Court Opinion

ID: 9434876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 00:00:29.838795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:12:57.523419
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50280    Document: 00516843831       Page: 1    Date Filed: 08/02/2023

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                              ____________
                                                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                          Fifth Circuit
                                No. 23-50280
                              Summary Calendar                          FILED
                              ____________                         August 2, 2023
                                                                   Lyle W. Cayce
   Vamsidhar Reddy Vurimindi,                                           Clerk

                                                        Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                    versus

   Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
   Security; Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General; Ur Mendoza
   Jaddou, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director; Connie
   Nolan, Deputy Associate Director, Service Center Operation Directorate,
   USCIS; Debra A. Rogers, Potomac Service Center Director, USCIS;
   Mario Ortiz, San Antonio District Director, USCIS; Wiley
   Blakeway, San Antonio Field Office Director, USCIS,

                                          Defendants—Appellees.
                 ______________________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC No. 1:23-CV-220
                 ______________________________
Case: 23-50280       Document: 00516843831         Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/02/2023

                                    No. 23-50280

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Vamsidhar Vurimindi, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
   dismissal of his complaint. Given recent developments, we dismiss this
   appeal as moot.
          In 2008, Vurimindi, a native of India, became a lawful permanent
   resident (“LPR”) in the United States after marrying an American citizen.
   Years later, the federal government initiated removal proceedings against
   him following his arrest and conviction on two counts of misdemeanor
   stalking under Pennsylvania law. The Board of Immigration Appeals ordered
   Vurimindi removed. On appeal, the Third Circuit held that Pennsylvania
   stalking does not qualify as a removable offense and vacated the Board’s
   order. See Vurimindi v. Att’y Gen. U.S., 46 F.4th 134, 148 (3d Cir. 2022).
          Following that decision, Vurimindi brought suit in the Western
   District of Texas against various federal officials and agencies. He sought a
   court order requiring Defendants to stamp his passport or I-94 Card with
   proof of LPR status. On March 29, 2023, the district court dismissed
   Vurimindi’s claims as frivolous. Two days later, a federal immigration officer
   stamped Vurimindi’s passport with proof of LPR status.           The officer
   allegedly added to that page of his passport a handwritten annotation of his
   then-pending removal proceedings. In mid-April, the BIA terminated the
   proceedings against Vurimindi.
          This appeal is moot. Vurimindi received proof of LPR status, and he
   is no longer under removal proceedings. He contests mootness on the ground

          _____________________
          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
   circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

                                             2
Case: 23-50280      Document: 00516843831          Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/02/2023

                                    No. 23-50280

   that the stamp is no longer enough. The annotations on his passport and the
   public record of the previous removal order have allegedly prevented him
   from returning to the job he had before his conviction. He argues that unless
   those are scrubbed, he cannot get the relief he seeks. Those allegations are
   not the basis of this action, however. Vurimindi has received the relief he
   requested in his complaint, so this case no longer presents a live controversy.
   See Bailey v. Southerland, 832 F.2d 277, 278–79 (5th Cir. 1987) (per curiam).
          DISMISSED AS MOOT.

                                             3