Ali v. Sessions

Background

Farass Ali had been held in discretionary immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) for more than two years. In September 2018, he filed a habeas petition seeking release from detention while awaiting a final removal order. On July 30, 2019, the court granted the petition and ordered that Ali be released within 30 days. The order specifically stated that it did not cover detention after a removal order became final.

On August 15, 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Ali’s appeal, making his removal order administratively final. On August 27, Sheriff Joel Brott notified the court that Ali would remain in custody, but now under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 rather than § 1226(a). Brott filed the motion addressed in this order 28 days after the July 30 order.

Arguments and mootness analysis

Brott argued that the petition was moot because Ali was no longer held under the discretionary-detention statute covered by the July 30 order. Brott also asked the court to vacate that order. Ali argued that the case could not be moot because the dispute was active when the court issued the order. He also argued that vacating the order was premature because the deadline for appealing the Board of Immigration Appeals decision had not yet passed. The court noted that a stay of that decision could have changed Ali’s detention status back to detention under § 1226, but stated that it did not appear Ali had appealed by the deadline.

The court explained that a case becomes moot when changed circumstances mean a federal court can no longer provide effective relief. Although Ali had not been released or removed from the United States, the court found an analogous change in circumstances. The July 30 order required release from § 1226(a) custody, while Ali was subsequently held under § 1231. Because the original relief could no longer be carried out, the court concluded that the petition was moot.

The court also concluded that it had authority to decide Brott’s motion because it was filed within 28 days of the July 30 order and no notice of appeal had been filed. The court stated that, in these circumstances, an appellate court would vacate the earlier order and direct dismissal of the petition, and that the district court would do so itself.

Disposition

Judge David S. Doty granted the motion to dismiss Ali’s petition as moot and to vacate the July 30 order. The court separately ordered that Ali’s habeas petition be dismissed without prejudice.