Case ID: f-appx_529/html/0055-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      SUMMARY ORDER\n     McKENNA, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Oscar Adolfo NIETO-AYALA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 11-3892.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 11, 2013.
    Raymond S. Sussman, Brooklyn, NY, for petitioner-appellant.
    Preet Bharara, United States, Attorney for the Southern District of New York; Kirti Vaidya Reddy, Sarah S. Normand, Assistant United States, Attorneys, New York, NY.
    PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, RALPH K. WINTER, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

McKENNA, J.

Petitioner-Appellant Oscar Adolfo Nie-to-Ayala, a native and citizen of Colombia, appeals from the August 2011 order and judgment of Judge Lawrence M. McKen-na, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the government to continue his release on bond until the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services adjudicated his application for asylum. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

In December 2012, after filing his appeal in this Court, Nieto-Ayala was removed from the United States to Colombia pursuant to his final order of removal. Because upon his removal the only relief that he requested, continued release on bond, could no longer be granted, this appeal has been rendered moot. See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969); In re Flanagan, 503 F.3d 171, 178 (2d Cir.2007).

Although the district court also construed Nieto-Ayala’s mandamus petition as an indirect challenge to his removal order, which would not necessarily be rendered moot by his removal, see Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434-35, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (2009), Nieto-Ayala did not raise any specific challenges to his removal order in the district court and, in his brief here, explicitly states that he is not challenging his removal order. Accordingly, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the only relief that Nieto-Ayala requested in his mandamus petition, continued release on bond, has been rendered moot by his removal from the United States. See DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316, 94 S.Ct. 1704, 40 L.Ed.2d 164 (1974).

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is DISMISSED as moot.