Apolonia v. Johnson et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CRISTOBAL NOV AS APOLONIO, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
vs.
JOSHUA JOHNSON, et al.,
Respondents .
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00510
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Christobal Novas Apolonia, is a detainee in the custody of United
States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE")
officials at the Joe Corley Processing Center in Conroe, Texas. Through counsel, petitioner
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S .C. 	§ 2241 , challenging his
continued detention. 	Doc. No. 	1. 	Respondents have filed a response and motion for
summary judgment. Doc. No. 5. Petitioner has not filed a reply in opposition, and his time
to do so has passed.
The undisputed facts in the record show that Petitioner entered the United States
unlawfully, entering without inspection and without having been admitted or paroled. Doc.
No. 5 at 2. 	Petitioner contends that he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. §
1226(a), the statute pennitting discretionary bond, and that he has been erroneously
categorized as a detainee subject to 8 U.S.C . § 1225(6)(2), the mandatory detention statute.
1/2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 23, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00510 Document 6 Filed 03/23/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

Petitioner's arguments regarding sections 1225 and 1226 are foreclosed by the Fifth
Circuit's decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026).
His 	arguments 	regarding 	the 	class 	action 	in 	Maldonado 	Bautista 	v. 	Santacruz, 	---
F.Supp.3d ----, 2025 WL 3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18 , 2025), similarly fail because they
are based on an interpretation of sections 1225 and 1226 that was rejected in Buenrostro-
Mendez. 	See Maldonado Bautista, 2025 WL 3713987, at *8-12. 	Likewise, his Fifth
Amendment Due Process Clause 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 1225(b)(2) thus
mandate detention of applicants for admission until certain proceedings have concluded" ).
2/2
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED.
2. 	Respondents' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 5) is GRANTED.
3. 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
4. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
SIGNED on this 	;13 ( ~ay of March 2026.
ANDREWS. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00510 Document 6 Filed 03/23/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2