Court Opinion

ID: 9399318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 17:01:08.228232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:04.656038
License: Public Domain

***AMENDED CLD-125                      NOT PRECEDENTIAL
                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                           ___________

                                      No. 23-1334
                                      ___________

                          IN RE: VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI,
                                                Petitioner
                       ____________________________________

                      On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                        (Related to Agency No. A096-689-764)
                      ____________________________________

                     Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                                    April 13, 2023

        Before: GREENAWAY, JR., MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

                               (Opinion filed: June 2, 2023)
                                       _________

                                        OPINION*
                                        _________
PER CURIAM

       Petitioner, Vamsidhar Reddy Vurimindi, is a native of India who became a lawful

permanent resident in 2008. In 2017, an Immigration Judge determined that he was

removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) for having been convicted of a crime of

stalking. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) agreed, but, upon review, we

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
determined that Vurimindi’s offense of conviction does not qualify as a removable

offense. Vurimindi v. Att’y Gen., 46 F.4th 134, 148 (3d Cir. 2022). Accordingly, we

vacated the BIA’s orders affirming the removal order and remanded the matter to the

agency for further proceedings.

       In February 2023, Vurimindi filed a second petition for a writ of mandamus in this

Court, again complaining that the BIA is “dilly-dallying” in granting his motion to

terminate. By order entered April 20, 2023, the BIA terminated the proceedings without

prejudice. Accordingly, we will dismiss the mandamus petition as moot. See Blanciak v.

Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur

during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome

of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be

dismissed as moot.”). 1

1
 Vurimindi’s request to convert his mandamus petition to a petition for review and all
other requests for relief are denied.
                                          2