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 O RDER ” ). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 2 New York, on the 1 3 t h da y of S e p t e m b e r , two thousand twenty

- one . 3 4 PRESENT: 5 REENA RAGGI , 6 DENNY CHIN , 7 MICHAEL H. PARK , 8 Circuit Judges. 9

_____________________________________ 10 11 IBRAHIMA SORY SOW, 12 13 Petitioner

- Appellee , 14 15

v. 20

- 3306 16 17 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, THOMAS 18 FEELEY, FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR FOR DETENTION AND REMOVAL, JEFFREY 19 SEARLS, FACILITY ACTING DIRECTOR BUFFALO FEDERAL DETENTION 20 FACILITY , 21 22 Respondents

- Appellants. 23

_____________________________________ 24 25 F OR PETITIONER

- APPELLEE: A MY B ELSHER , New York Civil Liberties 26 Union Foundation, New York, NY 27 ( Guadalupe V. Aguirre, Terry Ding, 28 Christopher Dunn, New York Civil Liberties 29 Union Foundation, New York, NY; Robert 30 F. Graziano, Tonawanda, NY
, on the brief ). 31 322 F OR RESPONDENTS

- APPELLANTS: B RIAN S. B EIER , Senior Litigation Counsel 1 ( John W. Blakeley, Assista nt Director, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation
, on the 3 b rief ), for Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 4 Attorney General, Civil Division, United 5 States Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this appeal from the Western District of New York 9
(Wolford, J. )
, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment 10

of the district court is VACATED and the case is REMANDED

. 11

I n May 2018, immigration authorities encountered Ibrahima Sory Sow , a native and citiz en 12

of the Republic of Guinea, at the Champlain, New York port of entry

. F inding that Sow had been 13
subject to a final order of removal since 2007, the Department of Homeland Security detained him 14
pending final removal. On August 20, 2018, Sow moved to reopen immigration proceedings
, a 15

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

A098

- 420

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

of his den ied motion to reopen and secured a stay of removal pending disposition of that petition

. 18

See Order Granting Temp. Stay, Sow v. Garland , No. 19

- 2464 (2d Cir. Sept. 6, 2019), ECF No. 19

26; Order Granting Stay
, Sow v. Garland , No. 19

- 2464 ( Nov. 20, 2019), ECF No. 43. 20
While his petition was pending, o n October 28, 2019 , So w moved the district court for a 21
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 , arguing that his prolonged detention violated his 22
statutory and constitutional rights and that he was e ntitled to a bond hearing before an immigration 23
judge

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

and order ing an individualized bond hearing. See Sow v. Barr , No. 6: 19

- cv

- 6794, 2020 WL 25
5046263, at *8 (W.D. N.Y. Aug. 27, 2020). That hearing resulted in Sow’s September 14, 2020 26
release from custody , when he posted the bond set by the I mmigration J udge

. The government’s 273 timely appeal of the district court’s habeas judgment is now before this court. We assume the 1
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues in th is appeal, as well 2
as in Sow’s related petition in No. 19

- 2464

. 3

Insofar as t h e government here challenges the district court’s writ requiring a bond hearing 4

“where an individualized determination can be made as to whether [Sow] should remain confined 5
for the duration of his immigration proceedings
, ” Sow , 2020 WL 5046263, at *8
, o ur denial of the 6
petition for review in Sow v. Garland , No. 19

- 2464
, filed today
, concludes those proceedings. The 7
government is thus no longer encumbered by the writ entered against it, so this court is unable to 8
grant “any effectual relief whatever.” Mil ls v. Green , 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895). Th is moots the 9
appeal

. See id. 10

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

consequences,” United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. , 340 U.S. 36, 41 (1950), we vacate the 12
judgment of the district court and remand for consideration of Sow’s habeas petition in light of our 13

decision in Sow v. Garland , No. 19

- 2464 , Sow’s September 2020 release from detention, and any 14
other developments

. 15
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for 16
further proceedings. 17

FOR THE COURT: 18 Cat herine O ’ Hagan Wolfe, Cler k of Court 19