Reported / Citable
Background
Tien Van Do filed a habeas petition challenging his ongoing immigration detention. The respondents informed the court that Do had been removed from the United States on June 2, 2026.
Do did not dispute that he had been removed or that the case was moot.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Andrew S. Hanen dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice as moot. Because Do was no longer in custody, the court concluded that no viable Article III case or controversy remained.
The court also denied any pending motions as moot and closed the case.
Key Takeaways
- A habeas challenge to immigration detention becomes moot when the petitioner is removed and no longer in custody.
- The petitioner’s agreement that removal mooted the case supported dismissal.
- The dismissal was without prejudice.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the Article III requirement that a habeas petitioner maintain a live personal stake in the requested relief throughout the litigation. Once removal ended the detention at issue, the court had no live controversy to resolve.