United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60225

Brandon Mendoza-Flores, 

Petitioner,

versus

Jeffrey A. Rosen, Acting U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A200 287 425

Before Haynes, Higginson, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Stephen A. Higginson, Circuit Judge:

Brandon Mendoza-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 

this court for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(“BIA”) in a withholding-only proceeding. The BIA affirmed denial of his 

motions for (1) continuance pending resolution of his T visa application, 

(2) withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act 

(“INA”), and (3) deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture 

(“CAT”), and dismissed his appeal. Following the BIA’s decision, 

Mendoza-Flores’s T visa application was denied and he was removed to 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 29, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60225 Document: 00515687740 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2020
No. 19-60225

2

Mexico. Because this court can no longer grant Mendoza-Flores any effectual 

relief, we dismiss his petition as moot.

I.

Mendoza-Flores initially entered the United States in February 2012

while being paid to transport marijuana. U.S. Border Patrol agents 

apprehended him, and a removal order was issued. Subsequently, in April 

2012, Mendoza-Flores pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana with intent 

to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D) and was 

sentenced to 180 days in prison. He admitted to being paid to transport 

approximately 23 kilograms of marijuana. This offense qualifies as an 

“aggravated felony” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43). See 8 

U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B); 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 

(b)(1)(D).

After completing his sentence, Mendoza-Flores was removed to 

Mexico in August 2012. He reentered the United States in November 2012 

but was stopped by U.S. immigration authorities and voluntarily returned to 

Mexico. 

He reentered a third time just a few weeks later. 

In April 2018, U.S. immigration agents encountered Mendoza-Flores, 

detained him, and reinstated the February 2012 expedited removal order.

The reinstatement notice stated that Mendoza-Flores was prohibited from 

reentering the United States for life due to his aggravated-felony conviction. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(A)(i).

After Mendoza-Flores told immigration officers that he feared 

returning to Mexico, an asylum officer determined that Mendoza-Flores had 

established a reasonable fear of torture. The Department of Homeland 

Case: 19-60225 Document: 00515687740 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2020
No. 19-60225

3

Security (“DHS”) referred the case to an immigration judge (“IJ”) for 

“withholding-only proceedings.”

Mendoza-Flores’s withholding-only merits hearing was held on 

October 3, 2018. At the beginning of the hearing, Mendoza-Flores requested 

a continuance pending the resolution of his application for T nonimmigrant 

status (“T visa”). His counsel explained that he had filed a T visa application 

with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on February 

6, 2019, that was still pending. The IJ issued an oral decision on October 18, 

2019, denying Mendoza-Flores’s requests for continuance, withholding of 

removal under the INA, and deferral of removal under the CAT.

Mendoza-Flores appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. On March 22, 

2019, the BIA issued a decision affirming the IJ’s reasoning and dismissing

the appeal.

Mendoza-Flores timely petitioned this court for review but did not file 

a motion for stay of removal. USCIS subsequently denied Mendoza-Flores’s 

T visa application on July 26, 2019, and Mendoza-Flores was removed to 

Mexico immediately thereafter.

II.

This court’s jurisdiction requires a live case or controversy at all 

stages of litigation. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). Inherent in the 

case-or-controversy requirement is the doctrine of mootness; federal courts 

lack jurisdiction “when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief 

whatsoever to the prevailing party.” United States v. Vega, 960 F.3d 669, 672 

(5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 

298, 307 (2012)). “We review the question of mootness de novo, raising the 

issue sua sponte if necessary.” Id. (citation omitted).

Case: 19-60225 Document: 00515687740 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/29/2020
No. 19-60225

4

III.

The denial of Mendoza-Flores’s T visa application and his subsequent 

removal to Mexico necessitate our consideration of mootness. MendozaFlores’s petition for review is moot if it is impossible for this court to grant 

him any effectual relief. Vega, 960 F.3d at 672. In cases challenging a BIA 

decision, the petitioner’s removal from the United States generally renders 

the petition moot unless the petitioner would suffer collateral legal 

consequences from the challenged decision. See Alwan v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 

507, 511 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Spencer, 523 U.S. at 8). We have previously 

held that a period of inadmissibility following removal is a collateral legal

consequence of the removal decision. See id. (citing Umanzor v. Lambert, 782 

F.2d 1299, 1301 (5th Cir. 1986)).

Mendoza-Flores’s petition challenges the BIA’s decision in his 

withholding-only proceeding. The legality of his February 2012 removal 

order and the April 2018 reinstatement of this removal order is therefore not 

before us. In his petition, Mendoza-Flores asks this court to decide that the 

BIA erred in denying his motions for continuance pending the resolution of 

his T visa application, withholding of removal under the INA, and deferral of 

removal under the CAT. 

Mendoza-Flores acknowledged in a supplemental letter that his T visa 

application “is no longer eligible to be granted.” This necessarily moots his 

request for continuance. See Vega, 960 F.3d at 672.

Mendoza-Flores’s subsequent removal to Mexico moots his 

remaining two claims unless he can show that he suffers collateral legal 

consequences from the BIA’s withholding-only decision. Alwan, 388 F.3d at 

511. According to the notice accompanying Mendoza-Flores’s order

reinstating removal, removal rendered him permanently inadmissible to the 

Case: 19-60225 Document: 00515687740 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/29/2020
No. 19-60225

5

United States due to his aggravated-felony conviction.1 While inadmissibility

would be a collateral legal consequence of Mendoza-Flores’s removal order, 

it is not a collateral consequence of the BIA’s withholding-only decision.

Collateral consequences must stem from the underlying cause of action to 

salvage justiciability. See Spencer, 523 U.S. at 14; Kaur v. Holder, 561 F.3d 957, 

959 (9th Cir. 2009); Ramirez-Ortez v. Barr, 782 F. App’x 318, 321–22 (5th 

Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (unpublished). Even if we decided that the BIA erred 

in denying Mendoza-Flores withholding of removal, he would still be subject 

to the February 2012 removal order and thus inadmissible to the United 

States. See Alwan, 358 F.3d at 511 n.3. In his supplemental letter, MendozaFlores identifies no collateral legal consequence from the denial of 

withholding. 

Because Mendoza-Flores suffers no collateral legal consequences 

from the BIA’s denial of withholding, we are unable to grant Mendoza-Flores 

any effectual relief and thus lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision.

IV.

Accordingly, we DISMISS Mendoza-Flores’s petition for review as 

moot.

1 We take no position as to whether Mendoza-Flores is, in fact, permanently 

inadmissible to the United States due to his removal order. In a supplemental letter to this 

court, the Government represents that the reinstatement of Mendoza-Flores’s removal 

order rendered him inadmissible to the United States for five years. Either of these 

positions may be correct, and this issue is not germane to our resolution of MendozaFlores’s petition. 

Case: 19-60225 Document: 00515687740 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/29/2020