Case: 19-50168 Document: 00515638052 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 13, 2020 No. 19-50168 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Sebastian Domingo Bacilio-Sabastian; Raul Us Castro; Wilder Xitumul-Garcia; Manuel Santiago-Laines, Petitioners—Appellants, versus William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States; Rose Thompson, Warden of the Karnes County Residential Center; Budd Ratliff, Acting Assistant Field Office Director for the San Antonio District of ICE; Daniel Bible, Field Office Director for the San Antonio District Office of ICE; Ronald D. Vitiello, Deputy Director and Acting Director of ICE; Chad F. Wolf, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; The GEO Group, Incorporated, Respondents—Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:18-CV-793 Before Higginbotham, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges. Haynes, Circuit Judge: Case: 19-50168 Document: 00515638052 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2020 No. 19-50168 Petitioners Sebastian Domingo Bacilio-Sabastian, Raul Us Castro, Wilder Xitumul-Garcia, and Manuel Santiago-Laines appeal the dismissal of their petitions for habeas corpus. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM. I. Background Petitioners, each with his minor son, fled persecution in their home country of Guatemala. When they arrived in the United States, each Petitioner was detained by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and separated from his son during detention. While detained and separated from their sons, each received written notice that they would be paroled into the United States. Petitioners were neither released from detention nor given notice that parole had been revoked. Instead, they were transferred to various locations before being detained at the Karnes County Residential Center in Karnes City, Texas. Two had their parole notices confiscated. In August 2018, Petitioners filed their habeas petition in federal district court seeking habeas corpus relief, a writ of mandamus, and a declaratory judgment. More specifically, Petitioners claimed that their due process rights had been violated by failure to honor the parole notice, that federal statutes and regulations created a right to parole based on the parole notices they had received, that the parole notices should be honored under customary international law, and that a legitimate expectation of parole had been created. Within two weeks after the petition was filed, ICE released Petitioners from custody but not on parole. The government then moved for dismissal, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the matter was moot. Petitioners opposed the motion to dismiss. Petitioners argued that the case was not moot since, having not been released on parole and thus being unable to accept employment, they continued to suffer adverse 2 Case: 19-50168 Document: 00515638052 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/13/2020 No. 19-50168 consequences. They also asserted that the district court had jurisdiction to address whether the revocation of parole had been in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Among other things, the district court determined that Petitioners’ release from detention rendered the habeas petition moot. The district court ordered that the government provide Petitioners or their attorneys with ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals