Duran Cabrera v. Thompson et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
YONISKEL DURAN CABRERA, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-0628
RAYMOND THOMPSON, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Yoniskel Duran Cabrera ("Petitioner"), a citizen of Cuba,
entered the United States on August 3, 2022.1 On August 6, 2022,
Petitioner was served with a Notice to Appear, charging him with
removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a) (6) (A) (i), "as an alien
present 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 Attorney General. "2 On November 13, 2025,
Petitioner was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement
custody. 3 On February 17, 2026, an immigration judge ordered
1Pet ion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 ("Habeas Petition"), Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3 <JI 11. 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.
2Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion
for Summary ("Respondents' MSJ"), Docket Entry No. 11, p. 2.
3Id.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00628 Document 15 Filed 07/16/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

Petitioner removed to Cuba. 4 Petitioner reserved the right to
appeal that decision and remains in immigration custody.5
Pending before the court is Pet ioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). 6 Petitioner argues that his detention
without a bond hearing violates due process.7
before court is Respondents' Motion
A l s o pending
Summary Judgment
(Docket Entry No. 5). Respondents argue that Petitioner is legally
detained under § 1225(b)(2) because he is an applicant for
admission. 8 Petitioner filed a cross motion for summary
judgment, arguing that the court should grant summary judgment in
Petitioner's favor because Respondents have led to challenge the
material facts raised in the Habeas Petition and because
Petitioner's treatment while detained violates due process. 9
4 .l5i.r..
6 Petitioner has also led a Motion to Supplement the Record
( Docket Entry No. 13) and a Motion for Decision on the Record
(Docket Entry No. 14). The court will grant Pet ioner's Motion to
Supplement the Record (Docket Entry No. 13).
7 Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 7 9 ii 26-36
8 Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 11, pp.
9 Petitioner's Reply to the Response and Motion for Summary
Judgment Filed by Respondents, and Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment ( "Cross Motion for Summary Judgment")•, Docket Entry No.
12, p. 7; Petitioner's Letter, Exhibit 1 to Motion to Supplement
the Record, Docket Entry No. 13-1, pp. 4-6. Pet ioner also argues
that the court should strike Respondents' MSJ because they failed
to include the required signed certification that a physical copy
of the Response was mailed to Petitioner as required by the court's
Order to Answer (Docket Entry No. 4). Id. at 4. However, the
(continued...)
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-00628 Document 15 Filed 07/16/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

Because "presence without admission deems [Petitioner] to be
[an] applicant[] for admission," Petitioner is subject to mandatory
detention under § 1225 (b) ( 2). Buenrostro-Mendez y. Bondi, 16 6
F.4th 494, 498, 502 (5th Cir. 2026). This mandatory detention
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 is a
constitutionally permissible part of that process.'" 1.g_,_ 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.
9( •••continued}
court's Order to Answer only requires documents filed with the
Clerk of Court to "contain a signed certificate stating the date a
true and correct copy of the" document "was mailed and to whom
mailed." Respondents complied with the court's Order to Answer by
including a certificate of service, certifying that "on March 2,
2026, [the MSJ] was filed and served on all attorneys of record via
the Dist ct's ECF system." Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 11,
p. 11. Moreover, even if Pet ioner was not served by mail, he was
not prejudiced by the lack of service because his attorney
responded promptly to Respondents' MSJ. Cross Motion for Summary
Judgment, Docket Entry No. 12 (filed March 20, 2026).
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-00628 Document 15 Filed 07/16/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

Petitioner's Motion to Supplement the Record (Docket Entry No.
13) is GRANTED. For the reasons explained above, Respondents'
Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 11) is GRANTED,
Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (Docket Entry No. 1) and Cross Motion for Summary
Judgment (Docket Entry No. 12) as amended by Petitioner's Motion to
Supplement the Record (Docket Entry No. 13) are DENIED.
Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Decision on the Record (Docket
Entry No. 14) is DENIED AS MOOT.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 16th day of July, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
Case 4:26-cv-00628 Document 15 Filed 07/16/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4