
    IN RE: Jacob BEN-ARI, Petitioner
    No. 17-2723
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. November 16, 2017
    (Opinion filed: December 21, 2017)
    Jacob Ben-Ari, Pro Se
    Todd J. Cochran, Esq., Thomas W. Hus-sey, Esq., Ashley Y. Martin, Esq., Jeff Sessions, Esq., United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, JR., and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
   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 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 sanie date that the BIA rendered its decision, Ben-Ari’s mandamus petition was. received in this Court. 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). 
      
       This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
     
      
      , 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 tiled on the docket.
     