Fernandez v. Frink et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SONIA VICTOR FERNANDEZ, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
vs.
MARTIN FRINK, et al.,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-02870
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Sonia Victor Fernandez, 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 her 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 and attached exhibits reflect that Petitioner is an Indian national who
entered the United States in 2024 without lawful status and has been charged with being a
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 / 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 15, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02870 Document 4 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

noncitizen "present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled." 	Doc.
No. 1 at 7; Doc. No. 1-3 at 2. 	Petitioner does not plead facts to show that she has been
lawfully admitted into the United States. 	Because Petitioner entered without possessing
valid entry documents and has not obtained lawful status, she is an applicant for admission
subject to 8 U.S.C . § 1225(b). See Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th
Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). 	Therefore, to the extent she argues that she should receive a bond
hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, that claim is foreclosed
by Buenrostro-Mendez. Her detention is mandated by statute under section 1225(b).
In addition, Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process claims fail. 	Petitioner's
procedural due process claim is unavailing because the statute mandates detention. 	See
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" ). 	Hence, a bond hearing to determine whether she is a danger to the
community or a flight risk is futile where it would have no bearing on her mandatory
detention.
Likewise, Petitioner's substantive due process claim is 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);
see also Jennings , 583 	U.S. 	at 297; 	Carlson v. 	Landon, 342 U.S. 	524, 538 (1952)
("Detention is necessary a part of th[ e] deportation procedure."); Wong Wing v. United
States, 163 U.S . 228,235 (1896) ("Proceedings to exclude or expel would be vain if those
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-02870 Document 4 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

accused could not be held in custody pending the inquiry into their true character, and while
arrangements were being made for their deportation." ). Petitioner does not plead facts that
show that she has been detained indefinitely or otherwise show that her detention presently
violates the Constitution.
Finally, her claims under the Administrative Procedure Act ("AP A") are unavailing
because an "adequate 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).
3 / 3
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	This petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
l 4 	t--SIGNED this ____ day of May 2026.
~ ~ lLANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-02870 Document 4 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3