Mendoza-Flores v. Rosen
983 F.3d 845
| 5th Cir. | 2020Background
- Mendoza‑Flores, a Mexican national, pleaded guilty in 2012 to possession with intent to distribute ~23 kg of marijuana; the offense qualified as an aggravated felony.
- He was removed to Mexico in August 2012, reentered multiple times, and in April 2018 immigration reinstated the 2012 removal order upon his third encounter.
- After stating fear of return, an asylum officer found a reasonable fear of torture and DHS referred him for withholding‑only proceedings before an IJ.
- At the withholding‑only merits hearing Mendoza‑Flores requested a continuance pending adjudication of a pending T‑visa application; the IJ denied the continuance and denied withholding and CAT deferral; the BIA affirmed.
- Mendoza‑Flores petitioned this court but did not seek a stay; USCIS later denied his T‑visa and he was removed to Mexico, after which the panel considered whether his petition remained justiciable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition for review is moot after T‑visa denial and removal | Mendoza‑Flores sought review of BIA denials (continuance, withholding, CAT) and asserted merits errors | Government argued the T‑visa denial and removal left no effectual relief and thus the petition is moot | Moot: T‑visa denial and removal preclude effectual relief; court lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether denial of continuance pending T‑visa was reviewable | Mendoza‑Flores argued he needed a continuance so USCIS could decide the T‑visa, which could affect relief | Government noted the T‑visa was later denied so continuance claim is now moot | Moot: T‑visa denied, so continuance claim cannot yield relief |
| Whether BIA erred in denying withholding of removal under the INA | Mendoza‑Flores argued the BIA wrongly denied withholding on the merits | Government argued removal and reinstatement mean vacating the BIA’s withholding denial would not alter the underlying removal/inadmissibility | Dismissed as moot: no collateral consequence from the withholding decision that would permit relief |
| Whether BIA erred in denying deferral under the CAT | Mendoza‑Flores argued CAT relief should have been granted or deferred | Government argued removal and T‑visa denial make any relief ineffectual | Dismissed as moot for same reasons as withholding claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (federal courts require a live case or controversy; mootness doctrine)
- United States v. Vega, 960 F.3d 669 (5th Cir. 2020) (mootness standard; effectual relief requirement)
- Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298 (2012) (describing when courts lack authority to grant relief)
- Alwan v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2004) (removal typically moots BIA challenges absent collateral consequences)
- Umanzor v. Lambert, 782 F.2d 1299 (5th Cir. 1986) (inadmissibility as an example of collateral legal consequence)
- Kaur v. Holder, 561 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2009) (collateral consequences must arise from the challenged decision to avoid mootness)