Ayala Jimenez v. Bondi et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SALVADOR AYALA JIMENEZ, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS.
PAM BONDI, et al.,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV -0 1294
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Salvador Ayala Jimene z, 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 his 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
The petition reflects that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States
with his father when he was 14 and has since been placed in removal proceedings. 	Doc.
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-01294 Document 4 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

No. 1 at 3, 7; Doc. No. 1-3. 	Petitioner does not allege that he has been lawfully admitted
into the United States. Because Petitioner entered without inspection and has not obtained
lawful status, he 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 C ir. 	Feb. 	6, 	2026). 	As 	he
acknowledges in his petition, his 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); s ee 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 proceed in gs have concluded" ).
Likewise, his Fifth Amendment equal protection claim is unavailing because he
does not state facts to show that he 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. He also does
not show that a similarly situated class of people who entered without inspection are treated
more favorably than he is. 	See Reno v. Flores , 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993) (rejecting equal
protection claims regarding continued detention brought by alien juveniles who did not
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
2 / 4
Case 4:26-cv-01294 Document 4 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

in delinquency proceedings who were citizens). He does not show that he is in a protected
class 	of people 	and that he has 	been treated less 	favorably 	than 	similarly 	situated
individuals. He does not state a valid equal protection claim.
In addition, his 	claims under the Administrative Procedure Act ("AP A") 	fail
because an "a dequate 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 AP A, is the proper vehicle" where habeas corpus is an available remedy).
Concomitantly, his related Suspension Clause claim fails because habeas remains available
to challenge immigration detention. See Jimenez, Civ. A. No. H-25-5853 ; Trump, 604 U.S.
at 674.
Finally, his claims regarding the procedures us ed for his arrest under the Accardi
doctrine 2 are unavailing. 	The regulation he invokes, 8 C.F.R. § 287. 8, does not provide a
cause of action in federal court. 	Regarding part 287 of the regulations, section 287.12
outlines its scope and provides, in relevant part: "T hese 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. §
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-01294 Document 4 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

287. 12. 	Therefore, he has no substantive claim in this habeas proceeding under Accardi
regarding the procedures used for his 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 	2-.L.-\. 	day of April 2026.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-01294 Document 4 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4