Momohu Karanga v. Kevin Raycraft, Field Office Acting Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Detroit, United States Immigration and Customs

S.D. Ohio

Momohu Karanga v. Kevin Raycraft, Field Office Acting Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Detroit, United States Immigration and Customs

DecidedFebruary 3, 2026

Docket1:25-cv-00735

StatusUnknown

This text of Momohu Karanga v. Kevin Raycraft, Field Office Acting Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Detroit, United States Immigration and Customs (Momohu Karanga v. Kevin Raycraft, Field Office Acting Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Detroit, United States Immigration and Customs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Momohu Karanga v. Kevin Raycraft, Field Office Acting Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Detroit, United States Immigration and Customs, (S.D. Ohio 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Momohu Karanga, : : Case No. 1:25-cv-735 Petitioner, . v. : Judge Susan J. Dlott Kevin Raycraft, Field Office Acting Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Detroit, . . . United States Immigration and Customs : Order Denying Habeas Petition as Moot

Respondent. ;

Petitioner Momohu Karanga, a national and citizen of The Gambia, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Habeas Petition”) challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Butler County, Ohio jail pending his removal to The Gambia pursuant to a 2022 immigration order. (Doc. 1 at PageID 4, 12; Doc. 9-1 at PageID 44.) Karanga did not challenge the removal order itself. (Doc. 1.) Now Respondent has filed Notice that Karanga was removed from the United States to The Gambia on January 27, 2026. (Doc. 16.) Karanga’s removal renders moot his request for release from detention in the Habeas Petition. See Enazeh v. Davis, 107 F. App’x 489, 491 (6th Cir. 2004); Laurent v. Sessions, No. 4:18-cv-935, 2018 WL 6732872, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 11, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 118603 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 7, 2019).!

1 A habeas petition challenging detention pending removal is not rendered moot by a petitioner’s removal to the extent the petitioner alleges and seeks relief from the collateral consequences of his removal. See Enazel, 107 F. App’x at 491 (stating that a petitioner’s request for an adjustment of immigration status was not rendered moot by his removal); Zundel v. Berrong, 106 F. App’x 331, 335 (6th Cir. 2004) (stating that a district court retains jurisdiction over a habeas petition after removal if the petitioner sought relief from the collateral consequences of his deportation). Karanga does not seek relief from collateral consequences in his Habeas Petition. (Doc. 1 at PageID 12.)

Accordingly, Karanga’s Habeas Petition (Doc. |) is DENIED AS MOOT. IT ISSO ORDERED.

Judge Susan J. Dlo United States Distric{ Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Momohu Karanga, : : Case No. 1:25-cv-735 Petitioner, . v. : Judge Susan J. Dlott Kevin Raycraft, Field Office Acting Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Detroit, . . . United States Immigration and Customs : Order Denying Habeas Petition as Moot

Respondent. ;

Petitioner Momohu Karanga, a national and citizen of The Gambia, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Habeas Petition”) challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Butler County, Ohio jail pending his removal to The Gambia pursuant to a 2022 immigration order. (Doc. 1 at PageID 4, 12; Doc. 9-1 at PageID 44.) Karanga did not challenge the removal order itself. (Doc. 1.) Now Respondent has filed Notice that Karanga was removed from the United States to The Gambia on January 27, 2026. (Doc. 16.) Karanga’s removal renders moot his request for release from detention in the Habeas Petition. See Enazeh v. Davis, 107 F. App’x 489, 491 (6th Cir. 2004); Laurent v. Sessions, No. 4:18-cv-935, 2018 WL 6732872, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 11, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 118603 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 7, 2019).!

1 A habeas petition challenging detention pending removal is not rendered moot by a petitioner’s removal to the extent the petitioner alleges and seeks relief from the collateral consequences of his removal. See Enazel, 107 F. App’x at 491 (stating that a petitioner’s request for an adjustment of immigration status was not rendered moot by his removal); Zundel v. Berrong, 106 F. App’x 331, 335 (6th Cir. 2004) (stating that a district court retains jurisdiction over a habeas petition after removal if the petitioner sought relief from the collateral consequences of his deportation). Karanga does not seek relief from collateral consequences in his Habeas Petition. (Doc. 1 at PageID 12.)

Accordingly, Karanga’s Habeas Petition (Doc. |) is DENIED AS MOOT. IT ISSO ORDERED.

Judge Susan J. Dlo United States Distric{ Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Momohu Karanga v. Kevin Raycraft, Field Office Acting Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Detroit, United States Immigration and Customs, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/momohu-karanga-v-kevin-raycraft-field-office-acting-director-of-ohsd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack