Filed: Jun. 21, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-4003 _ Peter Andrew Ruston; Philip Ruston; * Worldmaster, Inc., * * Appellants, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States United States of America, U.S. * District Court for the Eastern Department of State, Madeleine * District of Arkansas. Albright, in her official capacity as * Secretary of State; Immigration and * [UNPUBLISHED] Naturalization Service, Doris * Meissner, in her official capacity as * Commissioner, * * Appellees. * _
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-4003 _ Peter Andrew Ruston; Philip Ruston; * Worldmaster, Inc., * * Appellants, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States United States of America, U.S. * District Court for the Eastern Department of State, Madeleine * District of Arkansas. Albright, in her official capacity as * Secretary of State; Immigration and * [UNPUBLISHED] Naturalization Service, Doris * Meissner, in her official capacity as * Commissioner, * * Appellees. * _ S..
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 98-4003 ___________ Peter Andrew Ruston; Philip Ruston; * Worldmaster, Inc., * * Appellants, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States United States of America, U.S. * District Court for the Eastern Department of State, Madeleine * District of Arkansas. Albright, in her official capacity as * Secretary of State; Immigration and * [UNPUBLISHED] Naturalization Service, Doris * Meissner, in her official capacity as * Commissioner, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: June 15, 1999 Filed: June 21, 1999 ___________ Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Peter Andrew Ruston, Philip Ruston, and Worldmaster, Inc. appeal the district court's adverse rulings that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider their immigration-related claims against the Department of State and the Immigration and Naturalization Service and denying their request for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' submissions, we agree with the district court's rulings. We thus affirm on the basis of the district court's memorandum opinion and order without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-