Evaristo Serrano Vargas v. ( 2019 )

ALD-246 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 19-2362
___________
IN RE: EVARISTO SERRANO-VARGAS,
Petitioner
___________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to 3-17-cv-00801)
___________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
July 25, 2019
Before: MCKEE, SHWARTZ, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 30, 2019)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Evaristo Serrano-Vargas, a citizen of Mexico, is currently a detainee with
the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). His petition for
review of a final order of removal is pending with this Court. In May 2018, the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ordered the immigration court
to conduct a bond hearing to determine whether Serrano-Vargas’s detention should be
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
continued. The Immigration Judge (IJ) determined that the Department of Homeland Se-
curity had shown by clear and convincing evidence that Serrano-Vargas poses a danger to
the community and is a significant flight risk. The IJ found that Serrano-Vargas was
properly detained and, therefore, declined to set bond. In October 2018, Serrano-Vargas
filed a “Motion to Enforce Prior Order” in the District Court, arguing that the IJ had not
conducted a legally sufficient individualized bond hearing in violation of Serrano-Vargas’s
due process rights.
On June 14, 2019, Serrano-Vargas filed a petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 with this Court, alleging extraordinary delay in the adjudication of his
motion to enforce. Subsequently, in a memorandum and order entered July 10, 2019, the
District Court denied the motion to enforce, finding that Serrano-Vargas’s due process
rights had not been violated. Accordingly, because he has obtained the relief he requested,
the mandamus petition will be dismissed as moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum
Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).
2