F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAY 22 2001
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ANTONIO RUIZ MARISCAL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 99-2336
(D.C. No. CIV-98-992-BB/WWD)
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney (D. N.M.)
General; * USA; KEVIN D. ROONEY,
Acting Commissioner, INS; ** LUIS
GARCIA, District Director, INS,
Respondents-Appellees.
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION
PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL
LAWYERS GUILD; AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION,
Amici Curiae.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT ***
*
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), John Ashcroft is substituted for Janet
Reno, United States Attorney General, as an appellee in this action.
**
On March 26, 2001, Kevin D. Rooney became the Acting Commissioner
of INS. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Mr. Rooney is substituted for
Doris Meissner as an appellee in this action.
***
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
(continued...)
Before BRORBY , PORFILIO , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner was in deportation proceedings when the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) took effect on April 24, 1996. The
AEDPA amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to eliminate
discretionary relief for aliens convicted of certain offenses, including the offense
for which petitioner was convicted. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that the AEDPA should not be
applied retroactively to deny him the opportunity to be considered for
discretionary witholding of deportation pursuant to former § 212(c) of the INA,
8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1995). The district court denied relief and dismissed the
petition. On appeal, petitioner makes the same argument and asks this court to
remand his case to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) for consideration of
the merits of his request for discretionary relief under § 212(c).
(...continued)
***
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
-2-
On September 6, 2000, we abated this appeal pending action on a proposed
regulation that would have allowed aliens, like petitioner, who were in
deportation proceedings when the AEDPA took effect, to seek discretionary
witholding of deportation. The regulation was adopted, and the BIA granted
petitioner’s motion to reopen his deportation proceedings and remanded the
matter to the immigration judge for consideration of petitioner’s application for
discretionary relief under § 212(c). Because this is precisely the relief that
petitioner seeks on appeal, the appeal is now moot. McAlpine v. Thompson ,
187 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir. 1999) (“Article III’s requirement that federal
courts adjudicate only cases and controversies necessitates that courts decline
to exercise jurisdiction where the award of any requested relief would be
moot--i.e., where the controversy is no longer live and ongoing.”). Consequently,
we DISMISS the appeal as moot.
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-3-