and no Justification?”). 7 . See, e.g., App. 65 ("[T]hey do not give a reason why I have to have an interview. They give no real reason why I cannot renounce my citizenship while in prison.”). 8 . The government states that, although this circuit "previously suggested in dicta that the Government might have an obligation to act on applications to renounce,” Gov’t Br. 13 n. 9 (citing Kaufman, 524 F.3d at 1339), "this dicta is not persuasive,” id. This constitutes an argument about the merits, upon which Schnitzler may or may not ultimately prevail. But as we note below, his "prospects of success” on such a claim are "not pertinent to the mootness inquiry.” Chafin v. Chafin, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 1017, 1024, 185 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013). 9 . Cf. Fox v. Clinton, 684 F.3d 67, 80 (D.C.Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); Turner v. Beers, No. 13-504, 5 F.Supp.3d 115,
holding that for diversity purposes the citizenship of a llc is determined by the citizenship of all of its members holding that because exclusion was not provided to certificate holder terms of the certificate controlled holding that the state departments denial of the appellants request for a certificate of loss of nationality that would acknowledge his surrender of us citizenship was arbitrary and capricious because it was not logical rational or adequately explained holding that the certificate of purchase is not a claim because it does not represent a right to payment holding that denial of untimely request was not abuse of discretion