
    Milaudi KARBOAU, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 10-35991.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
    
    Filed Feb. 13, 2013.
    Milaudi Karboau, Tacoma, WA, pro se.
    
      Timothy Michael Belsan, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Robert P. Brouillard, Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00473~RSL.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Milaudi Karboau appeals pro se from the district court’s final judgment dismissing with prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his immigration detention and bond. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss a habeas petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, mootness, or failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Martinez v. Napolitano, 704 F.3d 620, 621-22 (9th Cir.2012) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction); Ibrahim v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 669 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir.2012) (failure to state a claim); Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1063 n. 1 (9th Cir.2007) (mootness). We affirm.

The district court correctly determined that Karboau’s challenge to the basis for his immigration detention and request for a custody-redetermination hearing were moot because an immigration judge had granted Karboau release from custody on the condition of bond following a custody-redetermination hearing. See Flores-Torres v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 708, 710 & n. 3 (9th Cir.2008) (dismissing as moot a challenge to immigration detention without a custody-redetermination hearing because the alien had subsequently received a hearing).

The district court also correctly determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the conditions of Karboau’s immigration bond. See Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1067 (9th Cir.2008) (finding no jurisdiction to review a discretionary decision regarding bond).

Finally, the district court correctly determined that Karboau had failed to state a claim in arguing that imposition of an immigration detainer on him while he was serving a state prison sentence violated his due process rights by preventing him from participating in an early-release program. See McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir.1999) (concluding that a Bureau of Prisons rule that prevented prison inmates with immigration detainers from obtaining sentence reductions comported with due process).

We decline to consider Karboau’s challenge to the validity of his deportation order because he failed to raise it before the district court. See Singh v. Napolitano, 649 F.3d 899, 903 (9th Cir.2011) (per curiam) (“[A]n issue raised for the first time on appeal is deemed waived.”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     