Rojas Cepeda v. Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security et al

IN THE UNITED STATES STRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JEANPIER ROJAS CEPEDA, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v.
BRET BRADFORD, et al.,
Respondents.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-2148
MEMO:RANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On October 10, 2022, Jeanpier Rojas Cepeda ("Petitioner"), a
citizen of Venezuela, entered the United States with inspection and
was paroled into the country until December 8, 2022.1 On December
30, 2022, Petitioner was issued a Notice to Appear, charging him
with removeability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a) (6) (A) (i), "as an
alien present in 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 June 16, 2025, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner
removed to Venezuela and denied Petitioner's asylum and withholding
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Habeas Petition"),
Docket Entry No. 1, p. 11 i 39; Response to the Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment ("Respondents'
MSJ"), Docket Entry No. 7, p. 2. 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.
2Notice to Appear, Exhibit 2 to Habeas Petition, Docket Entry
No. 1-1, p. 5; Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 7, p. 2.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 20, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02148 Document 10 Filed 05/20/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

of removal.3 On June 20, 2025, Petitioner appealed his removal
order.4 On February 18, 2026, Petitioner was taken into
immigration custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement under§
1225(b)(2).5 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 Immigration and Nationality Act and due
process, and is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative
Procedure Act ("APA") . 6 Petitioner has also filed a Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket Entry No. 9).
Also pending before the court is Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 7). Respondents argue that
Petitioner can legally be detained under§ 1225(b)(2) because he is
an applicant for admission.7 Petitioner has led a reply.8
Petitioner argues that because he was detained and released
upon his entry into the United States, he cannot be detained under
§ 1225(b)(2).9 However, as the Fifth Circuit explained
3Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 7, p. 2.
4 Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 11 <JI 42.
at 12 <JI 44.
6 Id. at 12-20, 22-25 11 50-71, 83-95.
7Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 7, pp. 1-2.
8Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Response to the Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Opposition to the Motion for Summary
Judgment, Docket Entry No. 8.
9Petitioner's Response to Order of the Judge, Docket Entry No.
(continued...)
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-02148 Document 10 Filed 05/20/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), an
who present without lawfully being admitted to the United States
is an applicant for admission and is therefore subject to mandatory
detention under § 1225(b)(2). Id. at 498, 502.
Circuit's analysis and holding applies in this case.
The Fifth
Petitioner also argues that because he was previously released
on his own recognizance, his detention without a bond hearing
violates procedural due process.10 However, 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.
Petitioner asserts that his detention violates substantive due
process.11 But 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. Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708,
1721-22 (2003)).
9 ( •••continued)
5, pp. 3-6.
at 6-8.
11Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 19-20 11 69-71.
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-02148 Document 10 Filed 05/20/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

Finally, Petitioner cannot seek habeas relief under the
Accardi doctrine or the APA. Although Petitioner alleges he was
arrested without a warrant in violation of 8 CFR §
287.8 (c) (2) (ii), 12 "an illegal arrest has no bearing on the legality
of detention following that arrest." Carnesolta v. Tate, Civil
Action Number 4:26-cv-01006, 2026 WL 948727, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Apr.
8, 2026). Moreover, as explained Jiminez v. Bradford, Civil
Action No. H-25-5853 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2026), because Petitioner
is able to challenge his detention by filing a writ of habeas
corpus, he is not entitled to relief under the APA. See 5 U.S.C.
§ 704 ("Agency action made reviewable by statute and final agency
action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are
subject to judicial review.") (emphasis added).
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 7) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED.
Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
(Docket Entry No. 9) is DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 20th day of May, 2026.
12 Id. at 20-22 ':ll<JI 72-82.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
Case 4:26-cv-02148 Document 10 Filed 05/20/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4