Opinion ID: 2789699
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: We have jurisdiction to review petitions for relief under CAT. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(4).4 Our jurisdiction encompasses 4 In Nuru, we also explained that we have jurisdiction to review a claim for CAT relief under the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of MALDONADO V. HOLDER 11 legal and constitutional issues arising from claims for deferral of removal under CAT. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). When there are developments in a proceeding that suggest that it may be moot, we have an obligation to inquire whether a case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution continues to exist. North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (per curiam). Of concern here is Maldonado’s removal to Mexico after he filed his petition for review. After considering the government’s response to our concern, we conclude that our review of Maldonado’s petition has not been rendered moot by his removal. “Mootness is a jurisdictional issue.” Blandino-Medina v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 2013). It can be described as “the doctrine of standing set in a time frame.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (quoting Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 68 n.22 (1997)). For a dispute to remain live without being dismissed as moot, “[t]he parties must continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.” Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 478 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). Maldonado’s petition for review continues to present a case or controversy because there is solid evidence that he is currently present in the United States. According to the government’s response, since Maldonado’s removal in October 2009, he has updated his California driver’s license. Obtaining deferral of removal under CAT would allow Maldonado to remain in the United States, giving him a clear 1998 (“FARRA”), Pub. L. No. 105-277, Div. G, Title XXII, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681-822 (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1231). 404 F.3d at 1215. 12 MALDONADO V. HOLDER “personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.” See Lewis, 494 U.S. at 478 (internal quotation marks omitted).5 It is highly unlikely that Maldonado left the United States since he renewed his driver’s license in 2010. See Gould dissent 21. Maldonado applied for CAT relief because he fears that, if he returns to Mexico, the enterprise will kill him. Indeed, every time he was removed to Mexico since 2000, the enterprise found and tortured him. Maldonado has little reason to return to Mexico.