Avila Vasquez v. Tate et al

IN 	THE 	UNITED 	STATES 	DISTRICT 	COURT
FOR 	THE 	SOUTHERN 	DISTRICT 	OF TEXAS
HOUSTON 	DIVISION
JOSE 	LUIS 	AVILA VASQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION 	NO. 	H-26-2923
RANDY 	TATE, 	et 	al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND 	ORDER
Jose Luis Avila Vasquez 	("Petitioner"), 	a citizen of Honduras,
entered 	the 	country 	without 	inspection 	on 	April 	7, 	2018 . 1 	On
March 	30, 	2026, 	Petitioner was 	detained by 	Immigration and Customs
Enforcement 	and 	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 	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
remains 	in 	immigration 	custody.
Petitioner
Pending 	before 	the 	court 	is 	Petitioner's 	Habeas 	Petition
(Docket Entry No. 	1). 	Petitioner argues 	that his 	detention without
1 Petition 	for 	Writ 	of 	Habeas 	Corpus 	Pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C. 	§
2241 	("Habeas 	Petition"), 	Docket Entry No. 	1, 	pp. 	2-3 ! 	4; 	Response
to 	the 	Petition 	for 	Writ 	of 	Habeas 	Corpus 	and 	Motion 	for 	Summary
Judgment 	("Respondents' 	MSJ"), 	Docket 	Entry 	No. 	5, 	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. 	5, 	p. 	2; 	Habeas 	Petition,
Docket 	Entry No. 	1, 	p. 	3 	! 	7.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 05, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02923 Document 7 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

a 	bond 	hearing 	violates 	due 	process 	and 	equal 	protectlon. 3
Petitioner 	also 	alleges 	an 	as-applied 	challenge. 4
Also 	pending 	before 	the 	court 	is 	Respondents' 	Motion 	for
Summary 	Judgment 	( Docket 	Entry 	No. 	5) . 	Respondents 	argue 	that
Petitioner's 	detention 	under 	§ 	1225 (b) (2) 	does 	not 	violate 	due
process 	or 	equal 	protection 	because 	he 	is 	an 	applicant 	for
admission. 5 	Petitioner 	has 	filed 	a 	reply. 6
Petitioner's detention without a bond hearing does not violate
substantive 	or 	procedural 	due 	process. 	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.'" 	l.Q._.._ at 	*2 	(quoting 	Demore 	v,
3 Habeas 	Petition, 	Docket 	Entry 	No. 	1, 	pp. 	4-10 	':[<JI 	19-51.
Petitioner also argues that his detention without a bond hearing is
arbitrary 	and 	capricious 	under 	the 	Fifth 	Amendment 	Due 	Process
Clause. 	l.,Q._,_ 	at 	10-12 	':II':II 	52-60. 	This 	claim 	will 	be 	addressed 	as
part of Petitioner's broader Due Process 	claim. 	~ Betancourth v.
Tate, 	CIVIL 	ACTION 	NO. 	4:26-cv-01169, 	2026 	WL 	638482, 	at 	*l 	n.2
(S.D. 	Tex. 	Mar. 	6, 	2026). 	However, 	to 	the 	extent 	that 	Petitioner
alleges 	this 	claim 	under 	the 	Administrative 	Procedure 	Act, 	it 	is
foreclosed as 	a matter of law. 	Garcia v, 	Venegas, 	CIVIL ACTION NO.
l:26-CV-266, 	2026 	WL 	1580638, 	at 	*l 	n.3 	(S.D. 	Tex. 	Jun. 	2, 	2026).
4Habeas 	Petition, 	Docket 	Entry 	No. 	1, 	pp. 	12-13 	<JI<JI 	59-64.
Petitioner's 	as-applied 	challenge 	fails 	because 	"he 	presents 	no
authority 	to 	support 	his 	claim 	that 	his 	circumstances 	present 	a
viable 	as-applied 	due 	process 	challenge" 	and 	because§ 	1225(b) (2)
authorizes 	his 	continued 	detention. 	Garcia, 	2026 	WL 	1580638, 	at
*2.
5 Respondents' 	MSJ, 	Docket 	Entry 	No. 	5, 	pp. 	1-2.
6 Peti ti oner's 	Reply 	in 	Support 	of 	His 	Petition 	for 	Writ 	of
Habeas Corpus and Response in Opposition to Respondents' 	Motion for
Summary 	Judgment, 	Docket 	Entry No. 	6.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-02923 Document 7 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

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 	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 	fails 	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 	Fifth
Circuit in Buenrostro-Menendez." 7 	Soy v. 	Blanche, 	CIVIL ACTION NO.
4:26-CV-02808, 	2026 	WL 	1018345, 	at 	*1 	(S.D. 	Tex. 	Apr. 	15, 	2026).
For 	the 	reasons 	explained 	above, 	Respondents' 	Motion 	for
Summary Judgment 	(Docket 	Entry No. 	5) 	is 	GRANTED, 	and 	Petitioner's
Petition 	for 	Writ 	of 	Habeas 	Corpus 	Pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	2241
(Docket 	Entry No. 	1) 	is 	DENIED.
7
Although 	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. 	5, 	p. 	11 	(explaining
that "entry into the United States without inspection is a 	criminal
offense, 	[while] 	overstaying 	a 	visa 	is 	a 	civil 	infraction").
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-02923 Document 7 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

The court will enter a 	final 	judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED 	at 	Houston, 	Texas, 	on 	this 	5th 	f 	June, 	2026.
SIM 	LAKE
SENIOR 	UNITED 	STATES 	DISTRICT 	JUDGE
-4-
Case 4:26-cv-02923 Document 7 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4