22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T45e,ORDER After the filing of the Petition for Rehearing, we asked for supplemental briefing on the issue of mootness, because Li is no longer ineligible for reentry under the five-year bar in 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(9)(A)®. Both parties contend that under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(6)(C)® Li may be permanently barred from reentry. *1110 If, as the parties contend, Section 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) were to erect a permanent bar to reentry, the fíve-year bar under Section 1182(a)(9)(A)(i) would become meaningless. The parties’ contention thus runs squarely against the canon of construction that courts interpret statutes so as not to render any section meaningless. See, e.g., Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494, 506 , 120 S.Ct. 1608 , 146 L.Ed.2d 561 (2000). Any remaining consequences of Li’s original removal are too remote to defeat mootness. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 14-15 , 118 S.Ct. 978 , 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). The majority of the panel has voted to vacate the earlier opinions and dismiss the appeal as moot. The opinions reported at 259 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir.2001) are VACATED and the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT.24:T479,

ORDER

After the filing of the Petition for Rehearing, we asked for supplemental briefing on the issue of mootness, because Li is no longer ineligible for reentry under the five-year bar in 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(9)(A)®. Both parties contend that under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(6)(C)® Li may be permanently barred from reentry.

*1110 If, as the parties contend, Section 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) were to erect a permanent bar to reentry, the fíve-year bar under Section 1182(a)(9)(A)(i) would become meaningless. The parties’ contention thus runs squarely against the canon of construction that courts interpret statutes so as not to render any section meaningless. See, e.g., Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494, 506 , 120 S.Ct. 1608 , 146 L.Ed.2d 561 (2000). Any remaining consequences of Li’s original removal are too remote to defeat mootness. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 14-15 , 118 S.Ct. 978 , 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998).

The majority of the panel has voted to vacate the earlier opinions and dismiss the appeal as moot.

The opinions reported at 259 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir.2001) are VACATED and the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

25:T6d3,