Zoila Perez Villada v. Pamela Jo Bondi, et al.

Southern District of Texas ENTERED March 25, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ethos □□□□□ Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ZOILA PEREZ VILLADA, § § Petitioner, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-01856 § PAMELA JO BONDI, et al., § § Respondents. § ORDER OF DISMISSAL The petitioner, Zoila Perez Villada, is a detainee in the custody of United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officials. Through counsel, she filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging her continued detention. Doc. No. 1.

The Court may dismiss a habeas petition on the pleadings “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (authorizing preliminary review and summary dismissal of habeas petitions on the pleadings).' The pleadings reflect that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States without inspection in 2002, remained in the United States without being admitted legally, was apprehended in November 2025, and is being held without bond under 8 U.S.C. A district court may apply any of the rules governing habeas petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to those filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Rule 1(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

1/2 § 1225(b) as an applicant for admission. See Doc. No. | at 4. Petitioner contends that she is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and that she has been miscategorized as a detainee subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).

Petitioner’s arguments regarding sections 1225 and 1226 and their implementing regulations are foreclosed by the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (Sth Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). In addition, Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause claims are 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); see also Jennings v. Rodriquez, 583 U.S. 281, 297 (2018) (explaining that “§§1225(b)(1) and 1225(b)(2) thus mandate detention of applicants for admission until certain proceedings have concluded”). She does not otherwise state facts to state a claim for which habeas relief could be granted regarding her current detention.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

3. All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT. jw SIGNED on this 2S _ day of March 2026.

1S UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2/2