Court Opinion

ID: 9958958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 15:00:37.597543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:15.977778
License: Public Domain

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.

 1                 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
 2   Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in
 3   the City of New York, on the 10th day of April, two thousand twenty-four.
 4
 5   PRESENT:
 6               GUIDO CALABRESI,
 7               MYRNA PÉREZ,
 8                     Circuit Judges,
 9               ANNE M. NARDACCI,
10                     District Judge. 1
11   _____________________________________
12
13   Luis Castro-Almonte,
14
15                               Petitioner-Appellant,
16
17                     v.                                                23-297
18
19   Merrick Garland, in his official capacity as

     1
       Judge Anne M. Nardacci, of the United States District Court for the Northern District
     of New York, sitting by designation.
                                               1
 1   Attorney General of the United States, Jeffrey
 2   Searls, in his official capacity as Acting
 3   Assistant Field Office Director and
 4   Administrator of the Buffalo Federal
 5   Detention Facility, Alejandro Mayorkas, in
 6   his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S.
 7   Department of Homeland Security, Tae
 8   Johnson, in his official capacity as Acting
 9   Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs
10   Enforcement,
11
12                     Respondents-Appellees.
13   _____________________________________
14
15   FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT:                              Luis Castro-Almonte, pro se,
16                                                          Batavia, NY.
17
18   FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES:                             COURTNEY E. MORAN, Trial
19                                                          Attorney, Office of Immigration
20                                                          Litigation (William C. Peachey,
21                                                          Director; Jessica W. D’Arrigo,
22                                                          Senior Litigation Counsel, on the
23                                                          brief), for Brian M. Boynton,
24                                                          Principal Deputy Assistant
25                                                          Attorney General, Civil Division,
26                                                          United States Department of
27                                                          Justice, Washington, DC.
28
29          Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District

30   of New York (John L. Sinatra, Jr., Judge).

31          UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

32   DECREED that the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

33          Petitioner-appellant, Luis Castro-Almonte, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
                                                2
 1   court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which challenged his immigration detention

 2   under 8 U.S.C § 1226(c).

 3           Appellate courts “have an independent obligation to ensure that developments in

 4   the case have not rendered the appeal moot.” United States v. Williams, 475 F.3d 468, 479

 5   (2d Cir. 2007) (other citations omitted). A due process challenge to detention under 8

 6   U.S.C. § 1226 is “rendered moot” when the Court’s decision on the appellant’s petition

 7   for review of his removal order places him in the 90-day removal period set forth in 8

 8   U.S.C. § 1231. Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 147 (2d Cir. 2003); cf. Hechavarria v. Sessions,

 9   891 F.3d 49, 55 (2d Cir. 2018).          Thus, because we have dismissed Castro-Almonte’s

10   petition for review of his removal order, this appeal challenging his detention under

11   § 1226 is moot since detention authority has necessarily switched to § 1231(a)(1). See

12   Castro-Almonte v. Garland, 2d Cir. 23-6738 (order entered March 27, 2024). 2

13           When, as here, a § 2241 petition becomes moot on appeal, we vacate the district

14   court’s order and remand with instructions to dismiss the petition as moot. See Hassoun

15   v. Searls, 976 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 2020) (“When a case becomes moot on appeal, the

16   established practice in the federal system is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and

17   remand with a direction to dismiss.” (cleaned up)).

     2
      If the removal order is not executed, 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”).
                                                         3
1         Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal as MOOT, VACATE the district court’s

2   order, and REMAND with instruction to dismiss the habeas petition as moot.    All

3   pending motions are DENIED.

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

                                          4