Court Opinion

ID: 9439685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 06:41:51.641996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:26:33.280612
License: Public Domain

RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I cannot join part II.B of the opinion. The court there pronounces on issues that may not be in the case. If the Attorney General’s discretionary power to approve or reject renunciations of citizenship has been transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, everything the court writes in part II.B is irrelevant. Nothing the court says there is essential to our judgment. The court’s “by the way” musings are thus simply dicta. Why the court includes them in an otherwise careful opinion is mystifying. They do not represent the sort of in-depth analysis that would be needed to determine the difficult question whether mandamus would lie to force the Attorney General to exercise discretionary power under 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(6). Since we do not even know if the Attorney General still has that power, I dissent from part II.B.