In Re: Nikolaos Lagogiannis v.

ELD-021 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
NO. 09-3838
________________
IN RE: NIKOLAOS LAGOGIANNIS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus from the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Related to A-018-729-391)
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
March 18, 2010
Before: MCKEE, RENDELL and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: April 9, 2010)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Nikolaos Lagogiannis has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1651. Lagogiannis, presently an inmate in the State of New York, is a native and
citizen of Greece subject to an order of removal entered by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”).
In 2008, Lagogiannis filed a pro se petition for review seeking review of the IJ’s removal
order as well as additional orders entered by the IJ and the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”). On September 26, 2008, this Court dismissed the petition for review because it
was untimely filed as to the orders entered by the BIA, and because Lagogiannis had
failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as to the orders entered by the IJ. See
C.A. No. 08-2963 (order and judgment entered 9/26/08).
In his mandamus petition, Lagogiannis contends that he did not receive a copy of
the Court’s September 26, 2008, judgment until January 29, 2009, because he was in
transit between several correctional facilities. Lagogiannis claims that delayed receipt of
the judgment deprived him of the opportunity to petition for rehearing or to seek further
review.1 Lagogiannis asks that we vacate the judgment.
A writ of mandamus is an appropriate remedy in extraordinary circumstances only.
Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). “Before a writ of mandamus
may issue, a party must establish that (1) no other adequate means exist to attain the relief
he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and
(3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 130 S. Ct.
705, 710 (2010) (per curiam) (quotation marks and punctuation omitted).
We will deny the petition. Assuming arguendo that a writ of mandamus is an
appropriate vehicle for Lagogiannis to raise his present arguments, it is clear that
Lagogiannis never advised the Clerk of Court of his change in address, and the Clerk
immediately mailed the judgment after its entry to Lagogiannis’s most current address on
1
Lagogiannis’s characterization of this Court’s judgment as entered “in absentia” is
incorrect. Lagogiannis was a party to the proceeding before this Court.
2
file, which was the same address that Lagogiannis had used in an August 6, 2008,
submission to this Court. It was incumbent upon Lagogiannis to advise the Clerk of his
current address. Any delay in receipt of the judgment, therefore, is attributable solely to
Lagogiannis. Further, Lagogiannis filed a motion for leave to petition for rehearing out
of time, and this Court denied the motion. Lagogiannis has not shown that he was
unfairly denied an opportunity to seek rehearing or further review.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of mandamus will be denied.
3