USCA11 Case: 22-11818 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-11818 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, IFTEKHAR AHMED, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS), DIRECTOR, VERMONT SERVICE CENTER OF USCIS, USCA11 Case: 22-11818 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 2 of 8 2 Opinion of the Court 22-11818 Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:22-cv-60141-WPD ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Iftekhar Ahmed, a native and citizen of Bangladesh repre- sented by counsel, filed the present suit seeking injunctive relief from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (the “USCIS”) denial of his application for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(m). The District Court for the Southern District of Florida: (i) denied his motion for preliminary injunctive relief; and (ii) entered a final judgment dismissing his amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Ahmed argues both that the District Court erred in denying his motion for preliminary injunctive relief, as he demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, and that the District Court erred in dismissing his amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. I. Initially, we address Ahmed’s argument that the District Court erred in denying his motion for preliminary injunctive relief. USCA11 Case: 22-11818 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 3 of 8 22-11818 Opinion of the Court 3 This Court must “consider issues of mootness sua sponte and, ab- sent an applicable exception to the mootness doctrine, [must] dis- miss any appeal that no longer presents a viable case or contro- versy.” Hunt v. Aimco Props., L.P., 814 F.3d 1213, 1220 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Pac. Ins. Co. v. Gen. Dev. Corp., 28 F.3d 1093, 1096 (11th Cir. 1994)). A moot case “no longer presents a live contro- versy with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.” Id. (quoting Ethredge v. Hail, 996 F.2d 1173, 1175 (11th Cir. 1993)). Once a district court enters a final judgment, “the appeal is properly taken from the final judgment, not the [denial of a] preliminary in- junction.” Burton v. Georgia, 953 F.2d 1266, 1272 n.9 (11th Cir. 1992). Here, the District Court entered a final judgment dismissing Ahmed’s suit. Ahmed’s appeal, then, is properly taken from the final judgment, not the preliminary injunction. Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal to the extent that he challenges the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction. II. Ahmed’s second argument on appeal is that the District Court erred in dismissing his amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We review a district court’s determination that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Center v. Sec'y, Dep't of Homeland Sec., 895 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2018). The plain- tiff bears the burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdic- tion. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals