Rivas Hernandez v. Bradford et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ALEJANDRO RIVAS HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-2511
BRET BRADFORD, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Alejandro Rivas Hernandez ("Petitioner"), a tizen of Cuba,
entered the United States at a port of entry on October 22, 2021. 1
On October 27, 2021, Petitioner was released on his own
recognizance.2 On January 22, 202 6, Petitioner was taken into
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") custody during a
routine ICE check- 3 On January 23, 2026, Petitioner was served
with a Notice to Appear, charging him with inadmissibility pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a) (6) (A) (i), "as an alien present in the United
I
States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the
United States at any time or place other than as designated by the
1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Request for Order to
Show Cause ("Habeas Petition"), Docket Entry No. 1, p. 4 <JI 10;
Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Respondents' MSJ"), Docket
Entry No. 10, 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.
2Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 10, p. 2.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 26, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02511 Document 11 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

Attorney General. "4 On February 27, 2026, Petitioner led an
application for asylum and an application to adjust status. 5 On
April 10, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion for continuance, which
was granted by an immigration judge on April 27, 2026.6 On May 18,
2026, Petitioner's application to adjust status was denied.7
Petitioner's asylum application is still pending and he remains in
immigration custody. 8
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Pet ion
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that his detention without
a bond hearing violates (1) the Immigration and Nationality Act,
(2) due process, (3) equal protection, and (4) the Suspension
Clause, and is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrat
Procedure Act ("APA").9 Petitioner also argues that his
warrantless arrest violates the Accardi doctrine.10 Additionally,
on May 12, 2026, after Respondents failed to a timely response
to Petitioner's Habeas Petition, the court entered an order
4�
6 Id. at 2 3.
7 Id. at 3.
8 Id.
9Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 23 6 ii 75-143. As
explained by Jimenez v. Noem, Civil Action No. H-2 5853 (S.D. Tex.
Feb. 10, 2026), Petitioner's claims that his detention violates the
Suspension Clause and the APA are foreclosed.
at 37-38 ii 144-154.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-02511 Document 11 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

ordering Respondents to reply by May 22, 2026.11 On May 26, 2026,
Petitioner filed Petitioner's Motion for Entry of Default Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 and for Immediate Release
("Default Motion") (Docket Entry No. 9).
Also pending before the court is Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 10), which was filed on May 26,
2026. Respondents argue that Petitioner is legally detained under
§ 1225(b)(2} because he is an applicant for admission. 12 Petitioner
has not led a reply.
Because "presence without admission deems [Petitioner] to be
[an] applicant [] for admission," Petitioner is subject to mandatory
detention under § 1225(b}(2} . Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166
F.4th 494, 498, 502 (5th Cir. 2026). This mandatory detention
does not violate substantive or procedural due process. As
explained in Garcia De La Cruz v. Bondi, 1 Action No. H-25-
5577, 2026 WL 309939 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2026}, the Supreme Court
has made ar 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}}.
Moreover, 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
11Order to Show Cause, Docket Entry No. 8, p. 2.
12Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 10, pp. 1-2.
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-02511 Document 11 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

for admission until certain proceedings have concluded, Petitioner
is not entitled to a bond hearing as a matter of procedural due
process.
Petitioner's "Fifth Amendment equal protection claim is
unavailing because he s to identify a similarly situated class
that is treated more favorably than noncitizens who entered the
country without inspection, and 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 Fi
Circuit in Buenrostro-Menendez."13 Soy v. Blanche, CIVIL ACTION NO.
4:26-CV-02808, 2026 WL 1018345, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2026).
Moreover, Petitioner cannot seek habeas relief under the
Accardi doctrine. Although Petitioner alleges he was arrested
without a warrant in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(ii), "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).
Finally, Petitioner's Default Motion will be denied because
"even in the face of technical default, such as when a party files
13Although Petitioner argues that noncitizens who overstayed
their visas are a similarly situated class that is treated more
favorably than noncitizens who entered the country without
inspection, "Petitioner is comparing himself to a distinct group of
noncitizens who are in removal proceedings on entirely different
grounds." Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 10, p. 13 (explaining
that "entry into the United States without inspection is a criminal
offense, [whi ] overstaying a visa is a civil infraction").
-4-
Case 4:26-cv-02511 Document 11 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

its first responsive pleading late, a movant is not entitled to a
default judgment as a matter of right." Bloom v. Memorial Hermann
Hospital System, 653 F.App'x 804, 805 (5th Cir. 2016).
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 10) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Request r Order to Show
Cause (Docket Entry No. 1) and Petitioner's Motion for Entry of
Default Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 and for
Immediate Release (Docket Entry No. 9) are DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 26th day of June, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-5-
Case 4:26-cv-02511 Document 11 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5