Batsaihan Purveegiin v. Secretary Michael Chertoff, of the Department of Homeland Security

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-2029
BATSAIHAN PURVEEGIIN,
Appellant
v.
SECRETARY MICHAEL CHERTOFF, of the
Department of Homeland Security;
ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General
of the United States of America;
THOMAS DECKER, District Director
Philadelphia field Office Deportation
Detention ICE; JACQUELINE OSTERLIND;
CRAIG LOWE, Warden, Pike County
Correctional Facility
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 06-cv-01064)
District Judge: Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 12, 2008
Before: AMBRO, FUENTES and FISHER, Circuit Judges
Opinion filed May 29, 2008
OPINION

-- 1 of 3 --

Counsel was appointed for Purveegiin, and the petition has been stayed pending this1
Court’s en banc decision in Pierre v. Attorney General, No. 06-2496.
On March 13, 2007, we ordered the government to return Purveegiin to the United2
States. According to the government’s most recent status report, the negotiations between
the government and Purveegiin for his return stalled because Purveegiin insisted that the
government obtain a Mongolian passport for him and did not want to be detained upon
his return to the United States.
2
PER CURIAM
In May 2006, Batsaihan Purveegiin filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in
the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania challenging his detention during
his removal proceedings. In January 2007, Purveegiin filed a petition for review of an
order of removal entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and a motion to
stay removal which were docketed in this Court at No. 07-1227. On March 5, 2007, after1
Purveegiin had been inadvertently removed to Mongolia while his stay motion was
pending, the District Court dismissed the § 2241 petition as moot. Purveegiin remains in
Mongolia. Purveegiin filed a timely notice of appeal, and we have jurisdiction under 282
U.S.C. § 1291.
We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s ruling on mootness.
Belitskus v. Pizzingrilli, 343 F.3d 632, 639 (3d Cir. 2003). Because Purveegiin is no
longer in custody, we agree with the District Court that his § 2241 petition is moot. See
In re Cantwell, 659 F.2d 1050, 1053 (3d Cir. 1981) (“[A]n appeal will be dismissed as
moot when events occur during the pendency of the appeal which prevent the appellate
court from granting any effective relief.”) If in the future Purveegiin is returned to the

-- 2 of 3 --

In April 2007, Purveegiin filed a motion in No. 07-1227 requesting that he not be3
detained upon his return to the United States. We denied his request and noted that
appointed counsel could file a motion for bail or release if counsel deemed such a motion
to be nonfrivolous.
3
United States and detained, he can file a new § 2241 petition challenging that detention.3
For the above reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s March 5, 2007 order.

-- 3 of 3 --