Angelina Nkoli Okwuego v. Jason L. Pope

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 22-2590 __________ ANGELINA NKOLI OKWUEGO, Appellant v. JASON L. POPE, Immigration Judge ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-14179) District Judge: Honorable John M. Vazquez ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) February 16, 2024

Before: JORDAN, PHIPPS, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 22, 2024) ___________ OPINION* ___________

PER CURIAM

Appellant Angelina Nkoli Okwuego, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of her complaint. For the following reasons, we will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Okwuego filed a complaint against the Honorable Jason L. Pope, alleging multiple constitutional violations in relation to her spouse’s immigration proceedings. Dkt. No. 4 at 3 & 5. The only relief she sought was an injunction to prevent the occurrence of an immigration hearing scheduled for October 27, 2020.1 Id. at 5. Judge Pope filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 23. Because the immigration hearing had already occurred, the District Court dismissed Okwuego’s complaint as moot. Dkt. No. 28. Okwuego filed a timely notice of appeal.2 Dkt. No. 30.

Okwuego’s appeal is moot. “Article III extends the Judicial Power of the United States only to ‘cases’ and ‘controversies.’” Unalachtigo Band of Nanticoke Lenni Lenape Nation v. Corzine, 606 F.3d 126, 129 (3d Cir. 2010). This “case or controversy requirement continues through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate,” Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 147 (3d Cir. 2009); “once the controversy ceases to exist the court must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction,” Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964, 974 (3d Cir. 1992).

As the District Court explained, Okwuego sought only to enjoin the October 27, 2020 immigration hearing. Dkt. No. 28 at 6. Because that hearing has taken place, there is now no meaningful relief that we can grant. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur during the course of adjudication that . . . prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”); Brill v. Gen. Indus. Enters., Inc., 234 F.2d 465, 469 (3d Cir. 1956) (“[W]here the act sought to be restrained has been performed, the appellate courts will deny review on the ground of mootness.”).

Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.