Orozco Garcia v. Bondi et al

UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRJCT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JORGE CESAR OROZCO GARCIA, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS .
PAMELA JO BONDI, et al.,
Respondents .
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-02398
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Jorge Cesar Orozco Garcia, 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. 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 reflects that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States
without inspection 16 years ago. 	Doc. No . 1 at 4. Petitioner does not plead facts to show
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.
1/2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 31, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02398 Document 4 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

that he has been lawfully admitted into the United States, and he does not so contend. 	He
has been detained for less than a month to date.
Petitioner argues that, because he was already present in the United States at the
time he was taken into mandatory detention, he w as not "seeking admission" and that he
is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C . § 1226(a), the statute permitting discretionary
bond, and that he has been miscategorized as a detainee subject to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). 	Because Petitioner entered without inspection and has not
obtained lawful statu s, he is an applicant for admission subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
S ee Buenrostro-Me ndez 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
remov al proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of that process." Id. ( citations
omitted); see also Jennings v. Rodrique z, 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:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
s....!-
SIGNED this '3
1
day of March 202~ 	L 	\b 'ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 / 2
Case 4:26-cv-02398 Document 4 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2