Shi Huan Dong v. Judith C. Almodovar, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : SHI HUAN DONG, : : Petitioner, : : -v- : 25 Civ. 7630 (JPC) : JUDITH C. ALMODOVAR, et al., : ORDER OF DISMISSAL : Respondents. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge: Petitioner Shi Huan Dong, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, challenges his detention by immigration authorities and seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering his “immediate release” and a declaration that his detention is unlawful. Dkt. 1 (“Petition”) ¶¶ 1, 8, at 9. Petitioner has been subject to a final order of removal since May 2014 and was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers on September 14, 2025. Id. ¶¶ 10-111; Dkt. 6 ¶ 6. He claims that his detention violates 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On December 17, 2025, counsel for Respondents Acting Director of ICE’s New York City Field Office Judith C. Almodovar, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi advised the Court that Petitioner had been removed from the United States to the People’s Republic of China on December 15, 2025, and contended that his removal rendered the Petition moot. Dkt. 12. On December 18, 2025, the Court

1 The Petition has two paragraphs numbered “11.” This refers to the second one. ordered Petitioner to file a letter no later than December 22, 2025, explaining whether he was removed from the United States, and if so, whether the Petition is moot. Dkt. 13. Petitioner failed to submit a letter by that deadline. On December 23, 2025, the Court extended Petitioner’s deadline to do so to December 30, 2025, and warned that “[flailure to respond may result in dismissal of the Petition as moot.” Dkt. 14. The docket does not reflect a response from Petitioner. Because of Petitioner’s removal from the United States, the relief he requests can no longer be granted, so the Petition has been rendered moot. Nieto-Ayala v. Holder, 529 F. App’x 55, 55 (2d Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Jd. at 56. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 2, 2026 Wha haa é 7B New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge