Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the Government sought to vacate the stay of removal for Haniff Mohammed, a lawful permanent resident from Trinidad, following the denial of his habeas corpus petition. The primary legal issues involved the standards for issuing stays pending appeal and the applicability of relief under the former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) post-AEDPA and IIRIRA. Mohammed, convicted of a felony after these enactments, argued for discretionary relief consideration under existing INA provisions at the time of his crime. The District Court initially stayed his removal, but the appellate court found that the heightened standard under INA section 242(f) did not apply to temporary stays pending appeal. The court assessed the likelihood of Mohammed's success, determining it was insufficient to justify the stay, given the binding precedent set in Domond v. INS, which the Supreme Court decision in INS v. St. Cyr did not undermine in this context. Consequently, the court vacated the stay pending appeal but allowed a 30-day period for Mohammed to seek relief from the Supreme Court, acknowledging procedural nuances and the balance of hardships involved in such motions.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Domond v. INSsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Mohammed's appeal was evaluated in light of Domond, which limits relief for aliens convicted post-AEDPA and IIRIRA enactment.
Reasoning: In evaluating Mohammed's appeal, a critical question is whether the precedent set in Domond limits the possibility of success on his case.
Criteria for Granting a Stay Pending Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court analyzed the likelihood of success, irreparable injury, harm to the opposing party, and public interest when deciding on the stay.
Reasoning: The criteria for granting a stay pending appeal include: 1. Likelihood of success on the merits 2. Irreparable injury if the stay is denied 3. Substantial injury to the opposing party if the stay is granted 4. The public interest.
Impact of INS v. St. Cyr on Domond Precedentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that St. Cyr did not alter the applicability of Domond to Mohammed's situation.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court's affirmation in St. Cyr does not support Mohammed's potential for a successful appeal, as he was convicted after the enactment of legislative changes that eliminated section 212(c) relief.
Interpretation of 'Enjoin' in Section 242(f)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the term 'enjoin' does not impose a heightened standard for Mohammed's stay pending appeal.
Reasoning: The interpretation of 'enjoin' in subsection 242(f)(2) does not strictly align with the definition of 'injunctions' in subsection 1292(a)(1).
Standard for Stay Pending Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court concluded that the heightened standard under section 242(f) of the INA does not apply to stays pending appeal.
Reasoning: The appellate court concluded that the heightened standard for a stay of deportation under section 242(f) of the INA does not apply since Mohammed seeks a temporary stay pending appeal, not an injunction against removal provisions.