Milaudi Karboau v. Ice Field Office Director

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MILAUDI KARBOAU,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 10-35991
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00473-RSL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Milaudi Karboau appeals pro se from the district court’s final judgment
dismissing with prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his
immigration detention and bond. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
FILED
FEB 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

We review de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss a habeas petition for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction, mootness, or failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Martinez v. Napolitano, No. 10-56023, 2012 WL 5995444,
at *2 (9th Cir. Dec. 3, 2012) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction); Ibrahim v. Dep’t
of Homeland Sec., 669 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 2012) (failure to state a claim);
Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1063 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007) (mootness). We affirm.
The district court correctly determined that Karboau’s challenge to the basis
for his immigration detention and request for a custody-redetermination hearing
were moot because an immigration judge had granted Karboau release from
custody on the condition of bond following a custody-redetermination hearing.
See Flores-Torres v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 708, 710 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissing
as moot a challenge to immigration detention without a custody-redetermination
hearing because the alien had subsequently received a hearing).
The district court also correctly determined that it lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction over the conditions of Karboau’s immigration bond. See Prieto-
Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1067 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding no jurisdiction to
review a discretionary decision regarding bond).
Finally, the district court correctly determined that Karboau had failed to
state a claim in arguing that imposition of an immigration detainer on him while he
10-35991 2

-- 2 of 3 --

was serving a state prison sentence violated his due process rights by preventing
him from participating in an early-release program. See McLean v. Crabtree,
173 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 1999) (concluding that a Bureau of Prisons rule that
prevented prison inmates with immigration detainers from obtaining sentence
reductions comported with due process).
We decline to consider Karboau’s challenge to the validity of his deportation
order because he failed to raise it before the district court. See Singh v. Napolitano,
649 F.3d 899, 903 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (“[A]n issue raised for the first time
on appeal is deemed waived.”).
AFFIRMED.
10-35991 3

-- 3 of 3 --