Fidel Angel Vasquez Gonzalez v. KIMBERLY ZANNOTTI, United States Citizenship

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1360
FIDEL ANGEL VASQUEZ GONZALEZ,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
KIMBERLY ZANNOTTI, United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Washington Field Office Director;
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Department of
Justice; JEH JOHNSON, Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security; LEON RODRIGUEZ, Director, United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Respondents – Appellees,
and
RAND BEERS, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland
Security,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-01230-TSE-JFA)
Submitted: October 31, 2014 Decided: November 3, 2014
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Christopher A. Bowen, Nancy Noonan, ARENT FOX LLP, Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney,
Antonia M. Konkoly, Assistant United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Fidel Angel Vasquez Gonzalez filed a petition in the
district court for a writ of mandamus seeking an order
compelling the United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) to adjudicate his Form I-485 application for
adjustment of status. The district court dismissed the petition
against USCIS as moot based on its finding that USCIS lacked
jurisdiction over the adjustment application and had already
administratively closed and dismissed the application. On
appeal, Vasquez Gonzalez challenges this finding. We have
reviewed the administrative record and agree that USCIS does not
have jursidiction over the adjustment application. Accordingly,
we affirm the dismissal of the mandamus petition for the reasons
stated by the district court. Gonzalez v. Rodriguez, No.
1:13-cv-01230-TSE-JFA (E.D. Va. Feb. 12, 2014). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --