20-3306 Sow 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 TO 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 Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 3 New York, on the 13th day of September, two thousand twenty-one. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 REENA RAGGI, 7 DENNY CHIN, 8 MICHAEL H. PARK, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 IBRAHIMA SORY SOW, 13 14 Petitioner-Appellee, 15 16 v. 20-3306 17 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, THOMAS 19 FEELEY, FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR FOR DETENTION AND REMOVAL, JEFFREY 20 SEARLS, FACILITY ACTING DIRECTOR BUFFALO FEDERAL DETENTION 21 FACILITY, 22 23 Respondents-Appellants. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 FOR PETITIONER-APPELLEE: AMY BELSHER, New York Civil Liberties 27 Union Foundation, New York, NY 28 (Guadalupe V. Aguirre, Terry Ding, 29 Christopher Dunn, New York Civil Liberties 30 Union Foundation, New York, NY; Robert 31 F. Graziano, Tonawanda, NY, on the brief). 32 1 FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS: BRIAN S. BEIER, Senior Litigation Counsel 2 (John W. Blakeley, Assistant Director, 3 Office of Immigration Litigation, on the 4 brief), for Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 5 Attorney General, Civil Division, United 6 States Department of Justice, Washington, 7 DC. 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this appeal from the Western District of New York

10 (Wolford, J.), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment

11 of the district court is VACATED and the case is REMANDED.

12 In May 2018, immigration authorities encountered Ibrahima Sory Sow, a native and citizen

13 of the Republic of Guinea, at the Champlain, New York port of entry. Finding that Sow had been

14 subject to a final order of removal since 2007, the Department of Homeland Security detained him

15 pending final removal. On August 20, 2018, Sow moved to reopen immigration proceedings, a

16 motion which the Board of Immigration Appeals subsequently denied. See In re Sow,

17 A098-420-116 (B.I.A. July 17, 2019). On August, 12, 2019, Sow petitioned this court for review

18 of his denied motion to reopen and secured a stay of removal pending disposition of that petition.

19 See Order Granting Temp. Stay, Sow v. Garland, No. 19-2464 (2d Cir. Sept. 6, 2019), ECF No.

20 26; Order Granting Stay, Sow v. Garland, No. 19-2464 (Nov. 20, 2019), ECF No. 43.

21 While his petition was pending, on October 28, 2019, Sow moved the district court for a

22 writ of habeas corpus under

, arguing that his prolonged detention violated his

23 statutory and constitutional rights and that he was entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration

24 judge. The district court agreed and, on August 27, 2020, entered judgment, granting the petition

25 and ordering an individualized bond hearing. See Sow v. Barr, No. 6:19-cv-6794,

5046263, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2020). That hearing resulted in Sow’s September 14, 2020

27 release from custody, when he posted the bond set by the Immigration Judge. The government’s

2 1 timely appeal of the district court’s habeas judgment is now before this court. We assume the

2 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues in this appeal, as well

3 as in Sow’s related petition in No. 19-2464.

4 Insofar as the government here challenges the district court’s writ requiring a bond hearing

5 “where an individualized determination can be made as to whether [Sow] should remain confined

6 for the duration of his immigration proceedings,” Sow,

, at *8, our denial of the

7 petition for review in Sow v. Garland, No. 19-2464, filed today, concludes those proceedings. The

8 government is thus no longer encumbered by the writ entered against it, so this court is unable to

9 grant “any effectual relief whatever.” Mills v. Green,

(1895). This moots the

10 appeal. See

11 “[T]o prevent a judgment, unreviewable because of mootness, from spawning any legal

12 consequences,” United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.,

(1950), we vacate the

13 judgment of the district court and remand for consideration of Sow’s habeas petition in light of our

14 decision in Sow v. Garland, No. 19-2464, Sow’s September 2020 release from detention, and any

15 other developments.

16 For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for

17 further proceedings.

18 FOR THE COURT: 19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

3