Cabrera-Manzano v. Tate et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CESAR DANIEL CABRERA-MANZANO, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v.
RANDY TATE, et al.,
Respondents.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-3042
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Cesar Daniel Cabrera-Manzano ("Petitioner"), a citizen of
Mexico, entered the country near Laredo, Texas, on April 10, 2024.1
He was inspected by an immigration and was not admitted or
paroled. 2 On April 22, 2024, Petitioner was released on his own
recognizance 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."3 On March 25, 2026, Petitioner was taken into
immigration custody because he failed to report to his scheduled
immigration check-in appointment. 4 On April 21, 2026, an
1Response to the Pet on for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion
for Summary Judgment ("Respondents' MSJ"), Docket Entry No. 6, p.
2. For purposes of identi cation, 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.
at 3; Notice to Appear, Exhibit 1 to Respondents' MSJ,
Docket Entry No. 6-1, pp. 1-4.
4 Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 6, p. 2.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 30, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-03042 Document 8 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

immigration judge pretermitted Petitioner's application for asylum
and withholding of removal and ordered Petitioner removed to
Mexico.5 Petitioner has appealed that decision and remains in
immigration custody.6
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("Habeas Petition") (Docket Entry
No. 1). Petitioner argues that his detention without a bond
hearing violates due process and equal protection. 7
so alleges an as-applied challenge.8
Petitioner
Also pending before the court is Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 6). Respondents argue that
Petitioner's detention under § 1225(b) (2) does not violate due
5.JJ;L_ at 3.
7Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 5-11 <JICJI 24-56.
Petitioner also argues that his detention without a bond hearing is
arbitrary and capricious under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment. � at 11-13 CJICJI 57-65. 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 *1 n.2
(S.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2026). However, to the extent that Petitioner
alleges this claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, is
foreclosed as a matter of law. Garcia y. Venegas, CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:26-CV-266, 2026 WL 1580638, at *1 n.3 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 2, 2026).
8Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 13-14 ':II':II 66-70.
Pet ioner'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.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-03042 Document 8 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

process or equal protection because he
admission.9 Petitioner has filed a reply. 10
an applicant for
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.'" .ML.. at *2 (quoting Demore v.
Kirn, 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, Pet ioner is not entitled to
a bond hearing as a matter of procedural due process.
Moreover, Petitioner's "Fifth Amendment equal protection claim
is unavailing because he fails to identify a similarly situated
class that 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
9Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 6, pp. 1-2.
10 Petitioner's Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Summary
Judgment and Reply in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, Docket Entry No. 7.
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-03042 Document 8 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

Circuit in Buenrostro-Menendez." 11 	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. 	6) 	is 	GRANTED, 	and 	Petitioner's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 	Pursuant to 28 	U.S.C. 	§ 2241 and
Complaint 	for 	Declaratory 	and 	Injunctive 	Relief 	(Docket 	Entry No.
1) 	is 	DENIED.
The court will enter a 	final 	judgment in favor 	of Respondents.
SIGNED 	at 	Houston, Texas, 	on 	this 	30~~ 	2026 •
• SIM 	LAKE
SENIOR 	UNITED 	STATES 	DISTRICT 	JUDGE
11 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. 	6, 	p. 	14 	(explaining
that "entry into the United States without inspection is a 	criminal
offense, 	[while] 	overstaying 	a 	visa 	is 	a 	civil 	infraction").
-4-
Case 4:26-cv-03042 Document 8 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4