Gonzalez Aviles v. Mullin et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JIMY GONZALEZ AVILES,
Petitioner,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-3025
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Jimy Gonzalez Aviles ("Petitioner"), a citizen of Mexico,
entered the United States without admission or parole in July
2004. 1 Petitioner was taken into Immigration and Customs
Enforcement custody on March 16, 2026.2 On March 17, 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 States without being admitted or
paroled, or who arrived in the Untied States at any time or place
other than as designated by the Attorney General. "3 On May 7,
2026, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed from the
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 ("Habeas Petition"), Docket Entry No. 1, p. 2 I 2;
Respondents' Motion to Summary Judgment and Response to the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Respondents' MSJ"), Docket
Entry No. 6, 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. 6, p. 2.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 22, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-03025 Document 8 Filed 06/22/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

United States to Mexico. 4 Petitioner reserved the right to appeal
that decision and remains in immigration custody. 5
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that his detention without
a bond hearing violates due process. 6 Also pending before the
court is Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No.
6). Respondents argue that Petitioner is legally detained under§
1225 (b) (2) because he is an applicant for admission. 7 Petitioner
has filed a reply.8
Petitioner's mandatory detention 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.'" 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§ 122 5 (b) (2) mandates
5.IQ_._ at 2-3.
6Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 16-22 i� 52-71.
7 Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 6, pp. 1-2.
8 Petitioner's Reply to Respondents' Response to Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus, Docket Entry No. 7.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-03025 Document 8 Filed 06/22/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

detention of applicants for admission until certain proceeding have
concluded, Petitioner is not entitled to a bond hearing as a matter
of procedural due process.
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 6) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Docket
Entry No. 1) is DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 22nd June, 2026.
LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-03025 Document 8 Filed 06/22/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3