Quilumba Collaguazo v. Garcia et al

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LAREDO DIVISION
ALEX JAVIER QUILUMBA
COLLAGUAZO,
Petitioner,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:26-CV-00302
V.
MARIO GARCIA, ET AL.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Dkt.
No. 1), and Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 10). Petitioner
challenges his continued detention in federal immigration custody. After considering the
petition, the motion, and applicable law, the Court concludes that Respondents’ motion
should be granted and the petition dismissed.
A “court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute of any material fact, and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The Court must consider the record as a whole to
determine whether a genuine dispute exists. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
322–23 (1986). However, the Court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party. Valderas v. City of Lubbock, 937 F.3d 384, 389 (5th Cir. 2019).
Petitioner is a citizen of Ecuador. (Dkt. No. 1 at 13).1 He entered the United States
without inspection in 2023 and later turned himself in to immigration authorities. (Dkt.
No. 10-1 at 1). After turning himself in, Petitioner was served a Notice to Appear and
released on his own recognizance. (See id.; Dkt. No. 10 at 2). In 2024, Petitioner applied
for asylum. (Dkt. No. 1 at 14). While in the United States, Petitioner “was gainfully
employed as a welder, was taking English as a Second Language (ESL) classes to improve
his 	language 	abilities, 	and 	received 	numerous 	Occupational 	Safety 	and 	Health
1 When citing to the page numbers of any document in the record, the Court will cite to the page
numbering of the Court’s internal CM/ECF docket system, and not to the page numbers in the underlying
documents.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 21, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 5:26-cv-00302 Document 20 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2 / 3
Administration (OSHA) certifications after completing training courses relevant to his
field. (Id. at 14–15).
On January 6, 2026, Petitioner was detained by immigration officials at his home.
(Id. at 15). Petitioner subsequently filed a habeas petition, seeking relief for his detention
without a bond hearing. See Quilumba Collaguazo v. Garcia, No. 5:26-CV-00076, pet.
(S.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2026). His petition was granted, and the court ordered a bond hearing.
Quilumba Collaguazo v. Garcia, No. 5:26-CV-00076, Dkt. No. 5 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2026).
Petitioner received a bond hearing on February 2, 2026, in the Laredo Immigration
Court. (See Dkt. No. 1-1).
At Petitioner’s bond hearing, he was denied bond on the basis of flight risk. (Dkt.
No. 1-1 at 15). On the record, the Immigration Judge (IJ) stated three reasons for the
decision: “Respondent did enter the United States in 2023, therefore does not have a
significant amount of time in the United States”; “concerns that the [sponsor] that has
been offered does not reside in the same state with the Respondent”; and “Respondent
[has] no viable relief in the United States, which then makes him a flight risk.” (Id. at
13–14). Petitioner reserved appeal of the bond decision, but no appeal was filed with the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). (See Dkt. No. 10 at 3).
On March 2, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
asserting that his continued detention violates his rights to procedural due process under
the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Petitioner characterizes his claim as a
constitutional challenge, and not a “review” of a denial of bond. (Dkt. No. 11 at 9–10). He
requests, among other things, that the Court declare his detention unlawful, order his
immediate release or a bond hearing, and award reasonable attorney’s fees.
Respondents move for summary judgment. First, they argue that Petitioner failed
to exhaust his remedies prior to filing the petition. Second, they argue that the Court
lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary IJ decisions under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). Third,
they argue that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under Buenrostro v. Bondi.
Finally, they argue that Petitioner’s detention does not violate due process.
The Court begins by addressing jurisdiction. Section 1226(e) deprives the Court
of jurisdiction to review discretionary bond decisions by an IJ. This provision states that
“[t]he Attorney General’s discretionary judgment regarding the application of this section
Case 5:26-cv-00302 Document 20 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3 / 3
shall not be subject to review. No court may set aside any action or decision by the
Attorney General under this section regarding the detention of any alien or the
revocation or denial of bond or parole.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e); see also Fuentes v. Lyons, 808
F. Supp. 3d 733, 737 (S.D. Tex. 2025) (citing Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392, 401 (2019)).
Respondents argue that this provision deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear
Petitioner’s claims. Petitioner maintains that he does not seek review of his bond denial.
The Court agrees with Respondents that the Court cannot review Petitioner’s
claim because his continued detention is the result of the IJ’s discretionary decision to
deny bond. Upon review of evidentiary record submitted to the Court, Petitioner received
a bond hearing and review of his custody. While the bond hearing he received was a result
of a court order, the IJ stated on the record that it was a determination made under
Section 1226(a). (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 12). Petitioner characterizes his claim as a constitutional
challenge, however, in effect, Petitioner’s claim challenges how the IJ weighed evidence
at his custody redetermination. Furthermore, Petitioner has not shown that his bond
hearing was constitutionally inadequate, nor has he presented a claim that could not be
considered by the BIA on appeal given that the IJ’s bond decision was made under Section
1226. 2 For these reasons, Respondents’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is
granted.
For the reasons stated above, Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt.
No. 10), is GRANTED. Petitioner’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Dkt.
No. 1), is DENIED. All other relief requested by Petitioner is DENIED.
A final judgment will follow.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED on July 21, 2026.
John A. Kazen
United States District Judge
2 The Court notes that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e) serves as a vehicle to request a subsequent bond
determination “upon a showing that the alien’s circumstances have changed materially since the prior bond
redetermination.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e).
Case 5:26-cv-00302 Document 20 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3