Fernandez-Herrera v. Dickey et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
GUILLERMO FERNANDEZ-HERRERA, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-4204
GRANT DICKEY, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Guillermo Fernandez-Herrera {"Petitioner"), a citizen of
Honduras, entered the United States without inspection on July 14,
2019.1 On November 22, 2025, Petitioner was arrested for driving
while intoxicated by the Harris County Constable.2 Petitioner was
taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody on April 14,
2026, er he was encountered at the Ha County jail.3 That
same day 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
1Pet 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, p. 3 �� 4, 6; Respondents' Motion
for Summary Judgment and Response to the Pet ion for Writ of
Habeas Corpus {"Respondents' MSJ"), Docket Entry No. 5, p. 2. 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. 2.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 17, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-04204 Document 7 Filed 07/17/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

other than as designated by the Attorney General. "4
remains in immigration custody.5
Petitioner
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Pet ion
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that his detention without
a bond hearing violates due process. 6 Petitioner also all an
as-applied challenge.7 Also pending before the court is
Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 5).
Respondents argue that Pet ioner's detention under§ 1225(b)(2)
does not violate due process because he is an applicant for
admission.8 Petitioner has led a reply.9
4
6Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 6-10 <][<JI 20-43.
Petitioner also argues that his detention without a bond hearing is
arbitrary and capricious under the Due Process Clause of the
Amendment. Id. at 10-12 <Jii 53-59. This claim will be addressed as
part of ioner's broader Due Process claim. � Betancourth v.
Tu.tg, 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 *l n.3 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 2, 2026).
7Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 12-13 <][<][ 60-64.
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 challenge" and because§ 1225(b)(2)
authorizes his continued detention. Garcia, 2026 WL 1580638, at
*2.
8Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, pp. 1-2.
9 Petitioner's Reply in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus and Response in Opposition to Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 6.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-04204 Document 7 Filed 07/17/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

Because "presence without admission deems [Petitioner] to be
[an] applicant [] for admission, 11 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.' 11 J_Q_,_ 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.
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.
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-04204 Document 7 Filed 07/17/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 17th day of July, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
Case 4:26-cv-04204 Document 7 Filed 07/17/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4