Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04428/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04428-5/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

NAVNEET GHOTRA,

Petitioner,

 v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al.,

Respondents /

No. C-07-4428 MMC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY OF

EXECUTION AND APPLICATION FOR

TEMPORARY STAY ORDER PENDING

APPEAL

By order filed October 11, 2007, the Court denied petitioner Navneet Ghotra’s

petition for a writ of habeas corpus, for the reason petitioner had failed to show that counsel

who represented her before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in connection with a petition

for review of an order of removal, was ineffective. 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 removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (hereinafter BIA) on or about

August 29, 2007.” (See Petitioner’s Mot. at 1:19-24.) Respondents have filed opposition.

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

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

Case 3:07-cv-04428-MMC Document 20 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

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 she 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 merits of petitioner’s claim

that her 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 August 29, 2007.

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 her petition, petitioner fails to advance any argument to support a finding

that there exists a probability of success on the merits of her appeal, or that she 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-04428-MMC Document 20 Filed 10/31/07 Page 2 of 2