TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Demjanjuk v. Holder

John DEMJANJUK, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent

Demjanjuk v. Holder, 563 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2009)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 14, 2009
Docket
No. 09-3416
Judges
Kennedy, Gibbons, Rogers
Citations
563 F.3d 5652009 WL 9953872009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12644

Opinion

ORDER The petitioner has filed today a petition for review and a motion for stay, seeking review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”) that denies his motion to stay his removal to Germany pending consideration of a motion to reopen removal proceedings. The petitioner asserts that due to his medical condition and the fact that he faces arrest, incarceration, and trial in Germany, his removal at this time violates the Convention Against Torture.

See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18 (implementation of the Convention Against Torture). The Attorney General opposes the motion for a stay and argues that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of a stay by the BIA.

The court has the discretion to grant a stay of removal pending consideration of a petition for review.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(3)(B). In ruling on a motion for a stay, the court applies the traditional four-part test governing injunctive relief.

Nwakanma v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 325, 327 (6th Cir.2003). The four factors — the petitioner’s likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, the harm to others, and the public interest — are to be balanced. Upon due consideration of the motion for a stay and the opposition by the Attorney General, we conclude that a stay of removal is warranted. Because it is our understanding that the government may remove the petitioner later today, we are compelled to rule on the motion for a stay prior to addressing the jurisdictional concerns raised by the government.

The petitioner’s motion for a stay of removal is GRANTED, pending further consideration of the matters presented by the petition and motion.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Nwakanma v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 325 (6th Cir. 2003) 26

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list