***AMENDED CLD-125 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 23-1334 ___________

IN RE: VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the Board of Immigration Appeals (Related to Agency No. A096-689-764) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. April 13, 2023

Before: GREENAWAY, JR., MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 2, 2023) _________

OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM

Petitioner, Vamsidhar Reddy Vurimindi, is a native of India who became a lawful

permanent resident in 2008. In 2017, an Immigration Judge determined that he was

removable under

(a)(2)(E)(i) for having been convicted of a crime of

stalking. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) agreed, but, upon review, we

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. determined that Vurimindi’s offense of conviction does not qualify as a removable

offense. Vurimindi v. Att’y Gen.,

, 148 (3d Cir. 2022). Accordingly, we

vacated the BIA’s orders affirming the removal order and remanded the matter to the

agency for further proceedings.

In February 2023, Vurimindi filed a second petition for a writ of mandamus in this

Court, again complaining that the BIA is “dilly-dallying” in granting his motion to

terminate. By order entered April 20, 2023, the BIA terminated the proceedings without

prejudice. Accordingly, we will dismiss the mandamus petition as moot. See Blanciak v.

Allegheny Ludlum Corp.,

, 698–99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur

during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome

of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be

dismissed as moot.”). 1

1 Vurimindi’s request to convert his mandamus petition to a petition for review and all other requests for relief are denied. 2