Wang et al v. Federal Officials Responsible for Custody

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 7:26-cv-00201 Document10- Filed 05/12/26 in TXSD Pagelof3

United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

United States Courts ENIFRED

Southern District of Texas

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT May 12, 2026
May 12, 2026 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

MCALLEN DIVISION

Nathan Ochsner, Clerk of Court

LUWEN WANG and
JING XU, as Next Friend,

Petitioner,
VS. ACTION NO. 7:26-CV-0201

FEDERAL OFFICIALS
RESPONSIBLE FOR CUSTODY,

LP LP? LP LP LP? LP LP LP? Lr Lr

Respondents.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner LOWEN WANG, appearing through the assistance of her putative next friend,
JING XU, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”) (Dkt. No. 1) under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, challenging her detention by immigration officials. Petitioner is a citizen of China
but claims to have lawful status in the United States under an F-1 visa.' (/d. at 1, 3). Through the
Petition, Ms. Xu claimed that, despite her lawful status, Petitioner was being detained in the
“McAllen Station” under ostensible conditions “that exceed the lawful scope of short-term
detention” and without being “[p]rovide[d] a clear legal basis for her detention” or access to
counsel. (/d. at 1-3). In terms of relief, Ms. Xu represented that Petitioner was not “seek[ing]
review of any removal order or immigration dfetention” but, rather, “[i]mmediate release” based
on a “challeng[e] [of] the facts and legality of [the] present detention[.]” (/d. at 2, 4).

Upon conducting an initial review of the Petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts,” the Magistrate Judge ordered Ms. Xu, as

' This is a nonimmigrant academic student visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(F)(i).

* Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the United States District Courts provides
that those rules may apply to any petition for writ of habeas corpus, including those under § 2241.

1/3

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 7:26-cv-00201 Documenti10- Filed 05/12/26 in TXSD Page 2of3

a threshold matter, to submit further briefing concerning her “next friend” status to request habeas
relief on Petitioner’s behalf? (Dkt. No. 6). Ms. Xu failed to comply by the ordered deadline of
May 1, 2026. As such, on May 7th, the Magistrate Judge ordered the Government to submit an
advisory concerning whether Petitioner is currently being detained by immigration officials and,
if so, where she is being detained and the basis for such detention. (Dkt. No. 8). The Government
has now advised that Petitioner is not currently detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement and contends that the Petition should be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 9).

Indeed, where a petitioner receives the relief they sought through their habeas petition in
the form of release from immigration custody, the petition no longer presents a live case or
controversy for purposes of Article III of the Constitution and is thus subject to being dismissed
as moot. See Wilfredo R. v. Noem, 2025 WL 3520307, at *1-2 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2025), report
and recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 3517779 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2025); see also Salazar v.
Gillis, 2020 WL 3087012, at *1 (S.D. Miss. June 10, 2020) (collecting cases).

This case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After reviewing the record and relevant law, the Magistrate Judge
concludes that, given Petitioner’s release from immigration custody, her request for relief is moot.

As such, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the Petition (Dkt. No. 1) be DISMISSED.

? Generally, an “[a]pplication for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified by the
person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf.” 28 U.S.C. § 2242. This provision
codifies the “next friend” doctrine, which allows under certain circumstances the filing of a petition for
habeas relief on behalf of another. See Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 162-63 (1990). There are two
elements to “next friend” standing. First, a “next friend” must provide an adequate explanation—such as
inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability—as to why the petitioner cannot appear on their
own behalf. Jd. at 163 (quotations omitted). Second, a “next friend” must be truly dedicated to the
petitioner’s best interests, such that they share some significant relationship. /d. at 162-64.

2/3

Case 7:26-cv-00201 Document10- Filed 05/12/26 in TXSD Page 3of3

Objections

Within fourteen (14) days after being served a copy of this report, a party may serve and
file specific, written objections to the proposed recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b). Failure to file written objections within fourteen (14) days after service shall bar
an aggrieved party from de novo review by the District Judge on an issue covered in this report
and from appellate review of factual findings accepted or adopted by the District Judge, except on
grounds of clear error or manifest injustice.

Directive to Clerk of Court
The Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to forward a copy of this report to the parties by

any receipted means and to further e-mail a copy to Ms. Xu at astuomy@gmail.com.

SIGNED at McAllen, Texas this 12th day of May 2026.

Lyloheb

Pai TT HACKER
vited States Magistrate Judge

3/3