From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sutuc v. Attorney Gen. of the United States

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Mar 4, 2016
643 F. App'x 174 (3d Cir. 2016)

Opinion

No. 15-2425

03-04-2016

ANA MARILU RODRIGUEZ SUTUC; Y. L.R., Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent


(Agency Nos. A206-448-275 & A206-448-276) Present: JORDAN, VANASKIE and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges

1. Motion by Petitioners to Vacate Court's Opinion Dated February 11, 2016;

2. Response by Respondent's in Non-Opposition to the Motion

Respectfully,

Clerk/cjg ORDER

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.

By the Court,

s/ Patty Shwartz

Circuit Judge Dated: March 4, 2016
CJG/cc: Bernard A. Joseph, Esq.

Bridget Cambria, Esq.

A True Copy

/s/

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

Certified order issued in lieu of mandate.


Summaries of

Sutuc v. Attorney Gen. of the United States

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Mar 4, 2016
643 F. App'x 174 (3d Cir. 2016)
Case details for

Sutuc v. Attorney Gen. of the United States

Case Details

Full title:ANA MARILU RODRIGUEZ SUTUC; Y. L.R., Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 4, 2016

Citations

643 F. App'x 174 (3d Cir. 2016)