Begum v. Atty Gen USA ( 2004 )

Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-30-2004
Begum v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-2317
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Begum v. Atty Gen USA" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 313.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/313
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 03-2317
NANTHI BEGUM,
Petitioner
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General
of the United States
Respondent
On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(No. A73-162-793)
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 1, 2004
Before: AMBRO, ALDISERT and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges
ORDER AMENDING OPINION
The petition for panel rehearing filed by Respondent in the above entitled case
having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court, the
petition is granted for the limited purpose of vacating the Court’s reinstatement of
Petitioner’s expired period for voluntary departure. As such, the Court’s not precedential
opinion, dated July 22, 2004, is hereby amended as follows:
On page 3, footnote 2, replace the sentence that reads: “Though the thirty-day
voluntary departure period had long since lapsed before she sought a stay, we nonetheless
grant this request.” with the following: “In light of our decision in Reynoso-Lopez v.
Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 275, 280 (3d Cir. 2004), we deny this request (“[B]ecause Congress
has not provided statutory authority for appellate courts to reinstate or extend the
voluntary departure period prescribed by an IJ or the BIA, this Court lacks jurisdiction to
reinstate [petitioner’s] voluntary departure period.”).”
By the Court,
/s/ Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge
Dated: September 30, 2004
2