Vamsidhar Vurimindi v., No. 22-3279 (3d Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
BLD-057 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 22-3279 ___________ IN RE: VAMSIDHAR REDDY VURIMINDI, Petitioner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. December 21, 2022 Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and PORTER, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: December 30, 2022) _________ 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. Our mandate issued on October 17, 2022. Approximately one month later, Vurimindi moved the BIA to terminate the removal proceedings on the ground that he had “recaptured his lost LPR status and need not seek any further reliefs before the [IJ].” Mot. 5, ECF No. 1-1, Exh. B. The BIA has not yet ruled on the motion or taken any other action in the matter. Vurimindi now petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus compelling the BIA to terminate the removal proceedings based on our mandate. We will deny the petition. While we have mandamus authority to compel agency action when the agency is unreasonably withholding or delaying its disposition, see Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 358 F.3d 40, 42 (D.C. Cir. 2004), nothing in the record suggests that the BIA is doing so here. We are confident that the BIA will adjudicate Vurimindi’s motion in due course. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
