United States v. Ali Albwul , 406 F. App'x 132 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-55292
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. Nos. 2:08-cv-04988-DSF
2:06-cr-00387-DSF-2
v.
ALI AGLLAH ALBWUL, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 6, 2010 **
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1
Ali Agllah Albwul (“Albwul”), a native and citizen of Jordan, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence by a
person in federal custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because Albwul was
removed from the United States to Jordan on May 13, 2010, he is no longer “in
federal custody” and his § 2255 motion is moot.
“Immigrants who have already been removed . . . do not satisfy the ‘in
custody’ requirement of habeas corpus jurisdiction.” Miranda v. Reno, 238 F.3d
1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 2001). But if an alien files a habeas petition prior to his
removal from the United States, his subsequent removal does not moot the case if
there are “collateral consequences arising from the deportation that create concrete
legal disadvantages.” Zegarra-Gomez v. INS, 314 F.3d 1124, 1125 (9th Cir. 2003).
Still, “where the grounds for habeas relief will not redress collateral consequences,
a habeas petition does not continue to present a live controversy once the petitioner
is released from custody.” Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007).
Though Albwul filed his § 2255 habeas petition prior to his removal to
Jordan, the relief he seeks—rescission of a stipulated judicial order of
removal—would not redress the collateral consequences of his deportation. His
convictions on two controlled substance-related felonies render him permanently
inadmissible to the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). Albwul also
2
admitted to entering into a fraudulent marriage to obtain permanent resident status,
rendering him inadmissible to the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1182(a)(6)(C)(i). Because Albwul is permanently barred from the United States on
wholly separate grounds, rescission of the stipulated order of removal cannot
meaningfully affect his admissibility and hence cannot serve as a collateral
consequence that would prevent mootness.
We therefore DISMISS the appeal of the denial of Albwul’s 28 U.S.C. §
2255 motion as moot.
3