Mounivong v. Bondi et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BOUNTHAVY MOUNIVONG, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-1483-PRW
)
PAMELA BONDI, et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Bounthavy Mounivong, a noncitizen detainee under an immigration order
of removal, filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). 	Doc. 1.
Petitioner challenges under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 his detention by U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). 	United States District Judge Patrick R. Wyrick referred
this 	matter 	to 	the 	undersigned 	Magistrate 	Judge 	in 	accordance 	with 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). 	Because Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody and this Court can
grant no relief to him, the undersigned recommends the Court dismiss the Petition as moot.
I. 	Background and Petitioner’s Claims1
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Laos who entered the United States as a refugee
in or around 1987. Pet. at 1. He was ordered removed from the United States on November
16, 1994, and he alleges that his order of removal became final on that same date. Id. He
was subsequently placed on an Order of Supervision (“OOS”) pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.5
1 The government has not yet filed a Response to the Petition. 	See Doc. 8 (setting the
deadline for response to the petition as December 29, 2025). Accordingly, this Report and
Recommendation describes the background facts as alleged in the Petition.
Case 5:25-cv-01483-PRW Document 15 Filed 12/22/25 Page 1 of 6

2
and 8 C.F.R. § 241.13. Id. at 2. Petitioner alleges ICE re-arrested him in early December
2025. Id. at 2.
On December 11, 2025, Petitioner filed the Petition alleging, inter alia, that (1)
Respondents violated 8 C.F.R. § 241.13 by re-detaining him after his release on an OOS
and (2) his re-detention violates his Due Process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Pet.
at 25-26. Petitioner seeks immediate release. Id. at 22. When Petitioner filed his Petition,
he was detained at the Kay County Detention Center in Newkirk, Oklahoma. Id. at 4.
On December 15, 2025, Respondent filed a notice that Petitioner “was removed to
Laos on December 14, 2025.” Doc. 11. The Court provided an opportunity for Petitioner’s
counsel to respond to the notice of removal, Doc. 12, and counsel did not respond. Further,
the undersigned has separately confirmed that Petitioner’s location in ICE custody no
longer 	appears 	on 	ICE’s 	Online 	Detainee 	Locator 	System, 	at
https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/results (last visited Dec. 22, 2025).
II. 	Standard of Review
To obtain habeas corpus relief, Petitioner must show that he is “in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 	28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3). “Challenges to immigration detention are properly brought directly through
habeas.” Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d 1305, 1310 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687-88 (2001)).
“Mootness is a threshold issue because the existence of a live case or controversy is
a 	constitutional 	prerequisite 	to 	federal 	court 	jurisdiction.” 	McClendon 	v. 	City 	of
Case 5:25-cv-01483-PRW Document 15 Filed 12/22/25 Page 2 of 6

3
Albuquerque, 100 F.3d 863, 867 (10th Cir. 1996). 	“Because mootness is a matter of
jurisdiction, a court may raise the issue sua sponte.” Id.
III. 	Analysis
Petitioner properly filed his Petition in this district because he was detained here at
the time of filing. Pet. at 4; Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996) (noting
a § 2241 petition “must be filed in the district where the prisoner is confined”). Petitioner
satisfied the “in custody” requirement under § 2241 “at the time the petition was filed.”
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998); see also Riley v. I.N.S., 310 F.3d 1253, 1256 (10th
Cir. 2002) (noting that petitioner met the “in custody” requirement of § 2241 because he
was “in custody at the time of filing” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241)). “The more substantial
question, however, is whether petitioner’s subsequent release caused the petition to be
moot because it no longer presented a case or controversy under Article III, § 2, of the
Constitution.” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7.
“Article III of the Constitution limits federal-court jurisdiction to ‘cases’ and
‘controversies.’” Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153, 160 (2016) (quoting U.S.
Const. art. III, § 2). 	“In order to invoke federal-court jurisdiction, a [petitioner] must
demonstrate that he possesses a legally cognizable interest, or personal stake, in the
outcome of the action.” 	Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 71 (2013)
(citation modified). 	This means “an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of
review, not merely at time the [petition] is filed.” Arizonans for Off. Eng. v. Arizona, 520
U.S. 43, 67 (1997) (citation modified). 	“If an intervening circumstance deprives the
[petitioner] of a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit, at any point during litigation,
Case 5:25-cv-01483-PRW Document 15 Filed 12/22/25 Page 3 of 6

4
the action can no longer proceed and must be dismissed as moot.” 	Genesis Healthcare
Corp., 569 U.S. at 72 (citation modified). 	“A case becomes moot only when it is
impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” Knox
v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Loc. 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012) (citation modified).
Here, Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody and has been removed to his home
country of Laos. 	Though jurisdiction attached in this district when Petitioner filed his
Petition here, his subsequent release from ICE custody and removal from the United States
may render his Petition moot. 	The Petition does not become moot, however, merely
because Petitioner has been removed from the country. If a petitioner “has been released
from custody while his or her habeas petition is pending, a court’s jurisdiction depends
upon the existence of ‘collateral consequences . . . adequate to meet Article III’s injury-in-
fact requirement.’” 	King v. Ciolli, No. 23-1201, 2024 WL 1179908, at *2 (10th Cir.
Mar. 19, 2024) (quoting Spencer, 523 U.S. at 14). 	To overcome mootness after release
from custody, a petitioner must show “some concrete and continuing injury” “if the suit is
to be maintained.” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7.
Petitioner challenges his detention, and not his underlying removal order. See Doc.
1 at 2. Courts have concluded that a petitioner’s release from immigration custody mooted
his habeas challenge to the legality of his detention, where the only possible “continuing
injury” or collateral consequence “stems from his removal order, not his detention.” 	Ferry
v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 1117, 1132 (10th Cir. 2006). Further, any determination now as to
whether Petitioner’s detention violated his due process rights would amount to an advisory
opinion that this Court cannot issue. Id. (declining “to issue an advisory opinion regarding
Case 5:25-cv-01483-PRW Document 15 Filed 12/22/25 Page 4 of 6

5
[petitioner’s] entitlement to a bond hearing because a declaratory judgment on that question
would have no meaningful effect on the [immigration officials’] future conduct” with
petitioner).
Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody, and the relief he requests is no longer
available and cannot be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. The undersigned is not
aware from the record of any collateral consequences to Petitioner that would constitute an
exception to the mootness doctrine. As such, Petitioner’s habeas challenge to his detention
no longer presents a case or controversy subject to this Court’s jurisdiction, and the Petition
should be dismissed as moot. See, e.g., Sule v. I.N.S., 189 F.3d 478, 1999 WL 668716, at
*1 	(10th 	Cir. 	1999) 	(unpublished 	table 	decision) 	(concluding 	that 	an 	immigration
detainee’s “release [from immigration custody through deportation] has mooted his
challenge to the legality of his detention”); Souphanthong v. Bondi, No. CIV-25-1220-D,
Doc. 16 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 1, 2025) (recommending dismissal of habeas petition as moot
when petitioner was removed to home country and no longer in ICE custody) (R&R),
adopted, Doc. 20 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 16, 2025); McLean v. Bondi, No. CIV-25-1165-PRW,
Doc. 11 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 23, 2025) (same) (R&R), adopted, Doc. 18 (W.D. Okla. Nov.
14, 2025); Vasiliu v. Holder, No. CIV-11-551-C, 2011 WL 4430882, at *3 (W.D. Okla.
Aug. 15, 2011) (same) (R&R), adopted, 2011 WL 4433586 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 21, 2011);
see also Diaz Garcia v. Grant, No. CIV-25-1239-D, Doc. 15 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 15, 2025)
(recommending dismissal of habeas petition as moot when Cuban national petitioner was
removed to third country of Mexico and was no longer in ICE custody) (R&R); Bolom
Vazquez v. Holt, No. CIV-25-1191-J, Doc. 12 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 6, 2025) (recommending
Case 5:25-cv-01483-PRW Document 15 Filed 12/22/25 Page 5 of 6

6
dismissal of habeas petition as moot when petitioner’s request for cancellation of removal
was granted and he was released from ICE custody) (R&R), adopted, Doc. 13 (W.D. Okla.
Nov. 21, 2025).
IV. 	Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object
Petitioner’s release from ICE custody and removal to Laos render his Petition moot,
as there is no longer an actual case or controversy for the Court to decide. The undersigned
therefore recommends that the Court DISMISS the Petition, Doc. 1, as moot. The parties
are advised of their right to object to this Report and Recommendation. 	See 28 U.S.C. §
636. Any objection must be filed not later than January 5, 2026. See id. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	Failure to object timely waives the right to appellate review of the
factual and legal issues addressed in this Report and Recommendation. 	See Moore v.
United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge in this matter.
ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2025.
Case 5:25-cv-01483-PRW Document 15 Filed 12/22/25 Page 6 of 6