Tobar Reinosa v. Frink et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MIGUEL ANGEL TOBAR REINOSA, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-3247
MARTIN FRINK, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Miguel Angel Tobar Reinosa ("Petitioner"), a citizen of El
Salvador, entered the United States without admission or parole on
June 18, 2019. 1 On an unknown date Petitioner was apprehended and
transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement
("ORR") . 2 On August 11, 2019, ORR released Petitioner from fede
custody to his mother.3
On September 3, 2025, Petitioner was encountered at the
Galveston County Jail after being arrested for public lewdness. 4 On
September 5, 2025, Petitioner was transferred to Immigration and
1Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Habeas Petition"),
Docket Entry No. 1, p. 4 ':II 7; Response to the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus and Motion to Summary Judgment ("Respondents' MSJ"),
Docket Entry No. 5, p. 2. For purposes of identi cation, all page
numbers to the pagination imprinted at the top of the page by
the court's Electronic Case ling system.
2Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 5 ':II 13.
':II 14.
4 Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, p. 2.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 23, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-03247 Document 6 Filed 06/23/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

Customs Enforcement custody from the Galveston County Jail.5 That
same day 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 ad.mitted or
paroled, or who arrived in the Untied States at any time or place
other than as designated by the Attorney General."6 On November 5,
2025, Petitioner's removal proceedings were dismissed so that his
asylum application, which he had filed in 2023, could be
adjudicated by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
("USCIS") .7 Petitioner was interviewed by USCIS on November 24,
2025, and his asylum application was referred to the immigration
court for proceedings on November 25, 2025.8
application remains pending.9
His asylum
On April 17, 2026, Petitioner was served with a new Notice to
Appear charging him with inadmissibility pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1182 (a) (6) (A) (i), as an al present in the United States who has
not been ad.mitted or paroled .10 He remains in immigration custody. 11
61.d.....
71.d.....
8Id.
at 2-3; Notice to Appear, Exhibit 2 to Respondents' MSJ,
Docket Entry No. 5-2, p. 1.
11Id. at 3.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-03247 Document 6 Filed 06/23/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that his detention without
a bond hearing violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and due
process.12 Also pending before the court is Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 5), which was filed on May 21,
2026. Respondents argue that Petitioner legally detained under
§ 1225{b){2) because he is an applicant for admission.13 Although
paragraph 4 of the court's Order to Answer (Docket Entry No. 4)
requires Petitioner to respond to any dispositive motion within 20
days, ioner has not responded to Respondents' Motion
Summary Judgment.
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, 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
pemissible part of that process.'" Id. 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
12 Habeas Petition, Doc Entry No. 1, pp.
13Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, pp.
-3-
7 ':I['][ 30-49.
Case 4:26-cv-03247 Document 6 Filed 06/23/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

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 ent
a bond hearing as a matter of procedural due process.
ed to
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 5) is GRANTED, and Pet ioner's
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket Entry No. 1) is
DENIED.
court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 23rd June, 2026.
LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
Case 4:26-cv-03247 Document 6 Filed 06/23/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4