A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t9,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT J ON STEP HA N V AU PEL,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. M ARI O ORTI Z; J . ALE XAN DER; M IC H A E L C H E R T O F F ; M IC H A E L J. G A RC I A ; A LB ER TO G O N ZA LES,

R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1103 ( D . C . N o . 0 5 - c v - 3 2 7 - WD M- MJ W)

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

P e tit io n e r Jo n S tep h a n V a u p e l ap p e a ls f ro m th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h is pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus under28 U . S. C . § 2241. O n appea l , he c h a lle n g e s th e v a lid ity o f a n e x p e d ite d re m o v a l o rd e r a n d h is c o n tin u e d d e te n tio n . W e di s m i s s the appe al forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on.-2- I . Backgr ound M r . V aupel i s an A us tr al i an ci t i zen. H e mar r i ed a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen, St acySchw ab, i n 2002. Pr i ort o 2003, he ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es s ever al t i m es u n d e r t h e V is a W a iv e r P ro g ra m (“ V W P ” ). See 8 U. S. C. § 1 18 7. U nd e rthe V W P, n o n im m ig ra n t v isito rs f ro m c e rta in p a rticip a tin g c o u n tries m a ye n ter a n d re m a in in th e U n ited S tate s fo r a p e rio d n o t ex c e e d in g 9 0 d a y s, w ith o u t h a v in g to o b tain a n d p re s e n t a v is a . See i d. § 1 1 8 7 (a ). H e a d m its th a t h e o v e rsta y e d h is a u th o riz e d 9 0 -d a yp e rio d o n a t lea st o n e o c c a sio n . O n Ja n u a ry3 1 , 2 0 0 3 , h e a g a in att empt ed t o ent erthe U ni t ed St at es underthe V W P, buthi s appl i cat i on w as deni ed bas ed on hi s pr evi ous over s t ay . A tthatt i m e he w as enr out e t o the U ni t ed S tate s to b e w ith M s. S c h w a b , w h o w a s e x p e rie n c in g m e d ica l co m p lica tio n s in con necti on w i th the bi rth o f t he co up l e’s chil d. B ased on the cir cum st ances, M r. V a u p e l w a s g ra n te d h u m a n ita ri a n p a ro le in to th e U n ite d S ta te s fo r 3 0 d a y s . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (d )(5 )(A ). H is p e rio d o f p a ro le w a s la ter e x ten d e d to M a rc h 7 , 2 0 0 3 . O n th a t d a te h e a n d M s. S c h w a b sig n e d a p p lica tio n fo rm s to a dju st M r. V a u p e l’s s tatu s to leg a l p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t (“ L P R ” ), b a se d u p o n h is m a rria g e to a U n ited S tate s c iti z e n . T h e ir a p p lica tio n fo rm s w e re n o t filed u n til A pr i l 10, 2003. A y e a r la ter , in A p ril 2 0 0 4 , M s. S c h w a b w a s a rre ste d a n d c h a rg e d w ith har as s m entand chi l d abus e fol l ow i ng an al t er cat i on w i th M r . V aupel . I n J une 2004, he w as arr es t ed and c har ged w i th m enac i ng and har as s m entof M s . Schw ab,-3-

as w el l as for geryr el at ed t o fal s e i dent i fi cat i on document s . M s . Schw ab w i thd r e w he rpe t i t i on i n s up po r tof M r . V a up e l ’ s a pp l i c a t i on t o b e c ome a n LPR o n J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 4 . Co n s e q u e n t l y , h i s a p p l i c a t i o n wa s a u t o ma t i c a l l yd e n i e d . He fi l ed a di vor ce pe t i t i on i n C ol or ado s t at e courton J ul y2. M r . V aupel w as det ai ned byI m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement ( “I C E ”) on O ct ober12, 2004. O n O ct ober14, I C E i s s ued a D et erm i nat i on of In a d m iss ib ili tya n d O rd e r o f R e m o v a l. T h e D e ter m in a tio n o f In a d m iss ib ili ty stat ed that M r. V au p el w as in ad m issi b le un d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 8 2 (a)(7)(A )(i )(I ) beca us e hi s appl i cat i on underthe V W P had been de ni ed and he ther eaf t erfai l ed t o departthe U ni t ed St at es fol l ow i ng expi r at i on of hi s per i od of par ol e. I ts t at ed furtherthathe w as “an i m m i gr antnoti n pos s es s i on of a va l i d, unexpi r ed i m m i gr antvi s a and [ he w as ] notexemptfr om havi ng one. ” R . , D oc. 12, E x. A - 16. T he O r derof R emoval found hi m i nadmi s s i bl e as char ged and or der ed hi m r emoved fr om the U ni t ed St at es under8 U . S. C . § 1225( b) ( 1) , w hi ch pr ovi des for“expe di t ed r emoval ” of c ert ai n i nadmi s s i bl e arr i vi ng al i ens . O n O ct ober15, M r . V aupel s ubm i t t ed a V i ol ence A gai ns tW om en A ct( “V A W A ”) pet i t i on s eeki ng t o s el f- adj us tt o L PR s t atus on the gr ound thathe i s a form ers pous e of a n abus i ve U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. M r . V aupel fi l ed hi s habea s pet i t i on i n the di s tr i ctcourton February22, 2 0 0 5 , alle g in g th a t h e w a s b e in g h e ld ill e g a llya n d a sk in g th e c o u rt to e njo in r es pondent s fr om deport i ng hi m . H e al s o s oughti nt er i m r el i ef, s eeki ng t o be-4-

release d fro m d eten ti o n p en d ing reso luti o n o f h is ha b ea s p eti ti o n o r a d eterm ination o n h is V A W A p eti ti o n , w h iche v er o cc u rred lat er. T h e d istri ct co u rt iss u e d a n o rd e r to sh o w c a u se w h yth e p e tit io n fo r w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s s h o u ld notbe gr ant ed and r es pondent s then fi l ed mot i ons t o di s m i s s the pet i t i on. T he d istric t co u rt re fe rre d th e m o tio n s to d ism iss a n d M r. V a u p e l’s m o tio n fo r in ter im r el i ef t o a magi s tr at e j udge, w ho r ecomm ended gr ant i ng r es pondent s ’ m ot i ons and d e n y in g M r. V a u p e l’s m o tio n . T h e d istric t co u rt a d o p ted in p a rt th e m a g istra te j udge’ s r ecomm endat i ons , deni ed the habe as pet i t i on and deni ed the mot i on for i nt er i m r el i ef. M r . V aupel fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l . O n February25, 2007, he w as deport ed. I I . D is cus s ion W e mustfi r s tdet erm i ne w hetherw e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew anyof the c laim s o n a p p e a l. A . Challenges to the Expedited R em ovalO r der M r . V aupel m akes s ever al ar gum ent s addr es s i ng the val i di tyof the expedi t ed r emoval or derent er ed pur s uantt o § 1225( b) ( 1) : ( 1) he i s notan i nadmi s s i bl e arr i vi ng al i en s ubj ectt o expedi t ed r emoval beca us e ( i ) he w as im p rop erlyg ran ted h u m an it arian p aro le w h en o ther o p ti o n s fo r reli ef w ere a v a i l a b l e a n d ( i i ) h e w a s e l i g i b l e fo ra n e x c e p t i o n t o i n a d m i s s i b i l i tya s a V A WA p e tit io n e r u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (a )(6 )(A )(ii); (2 ) e x p e d ited re m o v a l is-5-

i nappl i cabl e t o V W P appl i cant s ; and ( 3) the expe di t ed r emoval pr ocedur es deni ed him du e process. T h e sc o p e o f

ju d icia l re v iew o f

o rd e rs o f

re m o v a l u n d e r § 1 2 2 5 (b )(1 ) is extr emel ynarr ow . W i th veryl i m i t ed exc ept i ons , “no courts hal l have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew . . . anyi ndi vi dual det erm i nat i on ort o ent ert ai n anyothercaus e or cl ai m ar i s i ng fr om orr el at i ng t o the i m pl ement at i on oroper at i on of an or derof re m o v a l p u rs u a n t to s e c tio n 1 2 2 5 (b )( 1 ).” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( A )( i) . Speci fi cal l y , no courthas j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew “a de ci s i on bythe A t t orney G e n e ra l to in v o k e th e p ro v isio n s o f [ § 1 2 2 5 (b )(1 )],” “ th e a p p lica tio n o f [ th a t] s ect i on t o i ndi vi dual al i ens , ” or“pr ocedur es and pol i ci es adopt ed bythe A t t orney G ener al t o i m pl ement[thats ect i on] . ” Id. at§ 1252( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i ) - ( i v) . J udi ci al r evi ew of det erm i nat i ons m ade unde r§ 1225( b) ( 1) i s avai l abl e i n habea s corpus p ro c e e d in g s, b u t su c h re v iew is l i m i t ed t o det erm i nat i ons of– ( A ) w hetherthe pet i t i oneri s an al i en, ( B ) w hetherthe pet i t i onerw as or der ed r emoved unders uch s ect i on, and ( C ) w hetherthe pet i t i onercan pr ove bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatthe pet i t i oneri s an al i en l aw ful l yadmi t t ed for perm anentr es i dence , has been a dm i t t ed as a r efuge e . . . orhas been g r a n t e d a s y l u m. Id. a t § 1 2 5 2 (e )(2 )(A )-(C ). S e c tio n 1 2 5 2 (e )(5 ) p ro v id e s f u rth e r th a t: I n det erm i ni ng w hetheran al i en has been or der ed r emoved under se c tio n 1 2 2 5 (b )(1 ) o f

th is titl e , the c o u rt’s in q u irysh a ll b e lim ited to w hethers uch an or deri n fac tw as i s s ued and w hetheri tr el at es t o the-6-

p e tit io n e r. T h e re sh a ll b e n o re v iew o f w h e th e r th e a lien is a c tu a lly in a d m iss ib le o r e n tit led to a n yre lief f ro m re m o v a l. T he di s tr i ctcourtr ecogni zed the l i m i t ed s cope of i t s j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the val i di tyof M r . V aupel ’ s expedi t ed r emoval or derand ther efor e cons i der ed o n lyw h ethe r he is an ali en , w h ethe r he w as o rde red rem o v ed u n d er § 1 2 2 5 (b)(1 ), and w hetherhe coul d pr ove he w as an LP R , had bee n admi t t ed as a r efuge e, or had bee n gr ant ed as y l um . H e does notas s ertthatthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ngs on thes e i s s ues w er e i n err or . B uthe ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n cons trui ng the s cope of

i t s j ur i s di ct i on under§ 1252( e) t oo narr ow l y . Forthi s pr opos i t i on he re lies o n a d istric t co u rt c a se f ro m o u tsid e th is c irc u it w h ich h e ld th a t, i n as cert ai ni ng w hetheran or derof r emoval “r el at es t o” the al i en under § 1252( e) ( 5) , a courtm aydet erm i ne w hetherthe expe di t ed r emoval s t atut e w as la w f u lly a p p lie d to th e a lie n . See Am . -A r ab A nt i - D is cr i m i nat i on C om m . v. A sh c ro ft , 2 7 2 F . S u p p . 2 d 6 5 0 , 6 6 3 (E .D . M ic h . 2 0 0 3 ). W e re s p e c tf u lly d is a g re e . T he l anguage of the s t atut e cl ear l yand unambi guous l ypr ecl udes r evi ew i n a habea s pr ocee di ng of “w hetherthe al i en i s actual l yi nadmi s s i bl e orent i t l ed t o any re lie f f ro m re m o v a l.” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (e )( 5 ). S e e a ls o Br u mme v . I NS , 275 F. 3d 443, 447- 48 ( 5th C i r . 2001) ( r ej ect i ng cl ai m that§ 1252( e) perm i t s habea s r evi ew o f w h e th e r § 1 2 2 5 (b )(1 ) w a s a p p lica b le to p e tit io n e r); Li v. E ddy , 259 F. 3d 1132, 1134 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( “O n i t s fac e, [§ 1252( e) ( 2) ] does notappea rt o perm i tthe c o u rt to in q u ire in to w h e th e r se c tio n 1 2 2 5 (b )(1 ) w a s p ro p e rlyin v o k e d , b u t o n lyI n anothercont ext , C ongr es s has s peci fi cal l yauthor i zed j udi ci al r evi ew of 1 c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s , n o tw ith s ta n d in g s ta tu to ry lim ita tio n s o n ju d ic ia l r e v ie w . See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) . B utthatpr ovi s i on appl i es t o the cons truct i on of s ubpar agr aphs ( B ) and ( C ) of § 1252( a) ( 2) , w hi ch ar e i nappl i cabl e her e, and ex p li cit lyd o es n o t app lyto o ther p rov isi o n s o f § 1 2 5 2 li m it ing jud ici al rev iew . It i s al s o appl i cabl e onl yt o cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s r ai s ed i n pet i t i ons forr evi ew fi l ed in a n a p p ro p ri a te c o u rto f a p p e a ls . See i d. § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( D ).

-7- w h e th e r it w a s in v o k e d a t all. W e re th e re a n yd o u b t o f c o n g re ss io n a l in ten t, i t is r es ol ved by[§ 1252( e) ( 5) ] , thatexpr es s l ydecl ar es thatj udi ci al r evi ew does not e x te n d to a c tu a l a d m is s ib ility.” ), vacated as m oot , 3 2 4 F . 3 d 1 1 0 9 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). M r. V a u p e l d o e s n o t sp e c ifica llya d d re ss w h e th e r w e h a v e ju risd ictio n to cons i derhi s cl ai m thatthe expe di t ed r emoval pr ocedur es vi ol at e hi s r i ghtt o due pr oces s . R es pondent s as s ert , w i thouts uppor t i ng ci t at i on, thatthe courthas j ur i s di ct i on beca us e he pr es ent s a cons t i tut i onal chal l enge t o the expe di t ed r emoval pr ocedur es . W e hol d thatunder§ 1252( a) ( 2) ( A ) w e do nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthatcl ai m . N ori s ther e an e xcept i on i n § 1252( e) pr ovi di ng author i tyt o r evi ew cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s r el at ed t o the appl i cat i on of § 1225( b) ( 1) . M or eover , § 1252( e) ( 3) s et s forth the pr oces s forbr i ngi ng a 1 cons t i tut i onal chal l enge t o § 1225( b) ori t s i m pl ement i ng r egul at i ons . Such a cl ai m m aybe br oughti n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof C ol um bi a and musthave be en fi l ed no l at erthan 60 day s aft erthe dat e the c h a lle n g e d s e c tio n o r r e g u la tio n w a s fir s t im p le m e n te d . See i d. at § 1 2 5 2 (e )(3 )(A )-(B ); s ee als o A m . Im m igr at i on Lawyers A s s ’ n v. R eno , 18 F . S up p. 2d 38 , 46 -7, 60 (D . D . C . 19 98 ) ( dis m i ssi ng as t i m e-barred al i ens’-8-

cl ai m s fi l ed b ey on d the 60-daydead l i ne; di sm i ssi ng on the m eri t s other al i ens’ t i m el ydue pr oces s chal l enge t o expedi t ed r emoval pr ocedur es ) . T hus , t o the ext entM r . V aupel r ai s es a s y s t emi c cha l l enge t o the cons t i tut i onal i tyof the e x p e d ited re m o v a l p ro c e d u re s, su c h a c laim m a yn o t b e b ro u g h t in th e c o u rts in th is c ir c u it. Se e Li , 2 5 9 F . 3 d at 11 3 6 (ho lding u n d er § 1 2 5 2 (e)(3) tha t al ien’s c h a llen g e to e x p e d ited re m o v a l sy ste m c o u ld n o t b e b ro u g h t in c o u rts in N in th C ir cu it ). B eca us e M r . V aupel ’ s cl ai m s on appea l s eek r evi ew of the expe di t ed r emoval or derbey ond the l i m i t ed s cope of r evi ew perm i t t ed i n habea s corpus p r o c e e d i n g s b y§ 1 2 5 2 ( e ) , we d o n o th a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e rth e m. B . Challenges to Continued D etention M r . V aupel al s o cont ends thathi s cont i nued det ent i on i n I C E cus t odyfor o v e r tw o y e a rs, w ith o u t an o p p o rtu n ityfo r su p e rv ise d re lea se , is c o n tra ryto s ta tu te a n d v io la te s h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts o f d u e p ro c e s s a n d e q u a l p ro te c tio n . H e a rg u e s a s w e ll th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is re q u e st fo r in ter im r el i ef f r om det ent i on. A ft erm aki ng thes e cont ent i ons i n hi s openi ng appea l br i ef, M r. V a u p e l w a s re lea se d f ro m d e ten tio n u p o n h is re m o v a l to A u stra lia in F e b ru a ry2 0 0 7 . W e m u st th e re fo re c o n sid e r w h e th e r th e se c laim s re g a rd in g h is p re v io u s d e te n tio n a re n o w m o o t. S e e Ri l ey v . I NS , 310 F. 3d 1253, 1256- 57 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ).-9-

O uri nqui rythen bec om es w hetherA ppel l antm eet s one of the exce pt i ons t o the moot nes s doctr i ne. W e w i l l notdi s m i s s a pet i t i on as m ooti f ( 1) s econda ryorcol l at er al i nj ur i es s ur vi ve af t err es ol ut i on of the pr i m aryi nj ury ; ( 2) the i s s ue i s deemed a w r ong capa bl e of r epet i t i on y etevadi ng r evi ew ; ( 3) the defendantvol unt ar i l ycea s es an a lleg e d lyill e g a l p ra c tice b u t is f re e to re su m e it at a n ytim e ; o r (4 ) it is a p ro p e rlyc e rtifie d c las s a c tio n su it. Id. ( hol di ng thatcl ai m i n habea s pet i t i on forr el eas e fr om det ent i on w as m oot af ter pe ti ti o n er w as g ran ted s u p erv ised release ) (qu o tat ion s o m itted). B a s e d o n th e re c o rd b e fo re u s , n o n e o f th e s e e x c e p tio n s a p p lie s in th is c a s e . N ot abl y , M r . V aupel di d notm ake a cl ai m fordamages i n hi s habea s pet i t i on, s e e k in g in s te a d o n ly a r e le a s e f ro m c u s to d ya n d d e c la ra to ry re lie f. See R ., D o c . 1 at19. T hus , he has notdemonstr at ed anys econda ryorcol l at er al i nj urys ur vi vi ng h is d e te n tio n . See Fer r y v. G onz al es , 457 F. 3d 1117, 1132 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng thatchal l enge t o det ent i on w i thoutopportuni tyforbond w as m oot ed by deport at i on w her e pet i t i onerdi d nots eek monet arydamages forl os s of l i bertyor c o n so rtiu m ); s e e a ls o Ab da la v . I NS , 488 F. 3d 1061, 1064- 65 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( col l ect i ng cas es w her e habe as cl ai m s w er e ful l yr es ol ved and r ender ed moot by r el eas e fr om cus t ody ) . W e dec l i ne t o i s s ue an a dvi s oryopi ni on r egar di ng the l egal i tyof M r . V aupel ’ s det ent i on, “bec aus e a de cl ar at oryj udgm enton that ques t i on w oul d have no meani ngful effecton the [D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty ’ s ] futur e conduc tt ow ar ds [hi m ] . ” Ferry , 457 F. 3d at1132 .-10- C. R em aining Claim s on Appeal M r . V aupel al s o cont ends on appea l thathi s due pr oces s r i ght s w oul d be v i o l a t e d i f

h e w e r e r e m o v e d t o A u s tr a l i a p r i o rt o a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o n h i s V A WA p e tit io n . B u t in th e sa m e b rie f h e w a iv e d h is o n lyre q u e ste d re lief o n th is c laim byw i thdr aw i ng “anyand al l r eques t s fora s t ayof r emoval . ” A pl t . O peni ng B r . at 4 8 . T h e re fo re , w e h o ld th a t M r. V a u p e l h a s w a iv e d a p p e llate re v iew o f th is c laim . E v e n w ith o u t th is e x p re ss w a iv e r, w e w o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t th is c laim is al s o m oot ed byM r . V aupel ’ s deport at i on beca us e he ha s notdemonstr at ed a co ll ateral i njurysu rviv ing h is r em o v al. W e a g ree w ith the d istri ct co u rtthat there i s no bas i s t o hi s cl ai m thathi s r emoval w oul d pr eventthe cont i nued adj udi cat i on o f h is V A W A p e titio n . See R . , D oc. 12, E x. A - 19 at2 ( decl ar at i on by r epr es ent at i ve of a gencypr oces s i ng pet i t i on thati tw oul d notbe aba ndoned upon h im leav ing the U n it ed S tat es). Fi nal l y , he r ai s es tw o addi t i onal cl ai m s on appea l . H e cont ends thatthe di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng hi m l eave t o fi l e a s uppl ement al b rie f. H e a lso a rg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in g ra n tin g th e m o tio n to di s m i s s byr es pondent s M ar i o O r t i z, M i chae l C hert off, M i chae l J . G ar ci a, and A lberto G o n za les o n the b asis that theyd id n o t hav e c u stod yo f M r. V au p el. In l i g h to f o u rp r e v i o u s ru l i n g s th a twe l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e rh i s o th e rc l a i ms o n ap p ea l, w e find itu n n ec essa ryto d ec ide th ese issue s. E v en if M r. V au p el w ere t o pr evai l on ei therorboth of thes e cl ai m s of err or , the r es ul t i ng det erm i nat i on-11-

w oul d have no i m pacton hi s abi l i tyt o obt ai n the r el i ef he s eeks i n hi s habea s p e titio n o r o n th e o u tc o m e o f th is a p p e a l. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Torr es , 182 F. 3d 1156, 1164 & n. 2 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ( fi ndi ng “no r eas on t o abandon pr i nci pl es of j udi ci al r es tr ai ntand r enderan opi ni on thati s unnece s s aryand meani ngl es s as ap p li ed to the d efen d an t i n this case ”). I I I . Conclusion W e do nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derM r . V aupel ’ s cl ai m s on appea l c h a llen g in g th e v a lid ityo f th e e x p e d ited re m o v a l o rd e r. H is c laim s re late d to h is c o n tin u e d d e ten tio n a re m o o t. W e th e re fo re D IS M IS S th e a p p e a l. H is m o tio n to p r o c e e d i n fo r ma p a u p e r i s i s GR ANT E D. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

D avi d M . E bel C i r cui tJ udge