MEMORANDUM OPINION

MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA, District Judge.

On October 22, 2018, petitioner Francis Akpore filed a Motion for Hearing in which he asked the Court to direct the respondents to "immediately return" him to the United States from Nigeria. (Doc. 18 at 4). On November 15, 2018, the respondents moved to dismiss Mr. Akpore's habeas petition. The respondents argue that Mr. Akpore's habeas petition is moot because Mr. Akpore has been removed from the United States. (Doc. 19; Doc. 19-1, Pitman Decl. (stating that Mr. Akpore was removed from the United States to Nigeria on August 14, 2018)).1

Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to the consideration of "cases or controversies." U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2. The doctrine of mootness is derived from this limitation because "an action that is moot cannot be characterized as an active case or controversy." Adler v. Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd., 112 F.3d 1475, 1477 (11th Cir. 1997). A case is moot and must be dismissed if the court can no longer provide "meaningful relief." Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 913 (11th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Because Mr. Akpore has been removed from the United States to Nigeria, this Court no longer may provide meaningful relief. Thus, the Court finds that Mr. Akpore's petition for writ of habeas corpus is moot. See Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 913 (11th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action and will deny Mr. Akpore's "Motion for Hearing" as moot.2

A separate order will be entered.

The parties shall bear their respective costs.