Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0130-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fidel Angel Vasquez GONZALEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kimberly ZANNOTTI, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Washington Field Office Director; Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Department of Justice; Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Leon Rodriguez, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Respondents-Appellees, and Rand Beers, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Respondent.
    No. 14-1360.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 31, 2014.
    Decided: Nov. 3, 2014.
    Christopher A. Bowen, Nancy Noonan, ARENT FOX LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Antonia M. Konkoly, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Fidel Angel Vasquez Gonzalez filed a petition in the district court for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate his Form N485 application for adjustment of status. The district court dismissed the petition against USCIS as moot based on its finding that USCIS lacked jurisdiction over the adjustment application and had already administratively closed and dismissed the application. On appeal, Vasquez Gonzalez challenges this finding. We have reviewed the administrative record and agree that USCIS does not have jurisdiction over the adjustment application. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the mandamus petition for the reasons stated by the district court. Gonzalez v. Mayorkas, No. 1:13-cv-01230-TSE-JFA, 2014 WL 585863 (E.D.Va. Feb. 12, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.