DECISION & ORDER Edward Henries has been detained in the custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) since April 2022. Docket Item 1 at 11. On July 26, 2023, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241,1 Docket Item 1, and moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) staying his removal while the Administrative Appeals Office (“AAO”) of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) considered an appeal of his application for a certificate of citizenship, Docket Item 2. In brief, Henries argued that the government could not deport him while his appeal was pending before the AAO. Docket Items 1-2. In August 2023, the government moved to dismiss the petition, Docket Item 8, and the parties briefed Henries’s motion for a TRO and the government’s motion to dismiss, Docket Items 7, 9-11. Then, on October 17 and 18, 2023, the government informed the Court that the AAO had dismissed Henries’s appeal, Docket Item 12, and that United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) intended to remove Henries the following month, Docket Item 14. The government asserted that Henries’s petition was moot following the dismissal of his appeal, Docket Item 12, but Henries responded that there still was a live case or controversy, Docket Item 13. The government then moved to dismiss the complaint on mootness grounds, Docket Item 16, and the parties briefed that issue, Docket Items 16-1, 17, 18. For the following reasons, Henries’s petition is dismissed and his motion for a TRO is denied as moot. FACTUAL AND PROECDURAL BACKGROUND2 Henries is a native of Liberia. Docket Item 1 at 9; Docket Item 1-1 at 2. He entered the United States in 1984. Docket Item 1 at 9; Docket Item 1-1 at 2. In October 2009, DHS issued a “Notice to Appear,” charging that Henries was subject to removal from the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§1101-1537. See Docket Item 1-1 at 3. More specifically, DHS charged that Henries was subject to removal under section 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) for having been convicted of a controlled-substances offense; section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) for having been convicted of an aggravated felony, namely illicit trafficking in a controlled substance, see id. §1101(a)(43)(B); section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) for having been convicted of an aggravated felony, namely a conspiracy to illicitly traffic in a controlled substance, see id. §1101(a)(43); and section 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) for having been convicted of at least two crimes of moral turpitude at any time after his admission. See Docket Item 1-1 at 1. On June 20, 2011, Henries was ordered removed from the United States. Docket Item 1-1. He appealed that decision, first to the Board of Immigration Appeals and then the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, but he was unsuccessful: The Third Circuit ultimately dismissed Henries’s appeal in May 2012. See Docket Item 1 at 10. On or about April 29, 2022, Henries was released from prison and transferred into ICE custody. Id. at 11. A few days later, he filed a Form N-600, i.e., an Application for Certificate of Citizenship, with USCIS. See id. at 12; Docket Item 1-3 at 1. In that application, Henries argued that he “acquired United States citizenship at birth through [his] adoptive mother.” See Docket Item 1 at 12; Docket Item 1-3 at 1. In early 2023, USCIS denied Henries’s application and Henries appealed that decision to the AAO. Docket Item 1 at 12; Docket Item 1-4. On July 26, 2023, Henries learned that “officials at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility were attempting to remove [him] from the United States.” Docket Item 1 at 14. So later that day, he commenced this action under 28 U.S.C. §2241 and moved for a TRO preventing his removal, arguing that he could not be removed while the appeal of his citizenship application was pending. See Docket Items 1-2. In his petition, Henries “ask[ed] this Court to review whether ICE has the legal authority to remove [him] pursuant to a valid removal order without first affording him the opportunity to have his claims heard by the [AAO].” Docket Item 1 at 15. He asserted that he “d[id] not challenge the removal order directly”; rather, he argued that he could not be deported before the AAO decided the appeal of the denial of his citizenship application. Id. at
