121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001)). Finding no such statement of intent regarding FARRA’s § 2242(d), and no grounds for distinguishing the Court’s analysis in St. Cyr., we remanded Ogbudimkpa’s case to the district court for consideration of the merits of his habeas petition. Id. at 222. The same reasoning and result apply here. Thus we reverse the District Court’s decision and remand for it to consider the merits of Mondesir’s habeas corpus petition. 1 . Following the District Court’s denial of habeas relief, Mondesir was removed to Haiti. 2 . Mondesir's removal does not moot his petition for review of the District Court's denial of habeas relief because there are "collateral consequences” of the BIA’s order of removal. See Chong v. Quarantillo, 264 F.3d 378, 385 (3d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). 3 . We affirm, however, the District Court's
holding that an alien parent may not establish a derivative claim for asylum by pointing to potential hardship to the aliens united states citizen child in the event of the aliens deportation holding that the exercise of judicial power under article iii of the united states constitution requires an actual case or controversy holding that the crime of bringing aliens to the united states is complete when the initial transporter who brings the aliens to the united states ceases to transport them holding that the bias order of removal creates sufficient collateral consequences to render the aliens petition a live case or controversy by preventing the alien from entering the united states for ten years pursuant to 8 usc  1182a9aii holding that attorney generals authority to deport creates no private right of action for a criminal alien because attorney general must act in best interest of united states not the criminal alien