Villatoro Villatoro v. Bradford, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ELIAS VILLATORO VILLATORO, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v.
BRET BRADFORD, et al.,
Respondents.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-3871
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Elias Villatoro Villatoro ("Petitioner"), a citizen of Mexico,
entered the United States without ad.mission or parole in 1998.1 On
November 20, 2025, Petitioner was taken into Immigration and
Customs Enforcement custody during a tra stop.2 The next day
Petitioner was served with a Notice to Appear, charging him with
inad.missibility under § 212 (a) ( 6) (A) (i) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act 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. "3 On April 28, 2026, an immfgration judge ordered
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( "Habeas Pet ion"),
Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3 110; Response to the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary ("Respondents' MSJ"), Docket
Entry No. 5, p. 1. 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. 5, p. 1.
3 Not to Appear, Exhibit 2 to Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry
No. 5-2, p. 4.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 30, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-03871 Document 7 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

Petitioner removed to Mexico. 4 Petitioner has appealed that
decision and remains in immigration custody.5
Pending before the court is Pet ioner' 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.6 Also pending before the court is Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 5). 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
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 permissible part of that process.'" Id. at *2
(quoting Demore v. Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708, , 1721-22 (2003)).
4 Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, p. 2.
51.!;L..
6Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 4-5 11 20-23.
7 Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, p. 3.
8 Petitioner's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment,
Docket Entry No. 6.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-03871 Document 7 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

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.
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 (Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 30th day of June, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-03871 Document 7 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3