Opinion
11-2682-cv
06-05-2012
Roman Gomez, A041-424-512, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, United States Department of Homeland Security, Wayne Muller, Assistant Field Office Director, Office of Detention and Removal for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Christopher Shanahan, New York Field Office Director of the Office of Detention and Removal for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Attorney General, United States Executive Office of Immigration Review, Respondents-Appellees.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 5th day of June, two thousand twelve. Present: Pierre N. Leval, Rosemary S. Pooler, Debra Ann Livingston, Circuit Judges.
Respondents-appellees, through counsel, move this Court to: (1) dismiss this appeal as moot; (2) vacate the district court's order of June 1, 2011; and (3) remand to the district court with instructions to dismiss the action as moot. As this Court has issued an order dismissing Gomez's petition for review and denying as moot his motion for a stay of removal, Gomez v. Holder, No. 12-173, Gomez is no longer detained under the mandatory detention provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), see INA § 236(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), but instead is detained under INA § 241(a)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2), which requires detention during the "removal period," see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii).
We recognize petitioner's arguments that the proper interpretation of Section 236(c) is a weighty question, unresolved in this Circuit, and that "abandon[ing] the case at [this] advanced stage may prove more wasteful than frugal." Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 192 (2000). But "[t]his argument from sunk costs [to the judicial system] does not license courts to retain jurisdiction over cases in which one or both of the parties plainly lack a continuing interest." Id. As Gomez is no longer detained under the mandatory detention provision, he lacks a legally cognizable interest in the proper interpretation of that provision, and this appeal is moot. Therefore, upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, the appeal is DISMISSED as moot, the district court's order of June 1, 2011 is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the district court with instructions to dismiss the action as moot. See Van Wie v. Pataki, 267 F.3d 109, 113-15 (2d Cir. 2001); Russman v. Bd. of Educ. of the Enlarged City Sch. Dist. of the City of Watervliet, 260 F.3d 114, 121-22 & n.2 (2d Cir. 2001).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk