Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-01547

#1

Mar 09, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ATXWDC-21528476), filed by Teresa Vargas Galindo. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit ICE Detainee Locator, # 3 Exhibit EOIR Automated Case Information Page, # 4 Exhibit Original Order to Show Cause - Notice to Appear, # 5 Exhibit Oral Decision of the Immigration Judge, # 6 Exhibit Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, # 7 Exhibit I-166 (Bag and Baggage), # 8 Exhibit NVC Letter, # 9 Exhibit I-205 Warrant, # 10 Exhibit Encounter Information, # 11 Exhibit LPR Status of Spouse, # 12 Exhibit Order of Supervision and Addendum, # 13 Exhibit Deferred Action Grant Letter, # 14 Exhibit Petition for Alien Relative Approval Notice, # 15 Exhibit I-131 Deferred Action Status Receipt Notice, # 16 Exhibit Proof of Son's Military Status, # 17 Exhibit Petitioner's Declatation, # 18 Exhibit Notice of Reasonable Fear Interview)(Cote, C.M.) (Entered: 03/09/2026)

Mar 09, 2026

If ordered by the court, all referrals will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Chestney (vnd)

Mar 09, 2026

Case assigned to Judge Jason K. Pulliam. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (vnd)

Mar 10, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Mar 10, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

#2

Mar 11, 2026

STANDING ORDER for procedure in cases before Judge Pulliam. All parties and counsel are directed to review Judge Pulliam's Standing Order containing rules of practice, particularly the requirement of conference before filing a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) and demonstration of complete diversity. Failure to follow these rules of practice could result in the Court striking the Motion to Dismiss on its own initiative without further notice. Signed by Judge Jason Pulliam. (r013) (Entered: 03/11/2026)

#3

Mar 18, 2026

ORDER FOR SERVICE--Federal Respondents are ORDERED to file a response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus no later than March 24, 2026. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any possible or anticipated removal or transfer is IMMEDIATELY STAYED until further order from this Court. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (vnd) (Entered: 03/18/2026)

#4

Mar 18, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt of 3 Order, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,,,, (vnd) (Entered: 03/18/2026)

#5

Mar 24, 2026

Opposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 3 Order, by Pam Bondi, Todd M. Lyons, KRISTI NOEM, Sylvester M Ortega. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Acosta, Adrian) (Entered: 03/24/2026)

#6

Mar 25, 2026

Text Order GRANTING 5 Opposed Motion for Extension of Time. Movants ask for additional time to file a response to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Due to the expedited circumstances of these types of cases, the Court grants the motion without awaiting a response to the motion. The Court extends the time for Respondents to file a response to March 31, 2026. Any reply is due April 7, 2026. Entered by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (rw) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#7

Mar 25, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt delivered Stephanie Rico, The Civil Process Clerk United States Attorney's Office of 4 Certified Mail Receipt. (ktm) (Entered: 03/26/2026)

Mar 25, 2026

Reset Deadlines: Pam Bondi answer due 3/31/2026; Todd M. Lyons answer due 3/31/2026; KRISTI NOEM answer due 3/31/2026; Sylvester M Ortega answer due 3/31/2026; Rose Thompson answer due 3/31/2026. (bt)

Mar 25, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Mar 26, 2026

Set/Reset Answer Deadline

#8

Mar 31, 2026

RESPONSE to Order to Show Cause by Pam Bondi, Todd M. Lyons, KRISTI NOEM, Sylvester M Ortega. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Acosta, Adrian) (Entered: 03/31/2026)

#9

Apr 07, 2026

RESPONSE to 6 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,, 8 Response by Teresa Vargas Galindo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Statement)(Cote, C.M.) (Entered: 04/07/2026)

#10

Apr 14, 2026

MOTION to Expedite by Teresa Vargas Galindo. (Cote, C.M.) (Entered: 04/14/2026)

#11

Jul 09, 2026

ORDER FOR OMNIBUS ADVISORY. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (r013) (Entered: 07/09/2026)

#12

Jul 13, 2026

ORDER VACATING re 11 Order for Omnibus Advisory. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (r013) (Entered: 07/13/2026)

#13

Aug 05, 2026

MOTION Federal Respondents' Opposed Emergency Motion to Lift the Stay of Removal by Pam Bondi, Todd M. Lyons, KRISTI NOEM, Sylvester M Ortega. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Acosta, Adrian) (Entered: 08/05/2026)

#14

Aug 07, 2026

TEXT ORDER GRANTING 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; DENYING 10 Motion to Expedite; and MOOTING 13 Opposed Emergency Motion to Lift Stay of Removal. Petitioner moved to expedite on several grounds, including unrebutted claims, continuing detention, and a medical emergency. Given the hundreds of similar habeas actions pending in this Court, those reasons provide no basis to expedite except perhaps for the medical emergency. At this point, the Court denies the motion as unnecessary because it has already expedited this matter to the extent possible through its standard practice with habeas petitions. While an asserted medical emergency may be reason to expedite a particular case, numerous reasons prevented the Court from further expediting this matter. Petitioner asserts several claims, including that her detention violates 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as interpreted by Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Respondents have submitted a 8 response in opposition and Petitioner filed a 9 reply brief. Petitioner thereafter moved to expedite the case and, more recently, Respondents moved to lift the stay entered in this case. According to Respondents, the stay is the only impediment to Petitioner's removal. Despite that position, the recent motion adds nothing to the Court's consideration of whether to grant relief under Zadvydas. After reviewing the briefing, provided evidence, and applicable law, the Court grants the petition based on the law as set out and analyzed in Shengelia v. Ortega, No. 5:25-CV-1545-JKP, 2025 WL 3654368 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2025); Marquez-Amaya v. Thompson, No. 5:25-CV-1501-JKP, 2025 WL 3654327, at *5 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2025). While there are differences between this case and those cited cases, none warrant a different result. For reasons previously stated in those cases, the Court finds that (1) there is no question that Petitioner has been detained longer than the presumptively reasonable six-month period recognized in Zadvydas; (2) Petitioner has provided good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future; and (3) Respondents have not responded with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing. Through the circumstances of Petitioner's detention and the undisputed facts, Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of Zadvydas. Petitioner has been detained since January 7, 2026. No one disputes that Petitioner has been under a final order of removal since well before her current detention commenced. It is also undisputed that, on September 6, 2023, Petitioner was released on an Order of Supervision and that she complied with all terms of her release, including appearing for a routine check-in on the date immigration authorities took her into custody. Petitioner was given no advance notice of the reasons for revoking her release. Nor was she afforded any informal interview. Despite that release, Petitioner was re-detained following the regularly scheduled check-in with immigration authorities. And now, even though Petitioner has had a lengthy detention, Respondents have not shown that they have obtained travel documents that would permit her removal to her native country, Mexico. When Respondents revoked her release the day after they took her into custody, they merely stated that "it was determined she could be expeditiously removed from the United States pursuant to the order of removal." When Respondents filed their response, they added that, on February 3, 2026, they had made a negative screening determination as to her asserted fear of returning to Mexico. However, absent waiver that is not at issue here, that determination would not become final until after review by an immigration judge. Through their latest filing, Respondents provide an April 16, 2026 order from an immigration judge who agreed that Petitioner had not established a reasonable possibility that she would be persecuted or tortured in Mexico and thus returned the case for removal of Petitioner. But that filing merely confirms the removability of Petitioner relative to her claimed fear of persecution. It does nothing to carry the burden of Respondents to show a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. As Petitioner points out in her reply, she has a pending, unadjudicated application for deferred action as the parent of a military service member ("IMMVI"), filed January 8, 2026, as well as a pending, unadjudicated renewal application for military parole in place protections under that same initiative. Such applications necessarily impact the ability of Respondents to remove Petitioner in the reasonably foreseeable future and Respondents simply do not address them. The circumstances of this case provide good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of Petitioner's removal in the foreseeable future and Respondents have not rebutted that showing. Respondents essentially rely on a submitted declaration to carry their burden, but that declaration does not do so on the facts of this case. Nor does any subsequent filing carry their burden. They do not even address how the pending applications for withholding of removalaside from the claimed fear of persecutionimpact the prospect of removing Petitioner in the reasonably foreseeable future. Under the circumstances of this case, the Court concludes that habeas relief is proper and Zadvydas requires Petitioner's release from the unlawful detention. Because granting the habeas petition lifts the stay of removal, the motion to lift the stay is moot. Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 are not available in habeas corpus proceedings like this one. The Court treats the instant action solely as a habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and declines to consider any claim other than the alleged Zadvydas violation. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before August 9, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner Teresa Vargas Galindo from custody to a public location, under conditions no more restrictive than those in place before the detention at issue. Respondents must NOTIFY Petitioner's counsel of the exact location and exact time of release as soon as practicable and no less than two hours before release. Any possible or anticipated removal or transfer of Petitioner under this present detention is PROHIBITED unless, before releasing her in accordance with the timeframe of this Order, Respondents are able to fully adjudicate the pending applications of Petitioner and to remove her to her native country Mexico. No later than the next business day after the ordered release date, Respondents shall FILE a status report to confirm whether Petitioner has been released. If counsel for Petitioner disagrees with any aspect of the filed Status Report, counsel may file a separate Status Report. A written final judgment will be issued separately to summarize the orders of the Court and to close this habeas case. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (rw) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

#15

Aug 07, 2026

FINAL JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (cih) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

Aug 07, 2026

Order on Motion to Expedite

#16

Aug 10, 2026

STATUS REPORT RESPONDENTS STATUS REPORT by Pam Bondi, Todd M. Lyons, KRISTI NOEM, Sylvester M Ortega. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(May, LaTasha) (Entered: 08/10/2026)

#17

Oct 06, 2026

Notice of Appeal

Oct 06, 2026

Notice of Appeal