Fidel Gonzalez v. Leon Rodriguez, No. 14-1360 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1360 FIDEL ANGEL VASQUEZ GONZALEZ, Petitioner – Appellant, v. KIMBERLY ZANNOTTI, United States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, Security, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Fidel Angel Vasquez Gonzalez filed a petition in the district court compelling for the a writ United of seeking Citizenship States mandamus and an order 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 administratively closed appeal, Gonzalez Vasquez and application dismissed challenges the this and had already application. finding. We On 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 1:13-cv-01230-TSE-JFA court. (E.D. Va. Gonzalez Feb. 12, v. Rodriguez, 2014). We No. 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
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.
