Reyes Lopez v. Dickey et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
RUFINO ANTONIO REYES LOPEZ, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
V. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-6859
RAYMOND THOMPSON, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Rufino Antonio Reyes Lopez (''Petitioner''), a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United
States without inspection m 2023 as an unaccompanied minor I On August 4, 2026, Pehtioner was
taken mto immigration custody.2 That same day Petitioner was served with a Notice to Appear,
charging him with inadmissibility 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."3 Petitioner is in removal proceedings
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 the Immigration and Nationality Act and
1 Petition 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. 4,I7; Motion to Stay,
and in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment ("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.
2Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No 1, p. 5 ,r 11.
3Notice to Appear, Exhibit 1 to Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5-1, pp. 1, 4.
4Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, p. 3.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
October 13, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-06859 Document 7 Filed 10/13/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

due process.5 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.6 Petitioner has filed a response.7
Because "presence without admission deems [Petitioner] to be [an] applicant□ for
admission," Petitioner 1s 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 regardmg 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) 1s 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.
5Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No 1, pp. 11-15 ,Mr 36-56. Petitioner also asserts an as
applied claim. His claim 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)
authonzes his continued detent10n. Garcia v. Venegas, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1 :26-CV-266, 2026
WL 1580638, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 2, 2026).
6Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, pp. 1-2.
7Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Stay and in the Alternative,
Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 6.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-06859 Document 7 Filed 10/13/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Teocas, on this 13th day of Oc
��
7 SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-06859 Document 7 Filed 10/13/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3