Virgil v. Campos ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 01-6697
    ROBERT E. VIRGIL,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JUAN CAMPOS, Officer in Charge, Immigration
    and Naturalization Service; JOHN ASHCROFT,
    United States Attorney General,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-00-15-6-13AK)
    Submitted:   August 28, 2001                 Decided:   October 15, 2001
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert E. Virgil, Appellant Pro Se. Anh-Thu P. Mai, UNITED STATES
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     (1994), Robert E. Virgil filed
    this petition for habeas corpus relief in the district court,
    asking that he be considered for relief under § 212(c) of the
    Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 
    8 U.S.C. § 1182
    (c) (1994;
    repealed 1996).   The district court ordered the Board of Immigra-
    tion Appeals to reconsider Virgil’s application in light of Tasios
    v. INS, 
    204 F.3d 544
     (4th Cir. 2000), and 
    8 C.F.R. § 3.44
     (2000).
    See also INS v. St. Cyr,     U.S.     , 
    60 U.S.L.W. 4510
     (U.S. June
    25, 2001) (No. 00-767).     Virgil appealed the district court’s
    order.   The Government now suggests that the appeal is moot, in
    view of the fact that Virgil has received the relief he sought:
    consideration before the immigration judge of his § 212(c) appli-
    cation, and a bond reduction. Having reviewed the case thoroughly,
    we agree that the appeal is moot.    See Spencer v. Kemna, 
    523 U.S. 1
    , 7 (1998) (throughout the litigation the plaintiff must have an
    actual injury likely to be redressed by a favorable decision of the
    court). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-6697

Judges: Niemeyer, Luttig, Traxler

Filed Date: 10/15/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024