Nieto-Ayala v. Holder

529 F. App'x 55
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJuly 11, 2013
Docket11-3892
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 529 F. App'x 55 (Nieto-Ayala v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nieto-Ayala v. Holder, 529 F. App'x 55 (2d Cir. 2013).

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

McKENNA, J.

Petitioner-Appellant Oscar Adolfo Nie-to-Ayala, a native and citizen of Colombia, appeals from the August 2011 order and judgment of Judge Lawrence M. McKen-na, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the government to continue his release on bond until the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services adjudicated his application for asylum. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

In December 2012, after filing his appeal in this Court, Nieto-Ayala was removed from the United States to Colombia pursuant to his final order of removal. Because upon his removal the only relief that he requested, continued release on bond, could no longer be granted, this appeal has been rendered moot. See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969); In re Flanagan, 503 F.3d 171, 178 (2d Cir.2007).

Although the district court also construed Nieto-Ayala’s mandamus petition as an indirect challenge to his removal order, which would not necessarily be rendered moot by his removal, see Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434-35, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (2009), Nieto-Ayala did not raise any specific challenges to his removal order in the district court and, in *56 his brief here, explicitly states that he is not challenging his removal order. Accordingly, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the only relief that Nieto-Ayala requested in his mandamus petition, continued release on bond, has been rendered moot by his removal from the United States. See DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316, 94 S.Ct. 1704, 40 L.Ed.2d 164 (1974).

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is DISMISSED as moot.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
529 F. App'x 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nieto-ayala-v-holder-ca2-2013.