ALD-246 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 19-2362 ___________

IN RE: EVARISTO SERRANO-VARGAS, Petitioner ___________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Related to 3-17-cv-00801) ___________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. July 25, 2019 Before: MCKEE, SHWARTZ, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 30, 2019) _________

OPINION* _________

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Evaristo Serrano-Vargas, a citizen of Mexico, is currently a detainee with

the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). His petition for

review of a final order of removal is pending with this Court. In May 2018, the United

States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ordered the immigration court

to conduct a bond hearing to determine whether Serrano-Vargas’s detention should be

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. continued. The Immigration Judge (IJ) determined that the Department of Homeland Se-

curity had shown by clear and convincing evidence that Serrano-Vargas poses a danger to

the community and is a significant flight risk. The IJ found that Serrano-Vargas was

properly detained and, therefore, declined to set bond. In October 2018, Serrano-Vargas

filed a “Motion to Enforce Prior Order” in the District Court, arguing that the IJ had not

conducted a legally sufficient individualized bond hearing in violation of Serrano-Vargas’s

due process rights.

On June 14, 2019, Serrano-Vargas filed a petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant

to

with this Court, alleging extraordinary delay in the adjudication of his

motion to enforce. Subsequently, in a memorandum and order entered July 10, 2019, the

District Court denied the motion to enforce, finding that Serrano-Vargas’s due process

rights had not been violated. Accordingly, because he has obtained the relief he requested,

the mandamus petition will be dismissed as moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum

Corp.,

(3d Cir. 1996).

2