In Re: Jacob Ben-Ari

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY JR. and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 2. CLD-048

Case: 17-2723

Document: 003112808189

Page: 1

CLD-048

Date Filed: 12/21/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-2723
___________
IN RE: JACOB BEN-ARI,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Related to Agency No. A078-404-560)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
November 16, 2017

Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, JR., and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 21, 2017)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Jacob Ben-Ari seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) to show cause why it refuses to rule on three motions that
he filed with the agency.
Ben-Ari is an Israeli citizen who was ordered removed to Israel by an Immigration
Judge (“IJ”) sitting in Miami, Florida, on November 1, 2016, in connection with a 2011

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

Case: 17-2723

Document: 003112808189

Page: 2

Date Filed: 12/21/2017

mail fraud conviction. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed Ben-Ari’s
appeal in an order dated April 10, 2017. The BIA also denied Ben-Ari’s motion to stay
the proceedings pending the outcome of his collateral attack on his conviction in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It appears that Ben-Ari
thereafter returned to the BIA with, inter alia, a motion seeking reconsideration of the
April 10th order. Given Ben-Ari’s submission of evidence, the BIA also treated the
motion as one seeking reopening pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c). In an order dated
August 8, 2017, the BIA denied Ben-Ari’s motion for reconsideration. It also concluded
that the motion did not warrant reopening of his immigration proceedings. The BIA
specifically noted in its decision that it had considered Ben-Ari’s multiple filings in
rendering its decision.
On the same date that the BIA rendered its decision, Ben-Ari’s mandamus petition
was received in this Court.1 The issuance of the BIA’s order on August 8th came more
than two months before the Clerk’s receipt of Ben-Ari’s motion for leave to proceed with
this mandamus petition in forma pauperis. Even assuming arguendo that mandamus is
available for use as Ben-Ari proposes, he has received the relief sought in his mandamus
petition. Thus, we will dismiss the petition as moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum
Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).

constitute binding precedent.
1
The petition is dated August 2, 2017. The Government advised the Court that Ben-Ari
had been removed to Israel before his mandamus petition was received and filed on the
docket.
2