Lora v. Thompson

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:26-cv-02787 Document8_ Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Pagelof3
United States District Court

Southem District of Texas
ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS June 30, 2026
HOUSTON DIVISION Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

YOLIER FORTEZ LORA,
Petitioner,
Vv. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-2787

RAYMOND THOMPSON, et al.,

GA GA WA A a WA a hn

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM CPINION AND ORDER

Yulier Fortez Lora (“Petitioner”), a citizen of Cuba, entered
the United States near San Luis, Arizona, on October 25, 2021.+
Petitioner was not admitted or paroled after inspection by an
immigration officer.* On October 28, 2021, Petitioner was served
with a Notice to Appear, charging him with inadmissibility under 8
U.S.C. § 1182(a) (6) (A) (i), “as an alien present in the United
States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the
United States at any time or place other than as designated by the

3

Attorney Generali.”” On February 3, 2026, Petitioner was taken into

Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody.’ On April 16, 2026,

‘Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion
for Summary (“Respondents’ MSJ”), Docket Entry No. 5, p. 2. 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.

*Id.

"Id.; Notice to Appear, Exhibit 1 to Respondents’ MSJ, Docket
Entry No. 5-2, p. 4.

‘Respondents’ MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, p. 2.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 4:26-cv-02787 Document8_ Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 2of3

an immigration judge denied Petitioner’s application for asylum and
withholding of removal.*® Petitioner has appealed that decision and
remains in immigration custody.°®

Pending before the court is Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Habeas Petition”) (Bocket
Entry No, 1). Petitioner argues that his detention without a bond
hearing violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and due
process.’ Also pending before the court is Respondents’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 5}. Respondents argue that
Petitioner is legally detained under § 1225(b) (2) because he is an
applicant for admission.® Petitioner has filed a reply.?®

Because “presence without admission deems [Petitioner] to be

fan] applicant{] for admission,” Petitioner is subject to mandatory

detention under § 1225(b) (2). Buenrostro~Mendez v. Bondi, 166
°Td.
®Id. at 2-3.

‘Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 6-7. Petitioner
also aileges that his detention is unnecessary. Id. at 7. To the
extent Petitioner is arguing that his detention without a bond
hearing is arbitrary and capricious under the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth Amendment this claim will be addressed as part of
Petitioner’s broader Due Process claim. See Betancourth v. Tate,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-cv-01169, 2026 WL 638482, at *1 n.2 (S.D.
Tex. Mar. 6, 2026). However, to the extent that Petitioner alleges
this claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, it is foreclosed
as a matter of law. Garcia v. Venegas, CIVIL ACTION NOC. 1:26-CV-
266, 2026 WL 1580638, at *1 n.3 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 2, 2026).

*Respondents’ MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, pp. 1-2.

’Reply in Support of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus,
Docket Entry No. 6.

-—?-

Case 4:26-cv-02787 Document8_ Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 3of3

F.4th 494, 498, 502 (5th Cir. 2026). This mandatory detention
dees 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]Jetention during removal proceedings is a
constitutionally permissible part of that process.’” Id. 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.

For the reasons explained above, Respondents’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 5) is GRANTED, and Petitioner’s
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Docket
Entry No. 1) is DENIED.

The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 30th day of June, 2026.

ec SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE