Nasesel Zeferindu v. Frink

BAPTISTA BULA
ZEFERINDU,
v.
MARTIN FRINK,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
NASESEL §
§
§
Petitioner, §
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO.
§
et al., §
§
Respondents. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
H-26-2997
Baptista Bula Nasesel Zeferindu ("Petitioner"), a citizen of
Angola, entered the United States without admission or parole on
May 31, 2023.1 That same day Petitioner was served with a Notice
to Appear, charging him with inadmissibility pursuant to 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 Untied
States at any time or place other than as designated by the
Attorney General."2 On October 3, 2025, Petitioner was taken into
Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody at a check-in
appointment.3 On January 6, 2026, an immigration judge ordered
1Pet ion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
("Habeas Petition") , Docket Entry No. 1, p. 1; Response to the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion to Summary Judgment
("Respondents' MSJ"), Docket Entry No. 8, p. 2. For purposes of
identi ion, all page numbers refer to the pagination imprinted
at the top of the page by the court's Electronic Case Filing
system.
2Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 8, p. 2.
3Id. at 3.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 14, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02997 Document 12 Filed 07/14/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

Petitioner removed from the United States to Angola.4 Pet ioner
has appealed that decision and remains in immigration custody. 5
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Pet ion
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that Respondents must
grant him a bond hearing because he is not a risk to the community
and because he is suffering from certain health conditions. 6
Petitioner also argues that his prolonged detention violates his
rights.7 Also pending before the court is Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 8). Respondents argue that
Petitioner is legally detained under§ 1225(b)(2) because he an
applicant for admission. 8 Petitioner has filed a reply. 9
Because "presence without admission deems [Petitioner] to be
[an] applicant [] for admission," Petitioner is subject to mandatory
detention under § 1225(b)(2) and is there not entitled to a
bond hearing. Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498, 502
(5th Cir. 2026).
To the extent Pet ioner is arguing that his detention
violates substantive or procedural due process, his claim is
4M...._
SM..._
6Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 6.
8Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 8, pp.
9Response of Petitioner to the Respond of DHS-ICE in Support
of Petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus, Docket Entry No. 11.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-02997 Document 12 Filed 07/14/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

without merit. 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.'" M..... 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. 8) 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 14th of July, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-02997 Document 12 Filed 07/14/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3