Kiyedi v. Cerna et al

1 / 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
DANIEL K., §
“Petitioner,” §
§
v. §
§
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00146
ROBERT CERNA, et al.,
“Respondents.”
§
§
§
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner’s “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” (Dkt. No. 1)
(“Petition”), the Magistrate Judge’s “Report and Recommendation to Deny Petitioner’s Habeas
Petition” (Dkt. No. 13) (“R&R”), and “Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and
Recommendation” (Dkt. No. 14) (“Objections”).
The R&R recommends that the Court: (1) deny the Petition (Dkt. No. 1), (2) grant
Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 9), (3) deny as moot Petitioner’s pending
“Motion[s] for Prompt Ruling” (Dkt. Nos. 11 & 12), and (4) direct the Clerk of Court to close this
case. Dkt. No. 13 at 2.
When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the Court reviews
the matter de novo. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). Petitioner
primarily objects to the R&R’s conclusion regarding the viability of his constitutional claims. See
generally Dkt. No. 14. Having reviewed the matter de novo, the Court finds that Petitioner’s
prolonged detention cannot be relieved by this Court.
The scope of Petitioner’s due process rights is limited by the entry fiction doctrine, under
which certain physically present aliens are treated as though they were “detained at the border”
and therefore possess only limited due process protections. See Gisbert v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 988 F.2d
1437, 1440 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Petitioner is an alien stopped at the threshold, whose “claims
arise in the context of immigration [,]” the entry fiction applies, Castro v. Cabrera, 742 F.3d 595,
600 (5th Cir. 2014), and Petitioner is entitled only to the due process protections provided by
statute. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 140 (2020). The parties’ filings
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
October 15, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:26-cv-00146 Document 15 Filed 10/15/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2 / 2
indicate that Petitioner was apprehended at the border on the same day he entered the United States
and has been detained since that apprehension. Dkt. No. 1 at 4; Dkt. No. 9-1. The circumstances
of Petitioner’s apprehension and detention thus place Petitioner in the position of a non-entrant
alien who lacks access to the extra-statutory due process rights his Petition invokes.1
For these reasons, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s Objections (Dkt. No. 14) and
ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 13). Respondents’ “Motion for Summary Judgment” (Dkt. No. 9) is
hereby GRANTED and the Petition (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED. Petitioner’s pending motions (Dkt.
Nos. 11 & 12) are further DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to close this
case.
SIGNED this October 15, 2026
1 Petitioner is permissibly detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), see Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498
(5th Cir. 2026)—a statute that mandates detention and admits of no discretion to provide an individualized bond
hearing outside the statutory scheme.
Case 1:26-cv-00146 Document 15 Filed 10/15/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2