Case ID: f-appx_228/html/0486-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Moustapha SACKO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 06-30096
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 17, 2007.
    Wayne Joseph Blanchard, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Katherine Wharton Vincent, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Moustapha Sacko, an immigration detainee, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he challenged his pre-removal detention by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He now appeals the district court’s holding he failed to demonstrate there was no reasonable likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future. According to Sacko, his continued detention beyond six months violates the rule from Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001).

It appears the district court did not err in concluding Sacko hampered the Government’s efforts to remove him. We need not reach that issue, however. Instead, we note the district court ordered the Government to obtain travel documents from Burundi within six months. That period has now passed, rendering moot any dispute over the rationale for the district court’s order of continued detention. Therefore, we vacate and remand to the district court to determine whether, given the current status of the case, “there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future”. Id. at 701, 121 S.Ct. 2491; see also Gul v. Rozos, 163 Fed.Appx. 317 (5th Cir.2006).

VACATED AND REMANDED 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.