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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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