Wang v. Noem et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHAOFENG WANG,
Petitioner,
v.
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
) 	Case No. CIV-26-374-G
)
)
)
)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, Chaofeng Wang, a Chinese citizen proceeding with counsel, filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus (“Petition”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his
detention by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). (Doc. 1).1 United
States District Judge Charles B. Goodwin referred the matter to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). (Doc. 3). In
accordance with the briefing schedule and granted extension, (Docs. 7, 12), Respondents
timely filed a brief in Opposition to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 	(Doc. 13).
Petitioner did not file a reply brief. As set forth fully below, the undersigned recommends
that the Court DISMISS the Petition as moot because Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody
and this Court can grant no relief to him.
1 Citations to the parties’ filings and attached exhibits will refer to this Court’s CM/ECF
pagination.
Case 5:26-cv-00374-G Document 14 Filed 04/03/26 Page 1 of 4

2
I. 	Background
Petitioner is a citizen of China who was ordered removed from the United States on
October 4, 2024. 	(Doc. 1, at 1). At the time he filed his Petition, Petitioner had been in
ICE custody since March 11, 2025. (Id.) On March 1, 2026, Petitioner filed the Petition,
which alleges his prolonged detention violated the Fifth Amendment as well as the
Immigration and Nationality Act and its related regulations. (Id. at 3-4). He also sought
prospective 	relief 	to 	ensure 	that 	third-country 	removal 	complied 	with 	statutory
requirements as well as due process. (Id. at 4-5).
On March 25, 2026, Respondents filed a response advising that Petitioner was
removed to China on March 24, 2026. (Doc. 13, at 1; id. at Ex. 1, at 2). They argue that
the Petition should be dismissed as moot because of his removal. (Doc. 13, at 1).
II. 	Analysis
The Court had jurisdiction over this matter when it was initially filed. See Chan v.
Bondi, No. CIV-25-1412-JD, ECF No. 20, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 29, 2025) (finding the
“in custody” requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) “is satisfied if a petitioner files the
habeas petition while incarcerated”) (citing King v. Ciolli, 2024 WL 1179909, at *2 (10th
Cir. Mar. 19, 2024)). 	Further, the Petition was properly filed in this district due to his
incarceration here. 	See Haugh v. Booker, 210 F.3d 1147, 1149 (10th Cir. 2000).
“[J]urisdiction attaches on the initial filing for habeas corpus relief, and it is not destroyed
by a transfer of the petitioner and the accompanying custodial change.” Santillanes v. U.S.
Parole Comm’n, 754 F.2d 887, 888 (10th Cir. 1985). 	But here, “the more substantial
question . . . is whether petitioner’s subsequent [removal] caused the petition to be moot
Case 5:26-cv-00374-G Document 14 Filed 04/03/26 Page 2 of 4

3
because it no longer presented a case or controversy under Article III, § 2, of the
Constitution.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). The answer is yes.
“An ‘actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time
the complaint is filed.’” 	Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S. 87, 92 (2009) (quoting Preiser v.
Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975)). Thus, “if an intervening circumstance deprives the
plaintiff of a ‘personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit,’ at any point during litigation,
the action can no longer proceed and must be dismissed as moot.” 	Genesis Healthcare
Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 72 (2013) (quoting Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S.
472, 477-478 (1990)). 	So a case is “moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant
any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Loc.
1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012) (citation modified).
Petitioner has been removed to his home country of China and is no longer in ICE
custody. 	“Once Respondents released [him] from their custody, he no longer had a
redressable injury arising from his detention.” Chan, ECF No. 20, at *3 (Dec. 29, 2025);
see also Ferry v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 1117, 1132 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding no “secondary
or collateral consequences survive[d] [the petitioner’s] deportation” and that an inability to
return to the United States “stem[med] from his removal order, not his detention”). Thus,
this action should be dismissed as moot. 	See Chan, ECF No. 20, at *3 (Dec. 29, 2025)
(dismissing the habeas petition as moot).
Case 5:26-cv-00374-G Document 14 Filed 04/03/26 Page 3 of 4

4
III. 	Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object
For the reasons discussed above, the Court recommends that the Court DISMISS
the Petition, (Doc. 1), as moot because Petitioner has been removed to China and is no
longer in ICE custody.
The court advises the parties of their right to object to this Report and
Recommendation by April 10, 2026, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2).2 	The Court further advises the parties that failure to make timely objection to
this report and recommendation waives their right to appellate review of both factual and
legal issues contained herein. 	See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir.
1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues and terminates the referral
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter.
ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2026.
2 Given the expedited nature of these proceedings, the undersigned has reduced the typical
objection time to Report and Recommendations. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) advisory
committee’s note to 1983 addition (noting that rule establishing 14-day response time
“does not extend to habeas corpus petitions, which are covered by the specific rules relating
to proceedings under Sections 2254 and 2255 of Title 28.”); see also Whitmore v. Parker,
484 F. App’x 227, 231, 231 n.2 (10th Cir. 2012) (“The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases may
be applied discretionarily to habeas petitions under § 2241” and that “while the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure may be applied in habeas proceedings, they need not be in every
instance – particularly where strict application would undermine the habeas review
process.”).
Case 5:26-cv-00374-G Document 14 Filed 04/03/26 Page 4 of 4