Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffjurisdictionattorneyappealmotion
plaintiffjurisdictionattorneyappealmotion

Related Cases

Tingling v. City of Richmond
View Case »
Alvarez v. Interstate Highway Constr.
View Case »
Synergy Sys., Inc.; Administrator, Wage and Hour Division v.
View Case »
Yu Mei Chen v. Nielsen
View Case »
Baoyu Zhang v. United States AG
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ragbir v. Homan

Facts

Ravidath Lawrence Ragbir is subject to a final order of removal that has been reviewed by the Board of Immigration Appeals and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, both of which denied relief. Ragbir's attempts to challenge the removal order through motions to reconsider and reopen were also denied, leading to the current application for a stay of removal pending appeal.

Ravidath Lawrence Ragbir is subject to a final order of removal that has been reviewed by the Board of Immigration Appeals and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, both of which denied relief. Ragbir's attempts to challenge the removal order through motions to reconsider and reopen were also denied, leading to the current application for a stay of removal pending appeal.

Issue

Whether the court has jurisdiction to enjoin the execution of a final order of removal against Ragbir.

Whether the court has jurisdiction to enjoin the execution of a final order of removal against Ragbir.

Rule

Under 8 U.S.C. 1252(g), no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to execute removal orders against any alien.

Under 8 U.S.C. 1252(g), no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to execute removal orders against any alien.

Analysis

The court applied the statutory restriction found in 8 U.S.C. 1252(g) to conclude that it lacked jurisdiction to grant a stay of removal. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not challenge the underlying order of removal, which was final and fully enforceable prior to any alleged retaliatory conduct. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs' claims did not present a viable basis for jurisdiction.

The court applied the statutory restriction found in 8 U.S.C. 1252(g) to conclude that it lacked jurisdiction to grant a stay of removal. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not challenge the underlying order of removal, which was final and fully enforceable prior to any alleged retaliatory conduct. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs' claims did not present a viable basis for jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The court denied the application for a stay of removal pending appeal, concluding that the plaintiffs were not likely to prevail on appeal and did not raise serious questions on the merits.

The court denied the application for a stay of removal pending appeal, concluding that the plaintiffs were not likely to prevail on appeal and did not raise serious questions on the merits.

Who won?

The government prevailed in this case as the court denied Ragbir's application for a stay of removal, affirming the finality of the removal order.

The government prevailed in this case as the court denied Ragbir's application for a stay of removal, affirming the finality of the removal order.

You must be