Claudio Alejandro Salazar-Gonzalez v. Kristi Noem, et al

Southern District of Texas ENTERED Feb 12, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ashen □□□□□□□ Clon SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CLAUDIO ALEJANDRO SALAZAR- § GONZALEZ, § § Petitioner, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-04662 § KRISTI NOEM, et al, § § Respondents. § ORDER The Petitioner, Claudio Alejandro Salazar-Gonzalez, is a detainee in the custody of United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officials at the Joe Corley Processing Center in Conroe, Texas. Through counsel, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his mandatory detention without a bond hearing. Doc. No. |. Respondents have filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 10), to which petitioner has filed a response in opposition (Doc. No. 13). Respondents have filed a reply (Doc. No. 14).

The undisputed facts in the record show that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States without inspection. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the statute permitting discretionary bond, and that he has been erroneously categorized as a detainee subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), the mandatory detention statute. His arguments regarding sections 1225 and 1226 and their implementing 1/2 regulations are foreclosed by the Fifth Circuit’s recent panel decision in Buenrostro- Mendez v. Bondi, --- F Ath ----, No. 25-20496, 2026 WL 323330 (Sth Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). In addition, Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause claim is precluded, at this juncture, by Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 531 (2003), because “[d]etention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of that process.” /d. (citations omitted).

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. The petition filed by Claudio Alejandro Salazar-Gonzalez is DENIED.

2. Respondents’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED.

3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

4. All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.

5. Ifthe Fifth Circuit, en banc, or the United States Supreme Court enters a decision that is contrary to this Order or to the panel decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, supra, Petitioner is granted leave to file a motion for reconsideration or initiate a separate petition.

SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this ze day of February 2026.

Pee| ANDREW S. HANEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2/2