Opinion
CV 23-0268 7 PHX SPL (CDB)
06-25-2024
Zilola Ganieva, Petitioner, v. John E. Cantu, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO THE HONORABLE STEVEN P. LOGAN, JUDGE
Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition on December 26, 2023, while detained at the Eloy Detention Center, asserting she was improperly ordered removed from the United States. Petitioner asserts she was entitled to asylum, relief from removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture. Petitioner asked the Court to order her released on parole. Respondent answered the petition on March 25, 2024, presenting reasons why Petitioner's removal and asylum proceedings were without legal error, and that Petitioner was not entitled to be paroled into the United States. (ECF No. 7). Petitioner did not file a reply in support of her petition. On June 24, 2024, Respondent averred Petitioner has been removed from the United States. (ECF No. 13).
Under Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 (1988). Where the Court can no longer grant effective relief it lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss a case as moot. See, e.g., Abdala v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 488 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007); Flores-Torres v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 708, 710 (9th Cir. 2008).
Because Petitioner has been removed from the United States and is no longer in custody, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the petition at ECF No. 1 be dismissed as moot.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not exceed seventeen (10) pages in length.
Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo appellate consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.