govinfo:USCOURTS-txsd-4_26-cv-03382-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
HOUSTON DIVISION 
JUAN EDUARDO MORALES-VASQUEZ, § 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
Petitioner, 
v. 
RANDY TATE, et al., 
Respondents. 
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-3382 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
Juan Eduardo Morales-Vasquez ("Petitioner"), a citizen of 
Ecuador, entered the country with out inspection on December 1, 
2024. 1 That same day Petitioner was arrested by the Texas 
Department of Public Safety for criminal trespass and was taken 
into Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") custody. 2 On 
December 14, 2024, 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" 
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 
2241 ("Habeas Petition u), Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3 ! 4; Response to 
the Pet ion for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary 
Judgment ("Respondents' MSJ"), Docket Entry No. 5, p. 2. 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. 2. 
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 18, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-03382     Document 7     Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD     Page 1 of 4
and was released on his own recognizance. 3 On November 10, 2025, 
Petitioner filed an application for asylum and withholding of 
removal. 4 On April 21, 2026, Petitioner was taken into ICE custody 
for ling to be present a scheduled home visit. 5 Petitioner 
remains in immigration custody. 6
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition 
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues his detention without 
a bond hearing violates due process and equal protection. 7
Petitioner also alleges an as-applied challenge. 8
Also pending before the court is Respondents' Motion 
Summary Judgment ( Docket Entry No. 5) . Respondents argue that 
4 On May 22, 2026, Petitioner fil 
application. Id. 
an amended asylum 
7Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 4-10 <_H<j[ 20-52. 
Petitioner also argues that his detention without a bond hearing is 
arbitrary and capricious under the Fifth Amendment Due Process 
Clause. at 10-12 <j[<j[ 5 60. This claim wi be addressed as 
part of Petitioner's broader Due Process claim. Betancourth v,
�, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-cv-01169, 2026 WL 638482, at *1 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). 
8Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 12-13 <J[<J[ 61-65. 
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.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-03382     Document 7     Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD     Page 2 of 4
Petitioner's detention under § 1225 (b) (2) does not vio due 
process or equal protection because he is an applicant for 
admission. 9 Petitioner has filed a reply. 10 
Pet ioner's detention without a bond hearing does not violate 
substant 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 a constitutionally 
permissible part of that process.'" Id. at *2 (quoting Demore v. 
Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 1721 2 (2003)). Moreover, as explained in 
Jacobo-Ventura v. Dickey, Civil Action No. H-25-6117 (S.D. Tex. 
Feb. 19, 2026), because Pet ioner 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. 
Moreover, Petitioner's "Fifth Amendment equal protection claim 
is unavailing because he ls to identify a similarly situated 
class that is treated more favorably than noncitizens who entered 
the country without inspection, and he does not state facts to show 
that he s outside of the statutory definition of an applicant 
for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) as interpreted by the Fifth 
9Respondents' MSJ, Doc Entry No. 5, pp. 1 2. 
10Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Respondents' Motion 
for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 6. 
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-03382     Document 7     Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD     Page 3 of 4
Circuit in Buenrostro-Menendez." 11 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 
(Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED. 
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents. 
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 18th d 
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
11Although 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 himself to a distinct group of 
noncitizens who are in removal proceedings on entirely different 
grounds." Responde nts' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, pp. 11-12 
(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-03382     Document 7     Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD     Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight