Charles Ani v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 548 F. App'x 83 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1697
CHARLES OWUSU ANI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 26, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Goren, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID GOREN, Silver Spring, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General,
Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, James E. Grimes, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Owusu Ani, a native and citizen of Ghana,
petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“Board”) order affirming the immigration judge’s
denial of his request to continue his removal proceedings. Ani
sought a continuance to allow his wife, who is an American
citizen, to administratively appeal USCIS’s * order revoking its
prior approval of the I-130 visa petition she had filed for
Ani’s benefit. The Attorney General argues that this petition
for review has been rendered moot by the Board’s subsequent
affirmance of USCIS’s decision. We agree.
Whether the court is “presented with a live case or
controversy” is an issue that “goes to the heart of the Article
III jurisdiction of the courts.” Friedman’s, Inc. v. Dunlap,
290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks
omitted). To qualify for adjudication in federal court, “an
actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not
merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Arizonans for
Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997) (internal
quotation marks omitted). “[I]f an event occurs while a case is
pending on appeal that makes it impossible for the court to
grant ‘any effectual relief whatever’ to a prevailing party, the
*
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
2
appeal must be dismissed.” Church of Scientology of Cal. v.
United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (quoting Mills v. Green,
159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)).
The sole issue in this petition for review is Ani’s
challenge to the Board’s decision affirming the immigration
judge’s denial of his request for a continuance. Even if we
were to accept Ani’s arguments and remand the case, Ani’s basis
for seeking a continuance is no longer viable. Therefore, we
cannot render a decision that would affect Ani’s legal rights.
See Qureshi v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 985, 988-89 (7th Cir. 2006).
We accordingly dismiss this petition for review as
moot. 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.
PETITION DISMISSED
3