Noble v. Ricciardonne

D.C. Circuit

Noble v. Ricciardonne

161 F. App'x 22

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedAugust 19, 2005

DocketNo. 05-5180

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 161 F. App'x 22 (Noble v. Ricciardonne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Noble v. Ricciardonne, 161 F. App'x 22 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed on April 7, 2005, and April 26, 2005, be affirmed. Appellant challenges the district court’s dismissal of his complaint seeking an order compelling the United States Ambassador of the Philippines and the Secretary of State to issue a visa for his fiancee. The district court’s dismissal was proper because the district court lacked the authority to review the consular decision regarding issuance of the visa to appellant’s [23]*23fiancee, a citizen and resident of the Philippines whom he has never met. Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1159 (D.C.Cir.1999); City of New York v. Baker, 878 F.2d 507, 512 (D.C.Cir.1989).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed on April 7, 2005, and April 26, 2005, be affirmed. Appellant challenges the district court’s dismissal of his complaint seeking an order compelling the United States Ambassador of the Philippines and the Secretary of State to issue a visa for his fiancee. The district court’s dismissal was proper because the district court lacked the authority to review the consular decision regarding issuance of the visa to appellant’s [23]*23fiancee, a citizen and resident of the Philippines whom he has never met. Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1159 (D.C.Cir.1999); City of New York v. Baker, 878 F.2d 507, 512 (D.C.Cir.1989).

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 of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 F. App'x 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noble-v-ricciardonne-cadc-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack