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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 is “compelled to dismiss [the] case as moot.” Id. at
916.
We have denied the entirety of Gupta’s contemporaneous petition for review
of his order of removal from the country. In denying the petition, we found that
substantial evidence supported the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s order of removal,
3
Case: 18-15230 Date Filed: 03/19/2020 Page: 4 of 5
because the record indicates that all of Gupta’s applications for a change or
adjustment of his immigration status have universally been denied. Relevant to the
writ being sought here, we determined that the IJ did not abuse its discretion in
refusing to order a continuance to await adjudication of Gupta’s Form I-751
because “the mere possibility that the exceptional collateral relief of mandamus
would be granted (an unlikely outcome) did not constitute good cause to grant
Gupta a seventeenth continuance of his removal proceedings.” We likewise
dismissed Gupta’s other statutory, regulatory, and constitutional challenges to the
order of removal. Therefore, Gupta now has no legal right to be present in the
United States. This means he cannot claim to have conditional resident status,
which is a prerequisite for the USCIS’s consideration of a Form I-751. And that
means the case is moot. The District Court’s issuance of a writ of mandamus
would do no good, as Gupta is now conclusively ineligible to receive the relief that
he seeks; i.e., consideration of an I-751 petition to adjust his immigration status.
See Nyaga, 323 F.3d at 913.
We affirm the District Court’s dismissal of Gupta’s petition for a writ of
mandamus because the request is moot.
AFFIRMED.2
2
Gupta’s motion to take notice of unlawful execution of his removal order is DENIED
because his allegations are not relevant to the ultimate outcome of his appeal, as they do not bear
on his entitlement to a writ of mandamus. See Shahar v. Bowers, 120 F.3d 211, 214 (11th Cir.
4
Case: 18-15230 Date Filed: 03/19/2020 Page: 5 of 5
1997). Further, his motion invites us to engage in fact-finding on appeal, which we are
precluded from doing. See Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 291–92, 102 S. Ct. 1781,
1792 (1982) (“[T]he Court of Appeals should not have resolved in the first instance this factual
dispute which had not been considered by the District Court.”) (internal quotations omitted).