearing
5 Id. at 9-11 ii 33-48.
6Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 10, pp. 1-2.
7Brief in Reply to Respondents Response to Petition and Motion
for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 11.
8 Brief in Reply to Respondents Response to Petition, Docket
Entry No. 5, p. 3 i� 8-13.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-01866 Document 12 Filed 05/20/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

violates procedural due process.9 However, as explained in Jacobo
Ventura v. Dickey, 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. Moreover, under §
1226{b), "[t]he Attorney General at any time may revoke a bond or
parole authorized under subsection (a), rearrest the alien under
the original warrant, and detain the alien." 8 U.S.C. § 1226(b).
Finally, Petitioner's detention without a bond hearing does
not violate substantive due process.10 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)).
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 10) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED.
9 Id. at 4-8 ii 14-33.
10 Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 10-11 ii 44-48.
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-01866 Document 12 Filed 05/20/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 20th day of May, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
Case 4:26-cv-01866 Document 12 Filed 05/20/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4