Summary
The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, denied petitioners’ opposed motion to stay removal and lifted the temporary stay previously entered under General Order 6.4(c). Chief Judge Murguia concurred, asserting that the lawfulness of the court’s automatic-stay procedures was not before the court and should be addressed through internal court procedures. Judge Tung issued a statement criticizing the court’s prolonged automatic-stay practice and the en banc court’s failure to explain whether that practice is lawful.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether petitioners were entitled to a stay of removal pending resolution of their petition for review.
- Whether the Ninth Circuit's practice of entering prolonged automatic stays of removal required adjudication in this stay order.
Holdings
- Petitioners' opposed motion to stay removal was denied, and the temporary stay entered under General Order 6.4(c) was lifted effective immediately.
Key quotations
“The Supreme Court has long admonished that stays of removal are “not a matter of right” (Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (citation omitted)); instructed that a court must not “reflexively hold[] a final order in abeyance pending review” (id. at 427); placed the burden on the applicant to show that a stay is warranted (id. at 433–34); and required that a court must apply the “traditional stay factors” in each case” (Statement by Judge Tung at 2)
Factual background
Petitioners filed a motion for a stay of removal that, according to Judge Tung's statement, offered little explanation of the grounds for relief and relied on a repealed statutory provision authorizing automatic stays. The government opposed the motion. A temporary stay was entered under the Ninth Circuit's General Order 6.4(c), and the stay remained in effect for more than a year before the en banc court denied petitioners' motion.
Procedural history
Petitioners filed a motion to stay removal on December 13, 2024, and the government opposed it. A three-judge panel later denied the motion and criticized the Ninth Circuit's practice of automatically granting prolonged stays pending merits review. Rehearing en banc was granted, the panel opinion was vacated, and the en banc court issued this order denying the stay. The petition for review remained separately pending.