Aviles Lopez v. Dickey et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JORGE JAVIER AVILES LOPEZ, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v.
GRANT DICKEY, et al.,
Respondents.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-0952
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Jorge Javier Aviles Lop'ez ("Petitioner"), a citizen of
Colombia, entered the United States without inspection on December
18, 2021.1 On February 1, 2026, Petitioner was taken into
immigration custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement under§
1225 (b) (2) .2 Petitioner remains in immigration custody.
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that his detention without
a bond hearing violates the (1) Immigration and Nationality Act,
(2) due process, and (3) the Fourth Amendment. 3
Also pending before the court is Respondents' Response to the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment
("Respondents' MSJ") (Docket En'try No. 5). Respondents argue that
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 ("Habeas Petition"), Docket E-ntry No. 1, p. 3 ':1[1 9-11. 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.
at 3 <JI 12.
at 4-6.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 10, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00952 Document 7 Filed 04/10/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

Petitioner can legally be detained under§ 1225(b)(2) because he is
an applicant for admission.� Petitioner has filed a reply.5
As the Fifth Circuit explained in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), § 1225 (b)(2) applies to aliens who
were already present in the United States at the time of their
arrest. Id. at 498, 508. The fth Circuit's analysis and holding
applies this case.
Petitioner's detention without a bond hearing 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.'" Id. at *2 (quoting Demore v.
Kirn, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 1721-22 (2003)). Moreover, as explained in
Jacobo-Ventura, 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 not entitled to a bond
hearing as a matter of procedural due process.
Finally, as explained in Portillo v. Tate, Civil Action No. H-
26-0158 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2026), Petitioner's Fourth Amendment
4Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, pp. 1-2.
5 Petitioner's Reply to Government's Response and Opposition to
Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 6.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-00952 Document 7 Filed 04/10/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

claim is foreclosed because it relies on the assertion that the
Government lacks the authority to detain him under § 1225. 6
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Response to the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment
(Docket Entry No. 5) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Docket Entry No. 1)
is D�IED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 10th day of April, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 4-5 i1 20-23.
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-00952 Document 7 Filed 04/10/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3