Amaya v. Borgen

21-3143-cv Amaya v. Borgen UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007 IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 3 New York, on the 6th day of October, two thousand twenty-two. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 DENNIS JACOBS, 7 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 8 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 Fredit Antonio Amaya, 13 14 Plaintiff-Appellant, 15 16 v. 21-3143-cv 17 18 Acting District Director Michael Borgen, District of 19 New York, United States Citizenship and 20 Immigration Services, Secretary Alejandro 21 Mayorkas, United States Department of Homeland 22 Security, 23 24 Defendants-Appellees. 25 26 _____________________________________ 27 28 29 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Jeffrey A. Feinbloom, 30 Feinbloom Bertisch LLP, 31 Rye, NY. 1 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Varuni Nelson, Layaliza 2 Soloveichik, Assistant United 3 States Attorneys, Of Counsel, 4 for Breon Peace, United 5 States Attorney, Eastern 6 District of New York, 7 Brooklyn, NY. 8 9 Appeal from a memorandum and order of the United States District Court for the Eastern 10 District of New York (Komitee, J.). 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 12 DECREED that the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT. 13 Appellant Fredit Antonio Amaya appeals a district court order dismissing his complaint 14 because the challenged decision of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) was not 15 final. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 16 While this appeal has been pending, USCIS has reconsidered and granted Amaya’s 17 application for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status. Because the denial of that 18 application was the basis for Amaya’s complaint in the district court, there is no longer any relief 19 for us to grant and the appeal is therefore moot. See Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United 20 States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (“[I]f an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes 21 it impossible for the court to grant ‘any effectual relief whatever’ to a prevailing party, the appeal 22 must be dismissed.” (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)). Because the appeal is 23 moot, we cannot reach the merits of the district court’s dismissal on finality grounds as Amaya 24 requests. Id. at 12 (“It has long been settled that a federal court has no authority ‘to give opinions …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals