Orellana Araujo v. Bradford et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JOESTHP ADONAY ORELLANA
ARAUJO,
Petitioner,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-3899
BRET BRADFORD, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Josethp Adonay Orellana Araujo ("Petitioner"), a citizen of
Salvador, entered the United States without inspection in 2012. 1
On April 26, 2026, Petitioner was served with a Notice to Appear,
charging him with removability 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 That same day Petitioner was issued a Warrant for
Arrest and was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement
1Pet ion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Habeas Petition"),
Docket Entry No. 1, p. 6 1 24; Response to the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus and Motion to Dismiss and, in the Alternative, for
Summary Judgment ("Respondents' MSJ"), Docket Entry No. 5, pp. 3-4.
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.
2Not to Appear, Exhib 1 to Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry
No. 5-1, pp. 1, 4.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 21, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-03899 Document 6 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

custody.3 Petitioner is currently seeking an adjustment of status
and remains in immigration custody.4
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.5 so 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 because he is an applicant
for admission.6 Pet ioner did not file a reply.
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
3Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, p. 4.
4 Id.
5Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 10-12 'JI':![ 38-47.
Petitioner also requests attorney's fees and costs under the Equal
Access to Justice Act. Id. at 12. Because the court will deny
Petitioner's Habeas Petition, Petitioner cannot recover attorney's
fees and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a)(1) (allowing attorney's fees
and costs to "be awarded to the prevailing party").
6Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, p. 1.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-03899 Document 6 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

(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§ 1225(b)(2) �andates 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 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 20th da July, 2026.
--W
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-03899 Document 6 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3