Gabriel Maldonado Vasquez v. Oscar Aviles, 639 F. App'x 898

Gabriel Maldonado Vasquez, a Guatemalan national who entered the U.S. as a child, had prior misdemeanor convictions and a 2007 final order of removal.
In 2015 ICE detained Vasquez and denied him DACA relief; an ICE Field Office Director denied his I-246 stay request as a discretionary matter.
Vasquez filed a § 2241 habeas petition in the District of New Jersey claiming entitlement to DACA, statutory/regulatory violations as to detention length, and seeking release; he also sought civil contempt after ICE removed him shortly before a court-issued temporary stay.
The District Court dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction as grounded in the 2007 removal order and as moot to the extent it challenged detention, and denied the contempt motion because removal occurred before the stay issued.
On appeal the Third Circuit affirmed, finding (1) challenges to denial of DACA are barred from judicial review by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) as exercises of prosecutorial discretion, (2) claims about detention became moot upon removal absent redressable collateral consequences, and (3) contempt denial was not an abuse of discretion because the stay issued after removal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court has jurisdiction over § 2241 claim challenging denial of DACA	Vasquez: petition challenges denial of discretionary relief, not the 2007 removal order, so district court jurisdiction exists	Govt: denial of DACA is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion and is unreviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g)	Denied jurisdiction: § 1252(g) bars review of DACA denial as discretionary enforcement decision
Whether habeas claims about legality/length of detention are moot after removal	Vasquez: petition was filed while in custody; collateral consequence (10-year reentry bar) keeps case live	Govt: petitioner’s asserted collateral consequence (inadmissibility) cannot be redressed because DACA denial is unreviewable	Moot: detention claims moot after removal; alleged collateral consequence not redressable, so no live controversy
Whether appellees should be held in civil contempt for violating a stay	Vasquez: ICE deliberately removed him despite a court-ordered stay	Appellees: removal occurred hours before the temporary stay was issued; no knowledge/disobedience of order	Denial affirmed: no contempt because the stay issued after removal, so elements of contempt not met

Nnadika v. Attorney General of United States, 484 F.3d 626 (3d Cir. 2007) (district court jurisdiction over habeas when petition does not directly challenge final removal order)
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (§ 1252(g) protects discretionary immigration enforcement decisions from judicial review)
Kumarasamy v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 453 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2006) (custody for § 2241 measured at time petition filed)
Chong v. Dist. Dir., I.N.S., 264 F.3d 378 (3d Cir. 2001) (habeas petitions generally moot upon release absent collateral consequences)
Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061 (3d Cir. 2007) (collateral consequences must be redressable by success on habeas to avoid mootness)
Roe v. Operations Rescue, 919 F.2d 857 (3d Cir. 1990) (elements required to prove civil contempt)