HAMIDULLAH HABIBI V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 20-55506 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 18 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAMIDULLAH HABIBI, Petitioner-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-55506 D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00618-BAS-RBB v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General; et al., MEMORANDUM* Respondents-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 12, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: CHRISTEN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL,*** District Judge. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. Hamidullah Habibi timely appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his amended petition for habeas corpus. Because the appeal has become moot, we dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1128–29 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). Habibi was released from immigration detention while this appeal was pending. Habibi’s amended petition sought his release from detention or a new bond hearing. The petition “raised claims that were fully resolved by [his] release from custody,” and the “successful resolution of [his] pending claims could no longer provide [his] requested relief.” Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007). Habibi asserts no “collateral consequences” that keeps his case alive, id. at 1064, and the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception does not apply, Protectmarriage.com-Yes on 8 v. Bowen, 752 F.3d 827, 836 (9th Cir. 2014). Habibi’s appeal does not present an “exceptional situation,” and it is not part of a “class[] of cases that, absent an exception, would always evade judicial review.” Id. at 836–37 (emphasis in original). Habibi’s appeal presents no “live controversy,” and further action on it would be outside this court’s “constitutional purview.” Gator.com Corp., 398 F.3d at 1128–29. PETITION DISMISSED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
