Case: 18-15230 Date Filed: 03/19/2020 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-15230 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:17-cv-02188-CEM-GJK ANESH GUPTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS), UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS), SERVICE CENTER DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER, USCIS, FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, ORLANDO FIELD OFFICE, USCIS, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (March 19, 2020) Case: 18-15230 Date Filed: 03/19/2020 Page: 2 of 5 Before WILSON, LAGOA, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: I. Anesh Gupta, an alien in removal proceedings, appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of his pro se petition for mandamus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361.1 This is the second of Gupta’s two appeals simultaneously presented to this Court for review. In the first, Gupta petitioned for our review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) order that Gupta be removed from the country for overstaying his visitor’s visa, which expired in 2002. We denied his petition and affirmed the order of removal. In the instant case, Gupta seeks to compel the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”), via writ of mandamus, to accept and adjudicate his Form I-751, Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence (“Form I-751”). The District Court dismissed the case, finding that Gupta did not have standing to ask the Court to issue the writ because he did not establish that he had conditional resident status at the time he filed Form I-751, a precondition to filing that form. Because we find that our disposition of Gupta’s petition for review of his order of 1 Gupta also moves for us to take notice of the allegedly unlawful execution of his removal order to India. 2 Case: 18-15230 Date Filed: 03/19/2020 Page: 3 of 5 removal renders Gupta’s request for the writ moot, we affirm the District Court’s dismissal. II. We review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Kurapati v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Serv., 775 F.3d 1255, 1259 (11th Cir. 2014). We may affirm the district court’s dismissal on subject matter jurisdictional grounds “for any reason supported by the record, even if not relied upon by the district court.” United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184, 1189 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted). Though the District Court dismissed Gupta’s complaint because he failed to establish standing to request a writ of mandamus, we affirm the dismissal because the record makes it clear that this request is moot. A case is moot when the court’s disposition will have no effect on the rights of the litigants. Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 913 (11th Cir. 2003). In the immigration context, when a plaintiff is “no longer eligible to receive” the relief that he seeks, the district court ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals