Sutuc v. Attorney General of the United States

Third Circuit

Sutuc v. Attorney General of the United States

643 F. App'x 174

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 4, 2016

DocketNo. 15-2425

StatusPublished

This text of 643 F. App'x 174 (Sutuc v. Attorney General of the United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sutuc v. Attorney General of the United States, 643 F. App'x 174 (3d Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PATTY SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge.

The Court has been advised that the BIA granted a motion to reopen the final order of removal that was the subject of the petition for review filed in this case. Neither Petitioners nor the Government informed the Court that such a motion was filed until after the BIA granted it. As a result, this Court considered and ruled upon a petition to review an order that had been reopened and thus was no longer a final order of removal. Because the order this Court reviewed was not a final order of removal as of the date our February 11, 2016 opinion and judgment was entered, the Court grants the unopposed motion to vacate the February 11, 2016 Opinion and Judgment. The Court reminds the parties of their continuing obligation in all cases to notify the Court of events that may impact this Court’s jurisdiction. ■

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

ORDER

PATTY SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge.

The Court has been advised that the BIA granted a motion to reopen the final order of removal that was the subject of the petition for review filed in this case. Neither Petitioners nor the Government informed the Court that such a motion was filed until after the BIA granted it. As a result, this Court considered and ruled upon a petition to review an order that had been reopened and thus was no longer a final order of removal. Because the order this Court reviewed was not a final order of removal as of the date our February 11, 2016 opinion and judgment was entered, the Court grants the unopposed motion to vacate the February 11, 2016 Opinion and Judgment. The Court reminds the parties of their continuing obligation in all cases to notify the Court of events that may impact this Court’s jurisdiction. ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

643 F. App'x 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutuc-v-attorney-general-of-the-united-states-ca3-2016.