1 23

- 297 Castro

- Almonte 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 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 1 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in 2 the City of New York, on the 10 th da y of April , two thousand twenty
- four

. 3 4 PRESENT: 5 GUIDO CALABRESI, 6 MYRNA PÉREZ, 7 Circuit Judges , 8 ANNE M. NARDACCI, 9 District Judge. 1 10

_____________________________________ 11 12 Luis Castro

- Almonte , 13 14 Petitioner

- Appellant , 15 16
v. 23-297 17 18 Merrick Garland, in his official capacity as 19

1 Judge Anne M. Nardacci, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, sitting by designation.2 Attorney General of the United States, Jeffrey 1 Searls, in his official capacity as Acting 2 Assistant Field Office Director and 3 Administrator of the Buffalo Federal 4 Detention Facility, Alejandro Mayorkas, in 5 his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. 6 Department of Homeland Security, Tae 7 Johnson, in his official capacity as Acting 8 Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs 9 Enforcement, 10 11 Respondent s- Appellees

. 12

_____________________________________ 13 14 FOR PETITIONER

- APPELLANT: Luis Castro

- Almonte , pro se , 15 Batavia , NY. 16 17 FOR RESPONDENT S- APPELLEES: C OURTNEY E. M ORAN , Trial 18 Attorney, Office of Immigration 19 Litigation (William C. Peachey, 20 Director; Jessica W. D’Arrigo, 21 Senior Litigation Counsel, on the 22 brief ), for Brian M. Boynton, 23 Principal Deputy Assistant 24 Attorney General, Civil Division, 25 United States Department of 26 Justice, Washington, DC. 27 28 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District 29
of New York ( John L. Sinatra, Jr., Judge ). 30

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 31 DECREED that the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT. 32

P etitioner

- appellant, Luis Castro

- Almonte, proceeding pro se, appeals the district 333 court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which challenged his immigration detention 1
under 8 U.S.C § 1226(c). 2 Appellate courts “ have an independent obligation to ensure that developments in 3 the case have not rendered the appeal moot. ” United States v. Williams , 475 F.3d 468, 479 4
(2d Cir. 2007) (other citations omitted). A due process challenge to detention under 8 5
U.S.C. § 1226 is “rendered moot” when the Court’s decision on the appellant’s petition 6

for review of his removal order places him in the 90

- day removal period set forth in 8 7
U.S.C. § 1231. Wang v. Ashcroft , 320 F.3d 130, 147 (2d Cir. 2003) ; cf. Hechavarria v. Sessions , 8
891 F.3d 49, 55 (2d Cir. 2018). Thus, b ecause we have dismissed Castro

- Almonte ’s 9 petition for review of his removal order, this appeal challenging his detention under 10
§ 1226 is moot since detention authority has necessarily switched to § 1231(a) (1)

. See 11

Castro

- Almonte v. Garland , 2d Cir. 23-6738 (order entered March 27, 2024). 2 12
When, as here, a § 2241 petition becomes moot on appeal , we vacate the district 13 court’s order and remand with instructions to dismiss the petition as moot. See Hassoun 14

v. Searls , 976 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 2020) (“When a case becomes moot on appeal, the 15 established practice in the federal system is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and 16 remand with a direction to dismiss.” (cleaned up)). 17

2 If the removal order is not e xecuted , Castro

- Almonte can challenge his continued detention through a new 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. See Zadvydas v. Davis , 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) ( explaining that prolonged detention under § 1231 is constitutionally suspect when removal is not “reasonably foreseeable”).4 Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal as MOOT, VACATE the district court’s 1 order, and REMAND with instruction to dismiss the habeas petition as moot

. All 2 pending motions are DENIED. 3

4 FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O ’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 6