Heredia v. Bierman, 3:19-cv-02625

Petitioner Reina Heredia filed a § 2241 habeas petition (Nov. 5, 2019) challenging USCIS’s Oct. 2, 2019 denial of her N-400 naturalization application based on an asserted outstanding final order of removal.
Heredia sought injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent detention or removal and to be recognized as a lawful permanent resident.
She filed an administrative appeal of the Oct. 2 denial on Oct. 17, 2019; the appeal was pending when she filed suit.
On Nov. 20, 2019 USCIS reversed the Oct. 2 decision and approved Heredia’s naturalization application, scheduling an oath ceremony (later rescheduled).
The magistrate judge found no evidence respondents still considered Heredia removable, concluded the petition was mooted by approval, and alternatively held Heredia failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing.
The magistrate recommended dismissal (with prejudice as moot, or without prejudice for failure to exhaust) and denial of Heredia’s preliminary injunction motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness: Does USCIS approval render the habeas petition moot?	Heredia contends USCIS never expressly declared her a lawful permanent resident and fears possible future re-interpretation leading to deportation.	USCIS reversed the denial and approved naturalization, granting the relief Heredia sought.	Petition dismissed as moot; no live case or controversy.
Administrative exhaustion: Was suit barred because Heredia filed while appeal pending?	Heredia argued her suit did not challenge the N-400 denial and that no administrative route exists for removal-status claims.	The INA requires exhaustion of administrative remedies for naturalization denials; Heredia filed suit while appeal was pending.	Court lacks jurisdiction for failure to exhaust; dismissal without prejudice alternative.
Preliminary injunction: Is Heredia entitled to a preliminary injunction preventing detention/removal?	Heredia sought injunctive relief mirroring her petition.	Respondents argued Heredia cannot show likelihood of success; underlying claim moot/jurisdictionally barred.	Motion for preliminary injunction denied.
Article III case-or-controversy: Must a controversy exist throughout the litigation?	Heredia asserted ongoing injury/risk of removal.	Court (citing precedent) required a continuing live dispute; approval ended the live controversy.	No ongoing case or controversy; claims moot.

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements; case-or-controversy requirement)
Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (mootness: issues no longer live)
K.P. v. LeBlanc, 729 F.3d 427 (5th Cir. 2013) (case-or-controversy must exist throughout litigation)
Yarls v. Bunton, 905 F.3d 905 (5th Cir. 2018) (continuing-case-or-controversy principle)
Aparicio v. Blakeway, 302 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2002) (administrative appeal process for naturalization denial)
McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (1992) (exhaustion required where Congress mandates it)
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (objection procedure and consequences for failure to object)