DE SOUZA DE QUEIROZ v. BARR (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Ademir DE SOUZA-DE QUEIROZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Defendant-Appellee.

18-2234

Decided: August 30, 2019

PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, PETER W. HALL, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Gerald R. Nowotny, Latin American Law Center, Canton, CT. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Jennifer A. Singer, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation; Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Russell J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Ademir De Souza-De Queiroz filed a complaint for injunctive and mandamus relief to stay his removal and compel the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) to adjudicate his appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings prior to his removal. De Souza-De Queiroz also moved for (1) an emergency stay of removal while he litigated his immigration case and (2) a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to prevent his removal while the District Court considered his stay motion. In July 2018, the District Court denied the motion for a TRO for lack of jurisdiction. In October 2018, the District Court also denied the stay motion and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. De Souza-De Queiroz appeals the denial of the TRO and argues that the District Court had jurisdiction over his mandamus action and motions.

The essence of De Souza-De Queiroz’s action in district court was to stay his removal pending the BIA’s decision on his motion to reopen his removal proceedings and to compel the BIA to rule before he was removed. The BIA has since denied the motion to reopen following the filing of this appeal. The action and appeal are therefore moot. See Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91, 133 S.Ct. 721, 184 L.Ed.2d 553 (2013) (“A case becomes moot—and therefore no longer a ‘Case’ or ‘Controversy’ for purposes of Article III—when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” (some internal quotation marks omitted)); N.Y.C. Employees’ Ret. Sys. v. Dole Food Co., 969 F.2d 1430, 1433 (2d Cir. 1992) (emphasizing that an appeal must be dismissed “even if the case was live at the outset but later events rendered it moot on appeal”). “When a civil case becomes moot on appeal from a federal district court, the appropriate disposition is to dismiss the appeal, reverse or vacate the district court judgment, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the complaint.” Id. (quoting Blackwelder v. Safnauer, 866 F.2d 548, 550 (2d Cir. 1989)).

Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal, vacate the judgment, and remand for the District Court to dismiss the action as moot.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that De Souza-De Queiroz has filed a timely petition for review of the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen. That petition is pending before this Court. See Dkt. No. 18-3705.