Canuz Soy v. Blanche

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
BYRON RENE CANUZ SOY, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS.
TODD BLANCHE, et al.,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-02808
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Byron Rene Canuz Soy, 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 and attached exhibits reflect that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered
the United States without lawful status in 2003 and has since been placed in removal
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 / 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 15, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02808 Document 6 Filed 04/15/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

proceedings. Doc. No. 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). His arguments regarding bond hearings
under 8 U .S. C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations are foreclosed by Buenrostro-
Mendez. 	His detention is mandated by statute under section 1225(b)(2). 	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 	l 225(b )(2) 	thus 	mandate 	detention 	of 	applicants 	for 	admission 	until 	certain
proceedings have concluded").
Likewise, his Fifth Amendment equal protection claim is unavailing because he fails
to identify a similarly situated class that is treated more favorably than noncitizens who
entered the country without inspection, and he does not state facts to show that he falls
outside of the statutory definition of an applicant for admission under 8 U.S .C. § 1225(b)
as interpreted by the Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro-Mendez. 	See Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S.
292, 306 (1993) (rejecting equal protection claims regarding continued detention brought
by alien juveniles who did not have close relatives to serve as guardians because they were
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-02808 Document 6 Filed 04/15/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

distinct from alien juveniles with close relatives available to serve as guardians and
different from American juveniles in delinquency proceedings who were citizens).
In addition, his claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (" AP A") fail
because an "adequate remedy in a court" is available via habeas corpus. 	5 U.S.C. § 704;
accord Jimenez v. Noem, Civ. A. No. H-25-5853, at Doc. No. 10 at 5 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 10,
2026) (holding that the petitioner was not entitled to relief under the AP A where he was
able to challenge his detention through habeas corpus); see also Trump v. JG . G. , 604 U.S.
670, 674 (2025) (Kavanaugh, J. , concurring) (agreeing with the majority "that habeas
corpus, not the AP A, is the proper vehicle" where habeas corpus is an available remedy).
Concomitantly, his related Suspension Clause claim fails because habeas remains available
to challenge immigration detention. See id.
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.
~
SIGNED on this 	l 5' 	day of April 2026.
I~~
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-02808 Document 6 Filed 04/15/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3