NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 26 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GRIGORII DURALEV, No. 21-55200

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No.

2:20-cv-08521-JVS-E v. ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, Secretary MEMORANDUM* of the Department of Homeland Security,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 17, 2022** Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Grigorii Duralev, a native and citizen of Russia, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. Our jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We dismiss.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

At the time of the district court’s order, Duralev was detained under the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which authorizes detention during the pendency of removal proceedings.

However, Duralev became subject to a final order of removal and entered the removal period on February 9, 2022, when the mandate issued in Case No. 19- 71703, which denied his petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii) (if a removal order is judicially reviewed and the court orders a stay of removal, the removal period begins as of the date of the court’s final order); Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1060 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, Duralev is now subject to mandatory detention, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) (“During the removal period, the Attorney General shall detain the alien.”), and the court cannot grant the requested relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).

This appeal is dismissed as moot. See Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1064- 65 (9th Cir. 2007).

DISMISSED.

2 21-55200