Opinion ID: 2996083
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Remaining Sofinet Factors

Text: When we consider the foregoing along with the other Sofinet factors, the propriety of a stay becomes even clearer. The severity of the harm that Ms. Nwaokolo, Rachel, and Victoria face if Ms. Nwaokolo is removed to Nigeria is obvious. The harm to the INS if we grant a stay is negligible. It is true that a stay will result in some delay in the INS’ efforts to remove Ms. Nwaokolo. However, we find it significant that, according to the record, the INS has known for years exactly where Ms. Nwaokolo resides and has not actively sought to expedite her removal. Finally, a stay promotes the public’s compelling interest in ensuring that minor United States citizens are not forced into exile to be tortured. This compelling interest is magnified here because neither Rachel nor Victoria No. 02-2964 15 has ever been represented by counsel or has ever had their interests considered by the BIA or any court. Nor is there any evidence in the record that the INS has ever notified responsible state authorities of the departure of these minor United States citizens to a country where they would be in immediate danger of significant harm. The government could never do to these girls in this country what the INS seems all too willing to allow to happen to them in Nigeria. At a minimum, the issues we have discussed here deserve a full airing by way of a petition for review. Accordingly, we GRANT Ms. Nwaokolo’s stay motion and order that her removal be STAYED pending resolution of the petition for review. Additionally, we DIRECT the parties to brief, in addition to any other issues they choose to address in their merits briefs, the following questions: 1. Was the BIA required to consider the hardship of Ms. Nwaokolo’s United States citizen daughters in denying her motion to reopen and, if so, did the BIA adequately consider such hardship? 2. When the INS has reason to believe that removal of an alien parent will place the United States citizen child at risk of physical injury, does the INS have an obligation to notify the appropriate state authorities charged with protecting child welfare? IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that briefing in this appeal shall proceed as follows: 1. Ms. Nwaokolo shall file her main brief by January 27, 2003. 2. The INS shall file its response brief by February 26, 2003. 16 No. 02-2964 3. Ms. Nwaokolo shall file her reply brief, if any, by March 12, 2003. Ms. Nwaokolo’s “Motion For Default Judgement [sic] Based On Late Filing By Respondent,” filed on November 18, 2002, is DENIED. A true Copy: Teste: _____________________________ Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit USCA-02-C-0072—1-3-03