
    Apparajan GANESAN Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, United States State Department, Internal Revenue Service, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 03-50519.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 12, 2004.
    Apparajan Ganesan, pro se, Venus, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    John Francis Paniszczyn, US Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, John. A Dudeck, Jr., Bruce Raleigh Ellisen, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Apparajan Ganesan, Texas inmate # 904088, challenges the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 1361 mandamus petition requesting an order compelling various federal agencies to initiate criminal and deportation proceedings against his ex-wife. The district court’s refusal to issue the writ is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Denson, 603 F.2d 1143, 1146 (5th Cir.1979) (en banc).

“[Mjandamus is not available to review the discretionary acts of officials.” Giddings v. Chandler, 979 F.2d 1104, 1108 (5th Cir.1992). A U.S. Attorney exercises absolute discretion regarding whether to initiate a criminal prosecution. United States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d 504, 507-08 (5th Cir.1975); United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir.1965) (en banc). The court may not interfere with the free exercise of that discretionary power. Cox, 342 F.2d at 171. Similarly, the Attorney General has the discretion to decline to commence deportation proceedings, which discretion is not subject to judicial interference. See Alvidres-Reyes v. Reno, 180 F.3d 199, 205 (5th Cir.1999). Moreover, even assuming federal officials owed a duty to prosecute or to initiate criminal proceedings, that duty was not owed to Ganesan, and he lacks standing to challenge the officials’ alleged failure to act. See Giddings, 979 F.2d at 1110. Dismissal of the petition was proper, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     