B.G.N.V. et al v. Kennedy et al

IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
B.G.N.V., a minor by and through his
Next Friend, E.V.V., §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-8418
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On September 29, 2026, Petitioner filed his Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order and Preliminary Injunction (Docket Entry No. 16), arguing that his detention without a final
decision on his mother's completed sponsorship application violated the Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA") and ORR's binding procedures.1 On October 2, 2026,
the court entered a memorandum opinion and order granting Petitioner's Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order in part, and ordering Respondents to release Petitioner to the custody of this
mother.2 On October 4, 2026, Respondents released Petitioner to the custody of his mother.3
A federal court must dismiss a case for lack ofsubject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate
'Memorandum of Law in Support of Petitioner's Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, Docket Entry No. 17, p. 15. For the purposes of
identification all page numbers reference the pagination imprinted at the top of the page by the
court's Electronic Case Filing system.
2Memorandum Opinion and Order, Docket Entry No. 28, p. 5.
3Status Update, Docket Entry No. 33, p. 1.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
October 13, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-08418 Document 34 Filed 10/13/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

the plaintiff's claims. Home Builders Assoc' ofMiss.. Inc,. y. City ofMadison, 143 F.3d 1006,101O
(5th Cir. 1998).
''Under Article III of the Constitution this Court may only adjudicate actual, ongoing
controversies." Honig y. Doe, 108 S. Ct. 592,601 (1988). "Mootness has two aspects: 'when the
issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome."'
United States Parole Comm'n y. Geraghty, 100 S. Ct 1202, 1208 (1980) (quoting Powell v.
McCormack, 89 S. Ct 1944, 1951 (1969)). "If a dispute has been resolved or if it has evanesced
because of changed circumstances,including the passage of time,it is considered moot. With the
designation ofmootness comes the concomitant designation ofnon-justiciability." American Med.
Ass'n v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 267,270 (5th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).
Because Petitioner is no longer in custody, this case is moot. Accordingly, this case is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT.
The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to the parties.
SIGNED at Houston,Texas, on this 13th day of October, 2026.
SIMLA.KE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-08418 Document 34 Filed 10/13/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2