Opinion ID: 169607
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Rem aining Claim s on Appeal

Text: M r. Vaupel also contends on appeal that his due process rights would be violated if he were removed to Australia prior to a determination on his VAW A petition. But in the same brief he waived his only requested relief on this claim by withdrawing “any and all requests for a stay of removal.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 48. Therefore, we hold that M r. Vaupel has w aived appellate review of this claim. Even without this express waiver, we would conclude that this claim is also mooted by M r. Vaupel’s deportation because he has not demonstrated a collateral injury surviving his removal. W e agree with the district court that there is no basis to his claim that his removal would prevent the continued adjudication of his VAW A petition. See R., Doc. 12, Ex. A-19 at 2 (declaration by representative of agency processing petition that it would not be abandoned upon him leaving the U nited States). Finally, he raises two additional claims on appeal. He contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying him leave to file a supplemental brief. He also argues that the district court erred in granting the motion to dismiss by respondents M ario Ortiz, M ichael Chertoff, M ichael J. Garcia, and Alberto G onzales on the basis that they did not have custody of M r. Vaupel. In light of our previous rulings that we lack jurisdiction to consider his other claims on appeal, we find it unnecessary to decide these issues. Even if M r. Vaupel were to prevail on either or both of these claims of error, the resulting determination -10- would have no impact on his ability to obtain the relief he seeks in his habeas petition or on the outcome of this appeal. See United States v. Torres, 182 F.3d 1156, 1164 & n.2 (10th Cir. 1999) (finding “no reason to abandon principles of judicial restraint and render an opinion that is unnecessary and meaningless as applied to the defendant in this case”).