of an underlying right or relation.... ” Christ v. Beneficial Corp., 547 F.3d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir.2008). The district court did not err in dismissing Gupta’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No jurisdiction lies under the APA or the Mandamus Act because Gupta is in removal proceedings. Thus, “[t]he decision on [his] adjustment of status is not yet final,” Ibarra, 628 F.3d at 1270, and he still has remedies available to him, see Cash, 327 F.3d at 1258. Moreover, because Gupta is in removal proceedings, the USCIS no longer has jurisdiction to consider his claims for relief, and therefore, the district court could not grant relief even if it had jurisdiction over the complaint. 8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1); see also Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 916 (11th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Gupta’s claim that his due process rights
holding that the case was not moot even though claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were no longer alive because the plaintiff had requested pecuniary relief holding district court may properly on its own motion dismiss an action as to defendants who have not moved to dismiss where such defendants are in a position similar to that of moving defendants or where claims against such defendants are integrally related holding appeal moot on this basis holding that a writ of mandamus will not issue under  1361 unless the defendant is under a clear nondiscretionary duty to perform the act requested holding that where an agency is unable to act on requested relief the district court should dismiss a mandamus action as moot