Bracho Hidalgo v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MARIE LYSDELCARMENBRACHO
HIDALGO,
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS.
KRJSTI NOEM, et al. ,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-01170
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Marielys Del Carmen Bracho Hidalgo, 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 her 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
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 1(b ), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts.
1/ 4
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-01170 Document 6 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

The petition reflects that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States
without inspection and has since been placed in removal proceedings. 	Doc. No. 1 at 7.
Petitioner does not allege or show that she has been lawfully admitted into the United
States. 	Because Petitioner entered without inspection and has not obtained lawful status,
she 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). 	Her arguments regarding bond
hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations are foreclosed by
Buenrostro-Mendez.
In addition, 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 1225(b)(2) thus mandate detention of applicants for admission until
certain proceedings have concluded").
Likewise, her Fifth Amendment equal protection claim is unavailing because she
does not state facts to show that she 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, and "applicants for admission" all fall under that statute's purview. She also does
not show that a similarly situated class of people who entered without inspection are treated
more favorably than she has. See Reno v. Flores , 507 U.S. 292,306 (1993) (rejecting equal
protection claims regarding continued detention brought by alien juveniles who did not
2 / 4
Case 4:26-cv-01170 Document 6 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

have close relatives to serve as guardians because they were 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, her claims under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") 	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 APA, is the proper vehicle" where habeas corpus is an available remedy).
Concomitantly, her related Suspension Clause claim fai ls because habeas remains available
to challenge immigration detention. See Jimenez, Civ. A. No. H-25-5853; Trump, 604 U.S.
at 674.
Finally, her claims regarding the procedures used for her arrest under the Accardi
doctrine 2 fail. 	The regulation she invokes, 8 C.F.R. § 287.8, does not provide a cause of
action in federal court. 	Section 287 .1 2 outlines the scope of part 287 and provides, in
relevant part: "These regulations do not, are not intended to, shall not be construed to, and
may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law
by any party in any matter, civil or criminal." 	8 C.F.R. § 287.12. 	Therefore, she has no
2 See United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954) (asserting the principle
that agencies are bound to abide by their own regulations or internal procedures).
3 / 4
Case 4:26-cv-01170 Document 6 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

substantive claim in this habeas proceeding under Accardi regarding the procedures used
for her arrest.
4 / 4
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 this 	L '+ 	day of April 2026.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-01170 Document 6 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4