Torres

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

BRENY ARIEL FLORES TORRES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Case No. CIV-26-260-G

)

SCARLET GRANT, Warden, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Breny Ariel Flores Torres, a noncitizen detainee proceeding with counsel,

filed a 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 Charles B. Goodwin 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 Claims

Petitioner is a native and citizen of El Salvador. Pet. at 1. Immigration authorities

encountered Petitioner on the Texas border on March 18, 2019, and placed him into

removal proceedings. Resp. at 7. A Notice to Appear charged him with being inadmissible

as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. Id. In February

2025, an Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner removed, and ICE re-detained him in July

2025. Pet. at 4; Resp. at 8. Petitioner claims the government violated his procedural and

substantive due process rights by detaining him without a bond hearing. Pet. at 5-6. He

challenges his detention and seeks immediate release. Id. When Petitioner filed his

Petition on February 12, 2026, he was detained at the Cimarron Correctional Facility in

Cushing, Oklahoma. Id. at 3.

On April 6, 2026, Respondents advised the Court that the Board of Immigration

Appeals had affirmed an order of removal issued against Petitioner. Doc. 21 at 1. On

April 22, 2026, Respondent further advised “Petitioner was transferred out of this District

on April 14, 2026, and on April 21, 2026, he was removed from the United States to his

home country of El Salvador.” Doc. 23 at 1. As such, Respondents argued “this action

has been rendered moot and should be dismissed.” Id. at 2. The undersigned has separately

confirmed 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 Apr. 28, 2026).

II. Standard of Review

To obtain habeas corpus relief, Petitioner must show 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

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. Doc. 1 at 3; 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,

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 El Salvador. Though jurisdiction attached in this district when Petitioner filed

his Petition here, his subsequent removal from the United States and release from ICE

custody 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. Courts

have concluded 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

[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 him).

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 an immigration detainee’s

release from immigration custody through deportation “mooted his challenge to the legality

of his detention”); Mounivong v. Bondi, No. CIV-25-1483-PRW, 2025 WL 3907008 (W.D.

Okla. Dec. 22, 2025) (recommending dismissal of habeas petition as moot when petitioner

was removed to home country and no longer in ICE custody) (R&R), adopted, 2026 WL

69364 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 8, 2026); Souphanthong v. Bondi, No. CIV-25-1220-D, Doc. 16

(W.D. Okla. Dec. 1, 2025) (same) (R&R), adopted, Doc. 20 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 16, 2025);

Bolom Vazquez v. Holt, No. CIV-25-1191-J, Doc. 12 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 6, 2025) (same)

(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 El Salvador 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 May 5, 2026. See id.

§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). If a party wishes to respond to the other party’s

objections, such response must be filed not later than May 8, 2026. See 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 28" day of April, 2026.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE