Vigil Quispe v. Bondi et al

CARLOS VIGIL
v.
PAMELA BONDI,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
QUISPE, §
§
Petitioner, §
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO.
§
et al., §
§
Respondents. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
H-26-2377
Carlos Vigil Quispe ("Petitioner"), a citizen of Peru, entered
the country without inspection on July 10, 2022.1 That same day
Petitioner was taken into immigration custody and issued a notice
to appear, denying Petitioner admission into the United States.2
On July 11, 2022, Petitioner was released on his own recognizance.3
On February 22, 2026, Petitioner was taken into immigration custody
by Immigration and Customs Enforcement under § 1225(b} (2).4
Petitioner remains in immigration custody.
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that his detention without
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Habeas Petition"),
Docket Entry No. 1, p. 1 <][ 2; Respondents' Motion for Summary
Judgment and Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
{"Respondents' MSJ"), Docket Entry No. 8, 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.
2 Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 8, p. 2.
3Id.
4 Id. at 2-3.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 15, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02377 Document 10 Filed 05/15/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

a bond hearing violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and due
process. 5
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. 6 Petitioner has filed a reply. 7
Petitioner argues that because he was detained and released
upon his entry into the United States, he cannot be detained under
§ 1225(b)(2). 8 However, as the Fifth Circuit explained in
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), because
"presence without admission deems [Petitioner] to be [an]
applicant [] for admission," Petitioner is subject to mandatory
detention under § 1225(b)(2). Id. at 498, 502.
Petitioner argues that because he was previously granted
parole, his detention without a bond hearing violates procedural
due process. 9 First, 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
5 Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 9-11 ii 32-51.
6Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 8, pp. 1-2.
7Brief in Reply to Respondents Response to Petition and Motion
for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 9.
8 Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 9-10 ii 32-40.
9 Brief in Reply to Respondents Response to Petition, Docket
Entry No. 5, pp. 2-6.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-02377 Document 10 Filed 05/15/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

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. Moreover, under § 1226(b),
"[t]he Attorney General at any time may revoke a bond or parole
authorized under subsection (a), rearrest the alien under the
original warrant, and detain the alien." 8 U.S.C. § 1226(b).
Finally, Petitioner argues that his detention without a bond
hearing violates substantive due process.10 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)).
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 8) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 15th day of May, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10 Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 10-11 i1 46-51.
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-02377 Document 10 Filed 05/15/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3