OPINION *
Gregory Ifesinachi Ezeani,
1
a citizen of Nigeria, appeals pro se from the District Courts June 12, 2020 order dismissing his immigration-related habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), and we exercise de novo review over the District Courts dismissal order. See Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 F.3d 533, 535 (3d Cir. 2012).
During the pendency of the District Court proceedings, the Department of Homeland Security released Ezeani from immigration detention on his own recognizance. In light of that development, we agree with the District Court that, to the extent Ezeani sought to challenge the legality of his detention, that aspect of his habeas petition is moot. See Riley v. INS, 310 F.3d 1253, 1256-57 (10th Cir. 2002); see also Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiffs personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”). We also agree with the District Court that, to the extent Ezeanis habeas petition sought to challenge aspects of his removal proceedings, dismissal was appropriate because the proper vehicle for pursuing such a challenge is a petition for review filed in our Court after the agencys issuance of a final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9); Tazu v. Atty Gen., 975 F.3d 292, 294 (3d Cir. 2020). Ezeanis bald contention that the District Court was biased against him is unpersuasive, and none of the other arguments presented in his briefing warrants disturbing the District Courts decision.
In view of the above, we will affirm the District Courts order dismissing Ezeanis habeas petition.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Although the District Court docket and the case caption above refer to Appellant as “Ezeani Gregory Ifesinachi,” he refers to himself as Gregory Ifesinachi Ezeani. We follow his lead.
PER CURIAM