20-3306

Sow v. Garland

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY 

ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF 

APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER 

IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN 

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY 

ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 

2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 13th 3 day of September, two thousand twenty-one.

4

5 PRESENT:

6 REENA RAGGI,

7 DENNY CHIN,

8 MICHAEL H. PARK,

9 Circuit Judges.

10 _____________________________________

11

12 IBRAHIMA SORY SOW,

13

14 Petitioner-Appellee,

15

16 v. 20-3306

17

18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, THOMAS 

19 FEELEY, FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR FOR DETENTION AND REMOVAL, JEFFREY 

20 SEARLS, FACILITY ACTING DIRECTOR BUFFALO FEDERAL DETENTION 

21 FACILITY,

22

23 Respondents-Appellants.

24 _____________________________________

25

26 FOR PETITIONER-APPELLEE: AMY BELSHER, New York Civil Liberties 

27 Union Foundation, New York, NY

28 (Guadalupe V. Aguirre, Terry Ding, 

29 Christopher Dunn, New York Civil Liberties 

30 Union Foundation, New York, NY; Robert 

31 F. Graziano, Tonawanda, NY, on the brief).

32
2

1 FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS: BRIAN S. BEIER, Senior Litigation Counsel

2 (John W. Blakeley, Assistant Director, 

3 Office of Immigration Litigation, on the 

4 brief), for Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 

5 Attorney General, Civil Division, United 

6 States Department of Justice, Washington, 

7 DC.

8

9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this appeal from the Western District of New York 

10 (Wolford, J.), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment 

11 of the district court is VACATED and the case is REMANDED. 

12 In May 2018, immigration authorities encountered Ibrahima Sory Sow, a native and citizen 

13 of the Republic of Guinea, at the Champlain, New York port of entry. Finding that Sow had been 

14 subject to a final order of removal since 2007, the Department of Homeland Security detained him

15 pending final removal. On August 20, 2018, Sow moved to reopen immigration proceedings, a 

16 motion which the Board of Immigration Appeals subsequently denied. See In re Sow, 

17 A098-420-116 (B.I.A. July 17, 2019). On August, 12, 2019, Sow petitioned this court for review

18 of his denied motion to reopen and secured a stay of removal pending disposition of that petition. 

19 See Order Granting Temp. Stay, Sow v. Garland, No. 19-2464 (2d Cir. Sept. 6, 2019), ECF No. 

20 26; Order Granting Stay, Sow v. Garland, No. 19-2464 (Nov. 20, 2019), ECF No. 43.

21 While his petition was pending, on October 28, 2019, Sow moved the district court for a 

22 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his prolonged detention violated his 

23 statutory and constitutional rights and that he was entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration 

24 judge. The district court agreed and, on August 27, 2020, entered judgment, granting the petition 

25 and ordering an individualized bond hearing. See Sow v. Barr, No. 6:19-cv-6794, 2020 WL 

26 5046263, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2020). That hearing resulted in Sow’s September 14, 2020

27 release from custody, when he posted the bond set by the Immigration Judge. The government’s 
3

1 timely appeal of the district court’s habeas judgment is now before this court. We assume the 

2 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues in this appeal, as well 

3 as in Sow’s related petition in No. 19-2464.

4 Insofar as the government here challenges the district court’s writ requiring a bond hearing

5 “where an individualized determination can be made as to whether [Sow] should remain confined 

6 for the duration of his immigration proceedings,” Sow, 2020 WL 5046263, at *8, our denial of the 

7 petition for review in Sow v. Garland, No. 19-2464, filed today, concludes those proceedings. The 

8 government is thus no longer encumbered by the writ entered against it, so this court is unable to 

9 grant “any effectual relief whatever.” Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895). This moots the 

10 appeal. See id.

11 “[T]o prevent a judgment, unreviewable because of mootness, from spawning any legal 

12 consequences,” United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 41 (1950), we vacate the 

13 judgment of the district court and remand for consideration of Sow’s habeas petition in light of our 

14 decision in Sow v. Garland, No. 19-2464, Sow’s September 2020 release from detention, and any 

15 other developments. 

16 For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for 

17 further proceedings.

18 FOR THE COURT: 

19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court