Case Name: Fa.Lu. CIOLI, Appellant v. Laura ZUCHOWSKI, Director, Vermont Service Center; DIrector United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Secretary United States Department of Homland Security; Attorney General United States of America
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-30
Citations: 667 F. App'x 364
Docket Number: No. 15-3812
Parties: Fa.Lu. CIOLI, Appellant v. Laura ZUCHOWSKI, Director, Vermont Service Center; DIrector United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Secretary United States Department of Homland Security; Attorney General United States of America
Judges: BEFORE: AMBRO, JORDAN, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 364–364

Head Matter:
Fa.Lu. CIOLI, Appellant v. Laura ZUCHOWSKI, Director, Vermont Service Center; DIrector United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Secretary United States Department of Homland Security; Attorney General United States of America
No. 15-3812
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 14, 2016
DATED: June 30, 2016
Simone Bertollini, Esq., Clifton, NJ, Paul F. O’Reilly, Esq., New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Victor M. Mercado-Santana, Esq., United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.
BEFORE: AMBRO, JORDAN, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

Opinion:
JUDGMENT ORDER
Morton I. Greenberg, Circuit Judge
This matter comes on before this Court on an appeal from an order of the District Court entered on November 20, 2015, denying a motion for a preliminary injunction. While the appeal has been pending, the District Court on June 16, 2016, entered an order dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the circumstances, even if we held that the District Court should not have denied the motion for the preliminary injunction we cannot remand the case to the District Court with instructions to enter the injunction because the case is no longer pending in that Court. Moreover, if we affirmed the denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction our order would have no consequence as the order affirming the denial would not compel the defendants to do anything. Consequently, the appeal is moot and therefore we dismiss appeal. The parties will bear their own costs on this appeal.