Abdel Fattah v. Director United States Immigr

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ Nos. 19-2140, 19-3238 _____________ ABDEL FATTAH, Appellant v. DIRECTOR UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; ACTING FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR PHILADELPHIA UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT AND REMOVAL OPERATIONS _______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2-18-cv-04158) District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) September 10, 2020 Before: CHAGARES, HARDIMAN, and MATEY, Circuit Judges. (Filed: September 16, 2020) _______________ OPINION* _______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. MATEY, Circuit Judge. Abdel Fattah’s petition for mandamus complained about the conditions of his immigration detention and that the government lacked proper travel documents to return him to Egypt. But his removal to Egypt rendered the petition moot, and the District Court dismissed it as such. Rather than appeal that order, Fattah filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) citing new evidence and alleging fraud in his removal. The District Court denied the motion because Fattah’s case was moot. We will affirm. I. BACKGROUND Born in Egypt, Fattah came to the United States in 1999. After a conviction for assault, he was placed into removal proceedings. While he never challenged his removal in immigration proceedings, he did file a mandamus petition in the District Court while in immigration detention, alleging that he was denied adequate medical care during his confinement, and that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) had failed to timely obtain removal documents. After he was removed to Egypt, the District Court dismissed the petition as moot. Fattah did not appeal that order. Then, after Fattah returned to the United States, he filed a motion under Rule 60(b) alleging that DHS had committed a fraud on the court by failing to obtain proper documents before his removal to Egypt. On April 19, 2019, the District Court entered an order explaining that its dismissal of the mandamus petition on mootness grounds was appropriate. The District Court did not, however, expressly state in its order that it denied the Rule 60(b) motion. 2 Fattah appealed the April 19 order. On August 7, 2019, the District Court issued an order clarifying that the 60(b) motion was denied as moot. Fattah appealed that order as well, and we consolidated both appeals.1 II. FATTAH’S REMOVAL TO EGYPT RENDERED THIS ACTION MOOT Fattah’s removal rendered moot his challenge about the conditions of his detainment and the possession of proper documentation to remove him to Egypt. And his Rule 60(b) motion, which claims newly discovered evidence of fraud as to the government’s possession of proper travel documents, cannot remedy that jurisdictional defect. A. There Is No Live Controversy “A case [that] becomes moot” at any point during the proceedings is “no longer a ‘Case’ or ‘Controversy’ for purposes of Article III,” and is outside ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals