Case: 18-13513 Date Filed: 05/17/2019 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-13513 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cv-00220-CDL-MSH CAMILO TOLEDO GARCIA, In his individual capacity, Petitioner-Appellant, versus WARDEN, STEWART DETENTION CENTER, In their official capacity, ICE IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, In their official capacity, ACTING SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, In their official capacity, Respondents-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia ________________________ (May 17, 2019) Case: 18-13513 Date Filed: 05/17/2019 Page: 2 of 6 Before WILSON, MARTIN, and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Camilo Toledo Garcia appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for lack of jurisdiction. After careful review, we affirm. Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, attempted to enter the United States unlawfully in 2000. Immigration authorities apprehended him and ordered his expedited removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (providing that immigrants without valid entry documents are inadmissible); id. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i) (allowing removal without a hearing of certain persons who seek admission to the United States without entry documents). He was removed to Mexico the same day authorities encountered him. Garcia later reentered the United States. North Carolina authorities arrested him for driving while intoxicated in 2017. Upon his release, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) took him into custody and detained him in Georgia. While in custody, Garcia filed his § 2241 petition raising five claims: (1) that his detention was not authorized by statute; (2) that ICE exceeded its authority by arresting him in North Carolina, more than 100 miles from a border; (3) that he was not subject to mandatory detention; (4) that he qualified for cancellation of removal, a form of immigration relief, and was entitled to press that claim before 2 Case: 18-13513 Date Filed: 05/17/2019 Page: 3 of 6 an Immigration Judge; and (5) that he had a constitutional right to apply for cancellation of removal. Just days after Garcia filed his habeas petition, ICE removed him pursuant to an order reinstating his 2000 order of removal. The District Court dismissed Garcia’s claims related to his detention as moot and dismissed claims related to immigration relief for lack of jurisdiction. Garcia appealed. We review de novo the district court’s ruling that it lacks jurisdiction. Gupta v. McGahey, 709 F.3d 1062, 1064–65 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). We conclude the district court correctly ruled that Garcia’s challenges to his detention became moot and that it lacked jurisdiction over Garcia’s claims for immigration relief. A case becomes moot, and thus the court loses jurisdiction, “when [the case] no longer presents a live controversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted). Garcia’s challenges to his detention became moot when he was removed from the United States and released from custody. At ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals