Jimenez-Romero v. Frink et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ANHARA MELISA JIMENEZ-ROMERO,
Petitioner,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-4158
MARTIN FRINK, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Anhara Melisa Jimenez-Romero ("Petitioner"), a izen of
Cuba, entered the United States without inspection on April 12,
2022.1 On April 15, 20 , Petitioner was served with a Notice to
Appear charging her with removability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
118 2 (a) (6) (A) (i), "as an ien present the United States without
being admitted or paroled, or who arrived the United States at
any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney
General."2 On May 14, 2026, Petitioner was taken into Immigration
and Customs Enforcement custody during a prostitution sting in
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 and Complaint for Declaratory and unctive Relief ("Habeas
Petition"), Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3 � 4; 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, p. 4. For purposes of identification, 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. 4; Notice to Appear,
Exhibit 1 to Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5-1, p. 1.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 21, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-04158 Document 7 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

Shenandoah, Texas. 3 Petitioner has filed an application for asylum
and withholding of removal and she remains in immigration custody. 4
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that her detention without
a bond hearing violates due process and equal protection.5
Petitioner also alleges an as-applied challenge.6 Also 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 or equal
protection because she is an applicant for admission.7 Petitioner
filed a reply. 8
3Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, pp. 4-5.
4Id. at 5.
5 Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 5-12 <JI<JI 22-54.
Petitioner also argues that his detention without a bond hearing is
arbitrary and capricious under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment. Id. at 12-14 <JI<JI 55-63. This claim will be addressed as
part of Petitioner's broader Due Process claim. See Betancourth v.
�, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-cv-01169, 2026 WL 638482, at *l n.2
(S.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2026). However, to the extent that Petitioner
alleges this claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, it is
foreclosed as a matter of law. Garcia v. Venegas, CIVIL ACTION NO.
l:26-CV-266, 2026 WL 1580638, at *1 n.3 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 2, 2026).
6Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 14 <JI<JI 64-68.
Petitioner's as-applied challenge fails because "he presents no
authority to support his claim that his circumstances present a
viable as-applied due process challengen and because§ 1225(b)(2)
authorizes his continued detention. Garcia, 2026 WL 1580638, at
*2.
7 Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, p. 3.
8 Petitioner's Reply in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus and Response in Opposition to Respondents' Motion for
(continued... )
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-04158 Document 7 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

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)).
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.
Petitioner's "Fifth Amendment equal protection claim is
unavailing because he fails to identify a similarly situated class
that is treated more favorably than noncitizens who entered the
8 ( •••continued)
Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 6. Petitioner argues in her
reply that she is entitled to a bond hearing based on the Fifth
Circuit's recent opinion in Rodriguez v. Ortega, No. 26-50183, 2026
WL 1906557 (5th Cir. Jul. 2, 2026). Id. at 1-2. However, that
opinion has been vacated. Rodriguez v. Ortega, No. 26-50183, 2026
WL 2014647 (5th Cir. Jul. 10, 2026).
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-04158 Document 7 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

country without inspection, and [s]he does not state facts to show
that [s]he falls outside of the statutory definition of an
applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) as interpreted by
the Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro-Menendez."9 Soy v. Blanche, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-02808, 2026 WL 1018345, at *l (S.D. Tex. Apr.
15, 2026).
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 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.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9Although 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 [her]self to a distinct group
of noncitizens who are in removal proceedings on entirely different
grounds." Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, p. 15 (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-04158 Document 7 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4