Jose Jazzan Garcia v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

JOSE JAZZAN GARCIA,

Petitioner, vs. No. CIV 25-1257 JB/KK KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; TODD LYONS, Acting Director of ICE; PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General; MARY DE- ANDA YBARRA, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, El Paso Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; GEORGE DEDOS, Warden of Torrance County Detention Center,

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, by a Person Subject to Unlawful Detention (Doc.1), filed January 27, 2026 (Doc. 13)(“MTD”). The primary issue is whether the Court should grant the MTD that Respondents Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security;1 the United States Department of Homeland Security; Todd Lyons, Acting Director of ICE; Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General;2 Mary De-Anda Ybarra, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, El Paso Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and George

Dedos, Warden of Torrance County Detention Center (collectively “Federal Respondents”) file,3 because the Federal Respondents no longer detain Petitioner Jose Jazzan Garcia and whom is no longer in the United States of America. The Court grants the MTD, which Garcia does not oppose, see Notice of Non-Opposition, filed March 4, 2026 (Doc. 14)(“Notice”), concluding that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed December 18, 2025 (Doc. 1)(“Petition”), is moot, because the Federal Respondents no longer detain Garcia and because Garcias is no longer in the United States.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND On August 23, 2025, Garcia enters United States’ custody for unpaid traffic tickets. See Petition ¶ 1, at 9. On December 18, 2025, Garcia files the Petition. See MTD at 1. On January 7, 2026, an Immigration Law Judge (“ILJ”) finds Garcia removable and denies his application to cancel removal proceedings. MTD at 1. Subsequently, the ILJ grants Garcia’s request for post- conclusion voluntary departure. See MTD at 1. On January 13, 2026, the Honorable Kirtan Khalsa, United States Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, orders that the Federal Respondents release Garcia “on his own recognizance at the United States-Mexico border . . . so that he may voluntarily depart from the United States in accordance with the immigration judge’s order permitting him to do so.” Order at 3 (Doc. 10)(“Order”). The Federal Respondents release Garcia at the United States-Mexico border on January 16, 2026, and Garcia returns to Mexico. See MTD at 2.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On January 27, 2026, the Federal Respondents file the MTD. MTD at 1. In the MTD, the Federal Respondents request that the Court dismiss the Petition “as moot.” MTD at 1. The Federal Respondents assert that there “is no longer any effectual relief which can be granted to the prevailing part, [sic] making the Petition moot,” because Garcia is no longer in custody. MTD at 2. Moreover, Garcia’s immigration proceedings are complete, and he is no longer in the United States. See MTD at 2. On March 4, 2026, Garcia files the Notice acknowledging “that the action is moot and [stating that he] does not oppose the Respondents’ request for dismissal.” Notice at 1.

ANALYSIS Article III of the United States’ Constitution places a Constitutional limitation on the federal courts’ jurisdiction to hear, and to determine, “cases and controversies,” and thus provides the mootness doctrine. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. “Mootness is a threshold issue because the existence of a live case or controversy is a constitutional prerequisite to federal court jurisdiction.” McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 100 F.3d 863, 867 (10th Cir. 1996). “‘In deciding whether a case is moot, the crucial question is whether granting a present determination of the issues offered will have some effect in the real world. When it becomes impossible for a court to grant effective relief, a live controversy ceases to exist, and the case becomes moot.’” Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 600 F.3d 1301, 1311 (10th Cir. 2010)(quoting Kansas Jud. Rev. v. Stout, 562 F.3d 1240, 1246 (10th Cir. 2009)). A case becomes moot “when a plaintiff no longer suffers ‘actual injury that can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Rhodes v. Judiscak, 676 F.3d 931, 933 (10th Cir. 2012)(quoting Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983)).

Here, the Court grants the MTD, concluding that the Petition is moot. The Federal Respondents no longer detain Garcia, and he is no longer present in the United States, rendering it impossible for the Court to grant any effectual relief. Garcia files the Petition seeking an order directing the Federal Respondents to “release Petitioner Immediately.” Petition at 74. The Federal Respondents release Garcia on January 16, 2026. See MTD at 2. In addition, Garcia is no longer in the United States, and his removal proceedings have concluded, leaving no live controversy for the Court to resolve. See MTD at 2. Article III requires the existence of a live case or controversy at all stages of litigation for the Court to maintain subject-matter jurisdiction. No live controversy exists here in light of Garcia’s release and departure from the United States. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Petition is moot and grants the MTD.

IT IS ORDERED that: (i) the Motion to Dismiss Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, by a Person Subject to Unlawful Detention (Doc.1), filed January 27, 2026 (Doc. 13), is granted; (11) the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed December 18, 2025 (Doc. 1), is dismissed; and (ii1) Final Judgment will be entered. ey

1 —_— 4 , = '

\ lea, OS rece

UNITED STATES DISTRICT-JUDGE

Parties and Counsel: } Danial Gividen Gividen Law, PLLC Dallas, Texas --and-- Brenda M. Villalpando Villalpando Law Firm, PLLC El Paso, Texas

Attorneys for the Petitioner Todd Blanche Acting United States Attorney General Ryan Ellison First Assistant United States Attorney Allison Shokes Assistant United States Attorneys United States Attorney’s Office Albuquerque, New Mexico

Attorneys for Respondents Kristi Noem, U.S Department of Homeland Security, Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, and Mary De Anda-Ybarra.

George Dedos Albuquerque, New Mexico

Defendant pro se