United States v. 2020-12-08 | 19-56020 | CESAR LUNA-FLORES V. USDHS | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CESAR JACOBO LUNA-FLORES; JOSE
ANTONIO JACOBO LUNA-LOPEZ;
MARIA DEL CARMEN FLORES-
CASTILLO; MELVA ELIU BRAVO-
MORALES; et al.,

Petitioners-Appellants,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES; IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; U.S.
CUSTOMS AND BORDER
PROTECTION; EXECUTIVE OFFICE
FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW; CHAD F.
WOLF, in his official capacity as Secretary
of DHS; L. FRANCIS CISSNA, in his
official capacity as Director of CIS; TONY
H. PHAM, in his official capacity as Acting
Director of ICE; RODNEY SCOTT, in his
official capacity as Chief Border Patrol
Agent for CBP; WILLIAM P. BARR,
Attorney General; JAMES MCHENRY, his
official capacity as Director of the Executive
Office for Immigration Review (EOIR),

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 19-56020

D.C. No.
3:19-cv-00316-JM-BLM

MEMORANDUM
*

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED

DEC 8 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-56020

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2, 2020
**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Cesar Jacobo Luna-Flores and ten family members appeal from the district
court’s judgment dismissing their 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo, Zavala
v. Ives, 785 F.3d 367, 370 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.
The district court did not err in determining that petitioners’ habeas corpus
petition was moot, where petitioners were no longer in custody and conceded they
were seeking an advisory opinion. See Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1063-64 (9th
Cir. 2007) (a habeas petition becomes moot if there is no longer a case or
controversy following petitioner’s release from custody). The record does not
support petitioners’ contention that collateral consequences create a live
controversy. See id. at 1064 (“[W]here the grounds for habeas relief will not

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

3 19-56020
redress collateral consequences, a habeas petition does not continue to present a
live controversy once the petitioner is released from custody.”).
AFFIRMED.