Raj Patel v. Joseph Biden, Jr. ( 2022 )

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 22-5057 September Term, 2021
1:22-cv-00394-UNA
Filed On: June 8, 2022
Raj K. Patel, from all capacities,
Appellant
v.
Joseph R. Biden, Jr., The Honorable; the
President of the United States, et al.,
Appellees
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BEFORE: Rogers and Tatel, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit
Judge
JUDGMENT
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the amended brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the
motion to expedite, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed February 18,
2022, be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that appellant failed to
establish the threshold requirements for mandamus jurisdiction. See Am. Hosp. Ass’n
v. Burwell, 812 F.3d 183, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Appellant has forfeited any claim that
he is entitled to mandamus relief based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42
U.S.C. § 2000bb, by failing to raise it before the district court in the first instance. See
Keepseagle v. Perdue, 856 F.3d 1039, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 2017). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to expedite be dismissed as moot.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 22-5057 September Term, 2021
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/
Daniel J. Reidy
Deputy Clerk
Page 2