Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MONROE DIVISION

PATRICIA ALEJANDRA RONDON CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-1618

HERNANDEZ

SECTION P

VS.

JUDGE JERRY EDWARDS, JR.

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS MAG. JUDGE KAYLA D. MCCLUSKY

ENFORCEMENT, ET AL.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Patricia Alejandra Rondon Hernandez,1 who was previously in the custody of

the Department of Homeland Security and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs

Enforcement, petitions the Court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.2 For

reasons below, the Court should dismiss her petition as moot.

Background

Petitioner is a citizen of Venezuela. [doc. # 1-2, p. 4]. She entered the United States on

or about January 21, 2025. [doc. # 1-2, p. 4]. She was taken into immigration custody on

January 26, 2025. [doc. # 1, p. 6]. She was ordered removed from the United States on February

21, 2025. Id. The same day, a DHS asylum officer determined it was more likely than not that

1 Petitioner’s “A-Number” is 231432548.

2 This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation under

28 U.S.C. § 636, and the standing orders of the Court.

Petitioner would be tortured in Venezuela. [doc. # 1-3, p. 1]. She did not appeal to the Board of

Immigration Appeals. [doc. # 1, p. 6].

Petitioner filed the instant Petition on October 23, 2025. [doc. # 1, p. 10]. Channeling

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), she primarily claimed that she had been detained

beyond the removal period authorized by statute and that ICE was not likely to remove her in the

near future. Id. at 8.

Petitioner sought immediate release from custody. [doc. # 1, p. 9]. Petitioner, however,

has been released from custody. [doc. #s 25, 26]. She was removed from the United States to

Mexico. Id.

Law and Analysis

A petitioner "must separately satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III,

Section 2 of the Constitution." Herndon v. Upton, 2021 WL 116535, at *2 (5th Cir. Jan. 13,

2021) (citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). Jurisdiction is constrained to

adjudicating “actual, ongoing controversies between litigants.” Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S.

193, 199 (1988). “In order to maintain jurisdiction, the court must have before it an actual case

or controversy at all stages of the judicial proceedings.” U.S. v. Vega, 960 F.3d 669, 672 (5th

Cir. 2020). “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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

“Simply stated, a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the

parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486,

496 (1969). A claim is moot when a petitioner achieves the precise relief she requested. See

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. City of New York, New York, 140 S. Ct. 1525, 1526

(2020). Courts are "obliged to raise the subject of mootness sua sponte." Bailey v. Southerland,

821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987).

Here, Petitioner sought release from custody. Petitioner was released from custody when

she was removed from the United States. As she is no longer subject to the detention she

challenges, her Petition is moot. See Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987)

(“Because Bailey was released . . . this court can no longer provide him with that relief.”);

Herndon, 2021 WL 116535, at *2 ("Herndon's release mooted her § 2241 petition,

notwithstanding her continued supervision, because there was no longer a live case or

controversy for which any relief could be granted. Herndon had already received the sole relief

sought in her petition: release from confinement."); Nyabwa v. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

Immigration & Customs Enf't Field Office Dir., 537 F. App'x 451 (5th Cir. 2013). The

undersigned acknowledges that Petitioner filed a change of address subsequent to her removal

and asked for the Court’s “protection,” raising concerns that she was deported to Mexico without

financial resources or her passport. [doc. #25]. However, the Court has no authority to address

her requests, as her Petition is now moot.

Recommendation

For the reasons above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Petitioner Patricia Alejandra

Rondon Hernandez’s Petition be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT.

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b), parties aggrieved by

this recommendation have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and Recommendation

to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may respond to another

party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of any objections or

response to the district judge at the time of filing.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the

proposed legal conclusions reflected in this Report and Recommendation within fourteen

(14) days following the date of its service, or within the time frame authorized by Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6(b), shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the

legal conclusions accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See

Douglass vy. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415 (5" Cir. 1996).

In Chambers, Monroe, Louisiana, this 6 day of January, 2026.

slate

Kayla DyeSic@lusky

United Statés Magistrate Judge