Kary Lopez Barillas v. Field Office Director, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Kary Suceli Lopez Barillas. Decision: Vacated and Remanded. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 17-11881

Date Filed: 08/30/2017

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-11881
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:17-cv-60466-WPD

KARY SUCELI LOPEZ BARILLAS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR FOR THE ICE MIAMI OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENT & REMOVAL OPERATIONS,
BROWARD TRANSITIONAL CENTER,
DEPUTY FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR,
ACTING DIRECTOR OF U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 30, 2017)

Case: 17-11881

Date Filed: 08/30/2017

Page: 2 of 4

Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Law enforcement detained Kary Suceli Lopez Barillas while she was
attempting to enter the United States. It then transferred her into the custody of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which placed her in no-bond
detention pending immigration proceedings. After 16 months in detention, Lopez
Barillas filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition alleging, among other things, that
ICE and other agencies are denying her basic procedural protections to which she
is entitled. She asserted that, despite her status as an “arriving alien,” she has a
right to a hearing to challenge the denial of her liberty. The district court denied
Lopez Barillas’s petition, finding that “arriving aliens” have minimal rights and are
not entitled to a hearing when their liberty is denied. This appeal followed.
During this appeal ICE released Lopez Barillas on parole. In light of that
development, we vacate and remand so that the district court may determine in the
first instance whether this case is moot.
I
A case becomes moot “when the issues presented are no longer live or the
parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Chafin v. Chafin, 568
U.S. 165, 172, 133 S. Ct. 1017, 1023 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
This happens “only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief
2

Case: 17-11881

Date Filed: 08/30/2017

Page: 3 of 4

whatever to the prevailing party.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “As long
as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the
litigation, the case is not moot.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Government argues that Lopez Barillas’s parole renders this case moot.
However, Lopez Barilla may still have a concrete interest in the outcome of the
case. She alleges that her rights are still being violated because her liberty is still
being denied (ICE imposed parole conditions on her that infringe her liberty) yet
she still has not been afforded a hearing to challenge the denial of her liberty. See
Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 243, 83 S. Ct. 373, 377 (1963) (“While [a
prisoner’s] parole releases him from immediate physical imprisonment, it [can]
impose[] conditions which significantly confine and restrain his freedom; th[at] is
enough to . . . invoke the help of the Great Writ.”). If true, this case is not moot. If
true, Lopez Barillas still has an interest in a determination that she, despite her
status as an “arriving alien,” is entitled to basic procedural protections when her
liberty is denied. Were a court to make such a determination, the court could grant
“effectual relief”—for instance, a hearing at which Lopez Barillas could challenge
her parole conditions. See Chafin, 568 U.S. at 172, 133 S. Ct. at 1023 (internal
quotation marks omitted).

3

Case: 17-11881

Date Filed: 08/30/2017

Page: 4 of 4

II
Remand is necessary so that the district court can consider Lopez Barillas’s
allegations about her parole and decide in the first instance whether the parole
renders this case moot. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED.

4