Perez Villada v. Bondi et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ZOILA PEREZ VILLADA, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS.
PA.MELA JO BONDI, et al. ,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-01856
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Zoila Perez Villada, is a detainee in the custody of United States
Department 	of Homeland 	Security, 	Immigration 	and 	Customs 	Enforcement ("ICE")
officials. Through counsel, she filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 , challenging her continued 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 pleadings reflect that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States
without inspection in 2002, remained in the United States without being admitted legally,
was apprehended in November 2025, and is being held without bond under 8 U.S.C.
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 l(b), Rules Governing§ 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts.
1 / 2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 25, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-01856 Document 4 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

§ 1225(b) as an applicant for admission. See Doc. No . 1 at 4. Petitioner contends that she
is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S .C. § 1226(a) and that she has been miscategorized
as a detainee subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S .C. § 1225(b )(2).
Petitioner's arguments regarding sections 1225 and 1226 and their implementing
regulations are foreclosed by the Fifth Circuit' s recent decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v.
Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). In addition, Petitioner's 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 constitutiona ll y
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"). She does
not otherwise state facts to state a claim for which habeas relief could be granted regarding
her current detention.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED.
2. 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
~
SIGNED on this 	~5' day ofMarc~~bJ~
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRJCT JUDGE
2 / 2
Case 4:26-cv-01856 Document 4 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2