
    Avtar SINGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, an agency of the United States Government and Robert M. Cowan, Director of National Benefits Center, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Defendants-Appellees. Kulvinder Singh, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, an agency of the United States Government, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-35088, No. 14-35161
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 10, 2016 Seattle, Washington
    FILED June 17, 2016
    William Frick, Law Office of William Frick, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Priscilla To-Yin Chan, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees US Department of Homeland Security, an agency of the United States Government, Robert M. Cowan, Director of National Benefits Center, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (Case No. 14-35088), United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, an agency of the United States Government (Case No. 14-35161).
    Gisela Ann Westwater, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee US Department of Homeland Security, an agency of the United States Government (Case No. 14-35088).
    Kerry Keefe, Esquire, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Stacey llene Young, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, an agency of the United States Government (Case No. 14-35161).
    Before: EBEL, PAEZ, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Honorable David M. Ebel, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Given that both Avtar Singh and Kulvin-der Singh are in removal proceedings, the governing regulations require that they pursue their adjustment applications before the Immigration Judge presiding over their removal hearings. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.2(a), 1245.2 (a)(1)(i). The district court in both cases correctly concluded that there is no statutory or regulatory duty that would support mandamus relief against USCIS. There is also no merit to Avtar Singh’s procedural due process argument.

The district court’s dismissal of Avtar Singh’s case against DHS for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is AFFIRMED. The district court’s grant of summary judgment to US-CIS in Kulvinder Singh’s case is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     