Mohamed A. v. Neilsen
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-00049
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Mohamed A. v. McAleenan, Judge Tostrud denied the petition as moot and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Mohamed A., whose challenge to his immigration detention was denied as moot after his release; the federal respondents, whose objections were sustained.
What happened
Mohamed A. v. McAleenan concerned Mohamed A.’s challenge to his continued immigration detention while removal proceedings were pending. He sought immediate and unconditional release, but he was released without conditions on May 13, 2019 after the government’s appeal was dismissed.
A magistrate judge had recommended denying immediate release but ordering a bond hearing. After the release, the federal respondents objected, arguing that the case was moot. The court agreed because Mohamed A.’s detention had ended and none of the exceptions to mootness applied.
Judge Tostrud sustained the federal respondents’ objections, declined to accept the recommendation, denied the petition as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Mohamed A. v. Neilsen · No. 0:19-cv-00049
- Eric Tostrud
- June 6, 2019
Background
Mohamed A. filed a petition challenging his continued detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement while removal proceedings were pending. The opinion states that he is a citizen of Somalia and a native of Kenya, and that he was taken into immigration custody on December 18, 2017.
On November 20, 2018, an immigration judge granted Mohamed A. withholding of removal to Somalia because of the likelihood that he would be persecuted there based on his clan membership. The immigration judge ordered that he be removed to another country that would accept him. The government appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and Mohamed A. remained in custody during the appeal.
Mohamed A. then asked the federal court for immediate and unconditional release. On May 16, 2019, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a report and recommendation advising that Mohamed A. not receive immediate release but receive a bond hearing before an immigration judge.
Mootness
About an hour after the report and recommendation was issued, Mohamed A. notified the court that the Board of Immigration Appeals had dismissed the government’s appeal. The federal respondents later objected to the recommendation, stating that Mohamed A. had been released from custody without conditions on May 13, 2019. Mohamed A. did not respond to the objections.
The court reviewed the recommendation anew because objections had been filed. It concluded that the petition was moot. A case is moot when changed circumstances mean that a federal court can no longer provide effective relief. Because Mohamed A.’s detention had ended, the court could no longer grant the detention-related relief he requested.
The court considered four possible exceptions to mootness: continuing consequences from the original injury, an issue likely to recur but end before review, voluntary cessation of an allegedly unlawful practice, and a properly certified class action. It found that none applied. The court found no continuing consequences from the detention, concluded that any future detention would involve new facts and circumstances, and noted that the case was not a class action.
Ruling
The court ordered that the federal respondents’ objections be sustained. It declined to accept the report and recommendation because the case had become moot, denied the petition as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.