Cai v. Warden, Montgomery Processing Center et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MAOHONG CAI, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-2764
WARDEN, MONTGOMERY PROCESSING
CENTER, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Maohong Cai ("Petitioner"), a citizen China, entered the
United States at a port entry on January 30, 2020. 1 On May 4,
2020, Petitioner was issued a Notice to Appear, placing her in
removal proceedings. 2 On May 15, 2020, Petitioner was released on
her own recognizance.3 On March 2, 2026, Petitioner was detained
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) (B) (ii) by Immigration and Customs
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant and Request for
Order to Show Cause ("Habeas Petition"), Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 1,
4 ii 1, 15. 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 4 i 1 7.
':IT 18.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 05, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02764 Document 7 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

Enforcement at a routine immigration check-in.4 Petitioner remains
in immigration custody. 5
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that her detention without
a bond hearing violates due process and 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2)(i).6
Also pending before the court is Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 5). Respondents argue that
Petitioner's detention under § 1225(b)(1) does not violate due
process or 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2)(i).7
reply.8
Petitioner has filed a
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
4l..d...t.. i 20; Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
and Motion for Summary Judgment ("Respondents' MSJ"), Docket Entry
No. 5, p. 3. Respondents argue that Petitioner is subject to
mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) because an asylum
officer determined that she had a credible fear of persecution.
Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 25(b)(1)(B)(ii)) ("If the officer
determines at the time of the interview that an alien has a
credible of persecution . . . the alien shall be detained for
further consideration of the application for asylum.").
5Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 4 i 20.
6..I..du_ at 7-12 ii 36-50.
7Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, pp. 12.
8 Pet ioner's Reply to Respondents' Response to the Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket
Entry No. 6.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-02764 Document 7 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

permissible part of that process.'" l£L._ at *2 (quoting Demore v.
Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 1721-22 (2003)). Moreover, 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, as explained in Morales v. Frink, CIVIL ACTION NO.
H-26-0624, 2026 WL 836662 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2026), because
"Hurtado does not appear to prohibit complaints that her detention
violates 8 C.F.R. § 212.S(e)(2) (i)" and because "Petitioner
provides no evidence that she has petitioned the immigration court
to adjudicate her claim," the court concludes that she has not
exhausted her administrative remedies for this claim. Id. at *2.
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment {Docket Entry No. 5) is GRANTED, and Pet ioner's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant and Request for Order
to Show Cause (Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 5th day of June, 2026.
LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-02764 Document 7 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3