Domingo Cotlame Flores v. Todd Blanche, et al.

Southern District of Texas ENTERED April 21, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner. Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION DOMINGO COTLAME FLORES, § § Petitioner, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-02760 § TODD BLANCHE, et al., § § Respondents. § ORDER OF DISMISSAL The petitioner, Domingo Cotlame Flores, is a detainee in the custody of United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officials. Through counsel, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his 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 petition and attached exhibits reflect that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States without lawful status in 2001 and has since been placed in removal 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.

1/3 proceedings. Doc. No. | at 7. Petitioner does not plead facts to show that he has been lawfully admitted into the United States, and he does not so contend.

Because Petitioner entered without inspection and has not obtained lawful status, he is an applicant for admission subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). See Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (Sth Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). His arguments regarding bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations are foreclosed by Buenrostro- Mendez. His detention is mandated by statute under section 1225(b)(2). Accordingly, Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment due process 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”).

Likewise, his Fifth Amendment equal protection claim is unavailing because he fails 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 falls outside of the statutory definition of an applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) as interpreted by the Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro-Mendez. See Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993) (rejecting equal protection claims regarding continued detention brought by alien juveniles who did not have close relatives to serve as guardians because they were 2/3 distinct from alien juveniles with close relatives available to serve as guardians and different from American juveniles in delinquency proceedings who were citizens).

In addition, his claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) fail because an “adequate remedy in a court” is available via habeas corpus. 5 U.S.C. § 704; accord Jimenez v. Noem, Civ. A. No. H-25-5853, at Doc. No. 10 at 5 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2026) (holding that the petitioner was not entitled to relief under the APA where he was able to challenge his detention through habeas corpus); see also Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. 670, 674 (2025) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (agreeing with the majority “that habeas corpus, not the APA, is the proper vehicle” where habeas corpus is an available remedy).

Concomitantly, his related Suspension Clause claim fails because habeas remains available to challenge immigration detention. See Jimenez, Civ. A. No. H-25-5853; Trump, 604 U.S. at 674.

Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

SIGNED this “C4 □ day of April 2026. \ | \ | | <q) A ANDREW S. HANEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3/3