Tamay-Tamay v. Almodovar
Tamay-Tamay, Norma Beatriz; Gonzalez Bermejo, Juan; Sherly Deyaneira Gonzalez Tamay v. Judith Almodovar, Acting Director of the New York City Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General
- P. Castel
- 1:25-cv-07984
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tamay-Tamay v. Almodovar, Judge Castel dismissed the petition challenging detention as moot after ICE removed the petitioners from the United States.
The three petitioners—Norma Beatriz Tamay-Tamay, Juan Gonzalez Bermejo, and Sherly Deyaneira Gonzalez Tamay—whose petition challenging ICE detention was dismissed as moot; the respondents were Judith Almodovar, Kristi Noem, and Pamela Bondi.
What happened
In Tamay-Tamay v. Almodovar, three petitioners asked the court to review whether their detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement violated due process.
Respondents told the court that ICE had removed the petitioners from the United States before the court issued its order requiring a response. The petitioners’ lawyer did not respond by the court’s deadline about whether the case was moot.
Judge Castel ruled that the petition was moot because the petitioners were no longer in ICE custody and the court could not provide the requested relief. He dismissed the petition as moot and requested that the Clerk close the case.
The detailed version
- Tamay-Tamay v. Almodovar · No. 1:25-cv-07984
- P. Castel
- Oct. 17, 2025
Background
On September 25, 2025, Norma Beatriz Tamay-Tamay, Juan Gonzalez Bermejo, and Sherly Deyaneira Gonzalez Tamay filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal law allowing a person to challenge unlawful detention. They asserted that their detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violated their due process rights.
The next day, the court ordered the respondents to explain why the petition should not be granted. Respondents replied that ICE had removed the petitioners from the United States early on September 26, before that order was issued. They argued that the case was moot because the petitioners were no longer in ICE custody. The court directed the petitioners’ lawyer to state whether he agreed that the petition was moot by October 15, but the court received no response by that deadline.
Ruling
Judge P. Castel concluded that the petition was moot. Because the petitioners were no longer in ICE custody, the court could not grant the relief they had requested. The court therefore dismissed the petition as moot and requested that the Clerk close the case. The order did not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.