IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION CHRISTIAN ANDRES PENUELA § CARLOS, § § § Plaintiff, NO. 9:25-CV-00249-MJT-ZJH § § JUDGE MICHAEL TRUNCALE v. § § PAMELA BONDI, KRISTI NOEM, TODD § LYONS, ALEXANDER SANCHEZ, § § Defendants. § § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On September 16, 2025, the Court referred this case to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, for pre-trial management. Dkt. 5. Pending before the Court is Petitioner Christian Andres Penuela Carlos’s (“Penuela Carlos”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Dkt. 2. On November 4, Judge Hawthorn issued a Report and Recommendation granting in part Petitioner’s petition. Dkt. 12. On November 12, 2025, Respondents filed objections to Judge Hawthorn’s report. Dkt. 15. A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to which the party specifically objects.

(b)(l)(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)–(3). Respondents’ objections [Dkt. 15] to Judge Hawthorn’s report [Dkt. 12] were not timely. Regardless, the Court has reviewed Judge Hawthorn’s Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 12] and has considered the Respondents’ objections [Dkt. 15]. The Court holds that Judge Hawthorn’s findings and conclusions of law are correct, and that the Respondents’ objections are without merit. Although there is no controlling Fifth Circuit precedent resolving the boundary between

and 1226, the straightforward reading of the statutes is that § 1226, not § 1225, governs Penuela Carlos’s detention. An overwhelming consensus of courts around the country

have ruled similarly.1 Under

(a)(13)(A), an “admission” requires “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer,” and § 1225(a)(1) provides that an alien “present in the United States who has not been admitted … shall be deemed an applicant for admission.” Section 1225(b)(2), however, applies only when an examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a reasonable doubt not entitled to be admitted; in that circumstance the alien “shall be

1 See Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, No. 2:25-CV-12486,

, at *8 n.5 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 29, 2025) (collecting twelve such decisions); Rodriguez v. Bostock, 779 F. Supp. 3d (W.D. Wash. 2025); Gomes v. Hyde, No. 1:25-cv-11571-JEK,

(D. Mass. July 7, 2025); Martinez v. Hyde, ---F. Supp. 3d ----, 1:25-cv-11613- BEM,

(D. Mass. July 24, 2025); Rosado v. Figueroa et al., No. 2:25-cv-02157-DLR,

(D. Ariz. Aug. 11, 2025); Lopez Benitez v. Francis et al., --- F. Supp. 3d ----, No. 1:25-cv-05937-DEH,

(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2025); Gonzalez et al v. Noem et al., No. 5:25-cv-02054-ODW-BFM (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2025); dos Santos v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-12052-JEK,

(D. Mass. Aug. 14, 2025); Maldonado v. Olson, --- F.Supp.3d ----, No. 0:25-cv-03142-SRN-SGE,

(D. Minn. Aug. 15, 2025); Romero v. Hyde, et al., --- F.Supp.3d ----, No. 1:25-cv-11631-BEM,

(D. Mass. Aug 19, 2025); Benitez et al v. Noem et al., No. 5:25-cv-02190-RGK-AS (C.D. Cal. Aug, 26, 2025); Jimenez v. FCI Berlin, Warden, No. 25-CV-326-LM-AJ,

, at *10 n.9 (D.N.H. Sept. 8, 2025); Lopez Santos v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV- 01193,

, at *5 (W.D. La. Sept. 11, 2025); Kostak v. Trump, No. 25-CV-01093,

, at *3 (W.D. La. Aug. 27, 2025); Lopez-Arevelo v. Ripa, No. 3:25-CV-00337-KC,

(W.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2025); Cardona v. Unknown Party #1 et al, No. 1:25-CV-1287,

(W.D. Mich. Nov. 17, 2025); Erazo v. Hardin, No. 2:25-CV-891-KCD-DNF,

(M.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2025); Guerra v. Noem et al., No. 1:25-CV-1341,

(W.D. Mich. Nov, 17, 2025); Gutierrez v. Thompson, et al., No. 4:25-CV- 4695,

(S.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2025); Quinapanta v. Bondi et al., No. 25-CV-795-WMC,

(W.D. Wis. Nov. 12, 2025); Lala Barros v. Noem et al., No. EP-25-CV-488-KC,

(W.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2025); E.V. et al. v. Raycraft, et al., No. 4:25-Cv-2069,

(N.D. Ohio Nov. 7, 2025); Merino v. Ripa, No. 25-23845-CIV-MARTINEZ,

, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2025); Ochoa Ochoa v.Noem, No. 25-CV-10865,

, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2025); Escobar-Ruiz v. Raycraft et al., No. 1:25-CV-1232,

(W.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2025); Molina Ochoa v. Noem, 1:25-CV-00881-JB-LF,

(D.N.M. Nov. 7, 2025); Villa v. Normand, et al., No. 5:25-CV-89,

(S.D. Ga. Nov. 4, 2025); Andres v. Bondi, et al., No. 25-CV-3946 (NEB/DLM),

(D. Minn. Nov. 4, 2025) . detained for a proceeding under section 1229(a).” By contrast, Penuela Carlos had already been detained post-entry, released on his own recognizance, and given a future hearing date for September 30, 2026, to determine his removability. His detention occurred after he had been living in the United States for an extended period. The straightforward reading of the statutory scheme is that Penuela Carlos’s custody is governed by § 1226, which regulates detention “pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed,” while § 1225(b)(2)’s “seeking admission” language makes that statute inapplicable in this factual context. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Judge Hawthorn’s Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 12] is ADOPTED. Additionally, it is ORDERED that, on or before December 8, 2025, at 5:00 p.m., the Respondents shall either (1) provide Penuela Carlos with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge, at which the government shall bear the burden of justifying, by clear and convincing evidence of dangerousness or (flight risk, Penuela Carlos’s continued detention; or (2) release Penuela Carlos from custody, under reasonable conditions of supervision.

SIGNED this 21st day of November, 2025.

Michael J. Truncale United States District Judge