Case Name: Arnaldo RAVELO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS), Randall Akins, Kendall Field Office, United States Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, Secretary, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-13
Citations: 706 F. App'x 649
Docket Number: No. 17-10337
Parties: Arnaldo RAVELO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS), Randall Akins, Kendall Field Office, United States Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, Secretary, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before HULL, DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 706
Pages: 649–650

Head Matter:
Arnaldo RAVELO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS), Randall Akins, Kendall Field Office, United States Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, Secretary, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-10337
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
(December 13, 2017)
Eduardo Rigoberto Soto, Anthony Richard Dominguez, Eduardo Soto & Associates, Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Troy David Liggett, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Jessica Elise Elliott, Wifredo A, Ferrer, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendants-Appellees
Before HULL, DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.
Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Arnaldo Ravelo brought this civil action under 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. After review and with the benefit of oral argument, this Court concludes that Ravelo has not shown any reversible error in the district court's final judgment and order dated November 30, 2016. Thus, we affirm the district court's decision for the reasons already outlined in the district court's order.
AFFIRMED.
. This Court sua sponte has considered its jurisdiction and concludes that, based on the record and the narrow issue Of statutory ineligibility for adjustment of status to that of a lawful' permanent resident, we have subject matter jurisdiction in this case. See Perez v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 774 F.3d 960, 965-66 (11th Cir. 2014); Mejia Rodriguez v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 562 F.3d 1137, 1142-43 (11th Cir. 2009).