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

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,

, 479

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

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

. Wang v. Ashcroft,

(2d Cir. 2003); cf. Hechavarria v. Sessions,

9

(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,

(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

petition. See Zadvydas v. Davis,

(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