Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
L.A., 	:
:
Petitioner, 	:
:
v. 	: 	Case No. 4:25-cv-107-CDL-AGH
: 	28 U.S.C. § 2241
KRISTI NOEM, et al., 	:
:
Respondents. 	:
_________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s application for habeas relief (ECF
No. 1), and Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7). 	On October 7, 2025,
Respondents notified the Court that Petitioner had been removed from the United
States to Russia. 	Resp’ts’ Mot. to Dismiss 2, ECF No. 7. 	In support, Respondents
submitted an I-296 Verification of Removal form showing that Petitioner was
removed from the United States on September 12, 2025. 	Resp’ts’ Ex. A, at 2, ECF
No. 7-1. 	Due to Petitioner’s removal, Respondents move to dismiss her petition as
moot. Resp’ts’ Mot. to Dismiss 1-2. As explained below, the Court recommends that
the motion be granted.
“Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to the
consideration of ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” 	Soliman v. United States, 296 F.3d
1237, 1242-43 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, and finding appeal
moot where petitioner was removed from the United States). 	“The doctrine of
mootness derives directly from the case or controversy limitation because an action
Case 4:25-cv-00107-CDL-AGH Document 10 Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 3

2
that is moot cannot be characterized as an active case or controversy.” 	Id. at 1242
(internal quotation marks omitted). 	“[P]ut another way, a case is moot when it no
longer presents a live controversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful
relief.” 	Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 	“Therefore, ‘[i]f events that occur
subsequent to the filing of a lawsuit or an appeal deprive the court of the ability to
give the plaintiff or appellant meaningful relief, then the case is moot and must be
dismissed.’” Id. (quoting Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir. 2001)).
Here, Petitioner sought an order granting her a writ of habeas corpus and
release from custody. 	Pet. 3, ECF No. 1. 	Petitioner was removed from the country
and appears to no longer be in Respondents’ custody. 	Resp’ts’ Mot. to Dismiss 2;
Resp’ts’ Ex. A, at 2. 	Petitioner did not respond to the motion to dismiss.1 	Because
Petitioner is no longer in Respondents’ custody, the Court can no longer give her any
meaningful relief, the case is moot, and “dismissal is required because mootness is
jurisdictional.” Al Najjar, 273 F.3d at 1336.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF
No. 7) be GRANTED and Petitioner’s application for habeas corpus relief (ECF No.
1) be DISMISSED as moot. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve
and file written objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to
file objections, within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy hereof.
Any objection should be no longer than TWENTY (20) PAGES in length. 	See M.D.
1 The Court sent notice (ECF No. 8) to Petitioner of her right to respond to Respondents’ motion to
dismiss, but the notice was returned as undeliverable because she was no longer at the detention
facility. Mail Returned, ECF No. 9. The Court has no other address for Petitioner.
Case 4:25-cv-00107-CDL-AGH Document 10 Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Ga. L.R. 7.4. The district judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions
of the Recommendation to which objection is made. 	All other portions of the
Recommendation may be reviewed for clear error.
The parties are hereby notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1,
“[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations
contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order
based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the
time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the
absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error
if necessary in the interests of justice.”
SO RECOMMENDED, this 17th day of November, 2025.
s/ Amelia G. Helmick
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-00107-CDL-AGH Document 10 Filed 11/17/25 Page 3 of 3