Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00482/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00482-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Grace Xunmei Li, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-00482-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendant Li has filed a motion to stay execution of the Court’s judgment 

revoking her citizenship. Doc. 224. The motion is fully briefed (Docs. 227, 229) and no 

party has requested oral argument. The Court will deny the motion. 

 To obtain a stay, Defendant “‘must show either a probability of success on the 

merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious legal questions are raised 

and the balance of hardships tips sharply in [Defendant’s] favor.’” Leiva-Perez v. 

Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 967-68 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Abbassi v. INS, 143 F.3d 513, 514 

(9th Cir. 1998)). The Ninth Circuit has explained that the “probability of success” 

standard does not “demand a showing that success is more likely than not.” Id. Rather, 

“a petitioner must show, at a minimum, that she has a substantial case for relief on the 

merits.” Id. 

 The Court concludes that Defendant has not shown a substantial case for relief or 

the existence of serious questions. For reasons explained in detail in the Court’s ruling 

following the bench trial in this matter, the Court found that the government “met its 

burden of proof on Counts I, IV, and VI by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence, 

Case 2:12-cv-00482-DGC Document 230 Filed 10/28/14 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

with no legitimate room for doubt.” Doc. 215 at 25. Defendant argues that reasonable 

jurists can view evidence differently. This certainly is true, but the Court assumes that 

the appellate court will review factual findings for clear error. Given the overwhelming 

evidence presented by the government at trial, the Court cannot conclude that a clear 

error argument presents a substantial case for relief on the merits or the existence of 

serious questions. See Doc. 215. 

 Nor can the Court find such a substantial case or serious questions in the handling 

of the Chen deposition. Discovery in this case began in early March 2013. Doc. 58. The 

government noticed Chen’s deposition in early August, and it began in September. 

Doc. 69. Defendant did not raise the issue of Chen’s removal from the United States 

until September 26, 2014, the eve of his departure. The Court’s order on that date reads 

as follows: 

During a hastily arranged conference call this afternoon, counsel for 

Defendant asked the Court to bar the deportation of Mr. Chen, an important 

witness in this case, pending completion of his ongoing deposition. Mr. 

Chen apparently is due to be deported by the U.S. government tomorrow 

morning. The Court has searched for statutory, regulatory, or case 

authority suggesting that it can order that Mr. Chen not be removed, and 

has found none. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(2) states that the Court lacks authority 

to enjoin his removal “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” (8 

U.S.C. 1252(g), also cited by Plaintiff during the conference call, does not 

apply because it concerns actions taken by or on behalf of the alien, and 

this emergency request for relief is not made by or on behalf of Mr. Chen.) 

Because the parties have cited no authority that would empower the Court 

to bar the removal, section 1252(f)(2) seems to suggest that the Court lacks 

the power, and the Court has found no relevant authority in the short time it 

has had to search, the Court will not enter an order barring the removal. 

The Court makes no decision on the effect of Mr. Chen’s removal on this 

ongoing case or the evidence that can be used in this case. 

Doc. 107. Defendant had more than six months to complete Chen’s deposition before he 

was removed, but did not raise this issue until the last minute. And when the issue was 

raised, Defendant cited no persuasive legal authority to support her request. 

Case 2:12-cv-00482-DGC Document 230 Filed 10/28/14 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

 After Chen was removed, the Court encouraged the parties to complete his 

deposition by video feed (Doc. 117), but Defendant opposed that suggestion, arguing that 

there would be interpretation problems and Chen’s access to counsel would be limited. 

The Court found no authority to parole Chen back into the United States or fly him to a 

neutral airport as Defendant suggested (Doc. 149 at 3-4), and was not persuaded by 

Defendant’s reasons for opposing a video deposition: 

 Defendant’s arguments that she would be prejudiced by finishing the 

deposition by remote video are not persuasive. Defendant cites concerns 

about the accuracy of Chen’s testimony, the nuances of translating his 

testimony, the ability to hear clearly, Chen’s access to his American 

counsel, and Li’s access to Chen, his counsel, and the interpreter. Doc. 142 

at 1. Concerns about accuracy due to language or translation barriers would 

exist in any deposition of Chen, and the Court is not persuaded that modern 

video-conference technology will present audio problems. Nor can the 

Court credit concerns about access to counsel when a video conference has 

not been attempted. 

Doc. 149 at 5. Defendant nonetheless failed to conduct a video deposition. 

 Defendant now argues that she could not arrange such a video deposition if Chen’s 

was unwilling to appear, but this was not the argument she made before. Id. Moreover, 

if Chen was unwilling to appear for a video deposition, he surely would have been 

unwilling to take the other steps Defendant proposed – fly to the United States, fly to an 

international airport, or appear for an in-person deposition in China. 

 The Court was prepared to preclude the government from using Chen’s deposition 

at trial in light of the fact that Defendant had not asked Chen questions. As the Court 

recalls, however, Defendant asked that the deposition be used. The Court accordingly 

considered portions of Chen’s deposition that supported Defendants’ claims in this case. 

 In short, the Court cannot conclude that the handling of the Chen deposition 

presents a substantial case for relief on the merits or the existence of serious questions. 

Because Defendant cannot satisfy the first element for a stay of the judgment, the Court 

need not address the other elements. 

Case 2:12-cv-00482-DGC Document 230 Filed 10/28/14 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

 IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Defendant Li’s motion for a stay of judgment (Doc. 224) is denied. 

 2. In accordance with the Court’s discussion with counsel and Defendant Li 

on October 3, 2014 (Doc. 228), defense counsel’s motion to withdraw (Doc. 222) is 

granted. The Court understands that defense counsel will file a notice of appeal for 

Defendant Li, but will have no further responsibility to prosecute the appeal on her 

behalf. See Doc. 228. 

 Dated this 28th day of October, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-00482-DGC Document 230 Filed 10/28/14 Page 4 of 4