Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03943/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03943-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAJINDER PAL SINGH,

Petitioner,

 v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

No. C-07-3943 MMC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY OF

EXECUTION AND APPLICATION FOR

TEMPORARY STAY ORDER PENDING

APPEAL

By order filed October 12, 2007, the Court denied petitioner Rajinder Pal Singh’s

petition for a writ of habeas corpus, on the ground said petitioner was required, as a

prudential matter, to exhaust his ineffective assistance of counsel claim with the Board of

Immigration Appeals, and had not done so, and that petitioner had failed to demonstrate he

was entitled to release from detention. On October 19, 2007, petitioner filed a notice of

appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Now before the Court is petitioner’s “Motion for Emergency Stay of Execution and

Application for Temporary Stay Order Pending Appeal,” filed October 29, 2007, by which

petitioner seeks, pursuant to Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, an

order “staying the detention and removal of petitioner to India pursuant to the administrative

order of exclusion issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (hereinafter BIA) on or about

July 23, 1999.” (See Petitioner’s Mot. at 1:19-23.) Respondents have filed opposition.

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court rules as follows.

Case 3:07-cv-03943-MMC Document 23 Filed 10/31/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Under Rule 8(a)(1), a party may seek “a stay of the judgment or order of a district

court pending appeal.” See Fed. R. App. Proc. 8(a)(1). A party who seeks such a stay

must show either a “probability of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable

injury,” or that “serious legal questions are raised and that the balance of hardships tips

sharply in [his] favor.” See Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F. 2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983). For the

reasons stated below, the Court finds petitioner has failed to show he is entitled to relief.

As noted, a party seeking relief under Rule 8(a)(1) seeks to stay a “judgment or

order of a district court.” Here, the order petitioner seeks to stay is an order of removal

issued by the BIA. The Court, however, lacks jurisdiction to review an order of removal,

see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5), and the Court’s order addressing the exhaustion of petitioner’s

claim that his counsel was ineffective cannot be construed as an order reviewing the

propriety of the BIA’s order of removal, see Singh v. Gonzalez, 499 F. 3d 969, 979 (9th Cir.

2007) (holding § 1252(a)(5) not a bar to district court’s jurisdiction over detainee’s petition

for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel occurring after issuance

of final order of removal, because such a petition “cannot be construed as seeking judicial

review of his final order of removal”). Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction, as well as

statutory authority, to stay the BIA’s order of removal issued on July 23, 1999.

Alternatively, assuming, arguendo, the Court, by reason of its having denied

petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, has a jurisdictional and statutory basis to

stay the BIA’s order of removal, the Court finds petitioner has failed to show either a

probability of success on the merits of an appeal, or that serious legal questions would be

raised in the appeal. Although petitioner asserts, in conclusory fashion, that the Court

erred in denying his petition, petitioner fails to advance any argument to support a finding

that there exists a probability of success on the merits of his appeal, or that he will raise

serious legal questions on appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03943-MMC Document 23 Filed 10/31/07 Page 2 of 2