Opinion ID: 777421
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Clear and convincing standard

Text: 7 Because a petition for review no longer stays removal, aliens such as Weng now have the burden of moving to stay their removal. IIRIRA also provides a more stringent standard for aliens to satisfy before federal courts may enjoin their final removal orders. Specifically, § 1252(f)(1) first directs that courts cannot enjoin at all the operation of certain sections of immigration law. Then § 1252(f)(2) provides they may enjoin an individual alien's final order of removal if the alien shows by clear and convincing evidence that the entry or execution of such order is prohibited as a matter of law, as follows: 8 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall enjoin the removal of any alien pursuant to a final order under this section unless the alien shows by clear and convincing evidence that the entry or execution of such order is prohibited as a matter of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(2). 1 9 For several reasons, we conclude that § 1252(f)(2)'s clear and convincing standard applies to Weng's motion for a stay of removal pending resolution of his petition for review. 2 First, the plain language of enjoin[ing] removal of an alien in § 1252(f)(2) encompasses the act of staying of removal. Enjoin is defined as [t]o require; command; positively direct. To require a person, by writ of injunction, to perform, or to abstain or desist from, some act. Black's Law Dictionary 529 (6th ed.1990). And stay is defined as: 10 A stopping; the act of arresting a judicial proceeding by the order of a court. Also that which holds, restrains, or supports. A stay is a suspension of the case or some designated proceedings within it. It is a kind of injunction with which a court freezes its proceedings at a particular point. It can be used to stop the prosecution of the action altogether, or to hold up only some phase of it, such as an execution about to be levied on a judgment. 11 Id. at 1413 (emphasis supplied). Thus, their definitions and common usage show that the plain meaning of enjoin includes the grant of a stay. 3 Second, courts have regularly used these terms interchangeably or to indicate the act of enjoining includes the act of staying. 4 12 Third, in the limited situations where stays were not automatic in pre-IIRIRA cases, courts would treat aliens' motions for stays of deportation as discretionary motions for injunctive relief. See, for example, Jenkins v. INS, 32 F.3d 11, 14-15 (2d Cir.1994) (This court will treat an application for a discretionary stay as a request for injunctive relief.), overturned on other grounds, Aguirre v. INS, 79 F.3d 315 (2d Cir.1996); Arthurs v. INS, 959 F.2d 142, 143-44 (9th Cir.1992) (looking to whether serious legal question was presented when reviewing motion to stay) (citing Artukovic v. Rison, 784 F.2d 1354 (9th Cir.1986)); Ignacio v. INS, 955 F.2d 295, 299 & n. 5 (5th Cir.1992) (applying the same four-factor balancing test to both judicial stay of deportation of alien and request for injunctive relief); Reid v. INS, 766 F.2d 113, 116 n. 9 (3d Cir.1985) (recognizing the possibility that in extraordinary cases relief in the nature of a stay might be available in the court of appeals pursuant to the All Writs Act); Zardui-Quintana v. Richard, 768 F.2d 1213, 1215-16 & n. 7 (11th Cir.1985) (observing that request for a judicial stay of deportation in habeas case was akin to and should be treated as a request for injunctive relief). 5 13 Congress is presumed to be knowledgeable of this established pattern of interpretation ttreating motions to stay as requests for injunctive relief, and legislated with it as a backdrop when it crafted § 1252(f)(2). See Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486 U.S. 174, 184-85, 108 S.Ct. 1704, 100 L.Ed.2d 158 (1988). Thus, § 1252(f)(2)'s reference to the power to enjoin should be read as encompassing stays of removal as well. And the new clear and convincing standard for granting injunctive relief applies to stays. 6 14 We reject the contention that because enjoin and restrain are used in § 1252(f)(1), therefore the use of only enjoin in § 1252(f)(2) is limited to permanent injunctive relief and cannot encompass temporary motions for stays. The basis of this contention is that enjoin in § 1252(f)(2) must have this limited meaning or otherwise restrain in § 1252(f)(1) is mere surplusage. This contention — that enjoin in § 1252(f)(1) is limited to only permanent injunctive relief — is contrary to the plain meaning of enjoin. Moreover, there is no reference to permanent or temporary relief in the language of § 1252(f)(1). This contention also ignores what is an important distinction between § 1252(f)(1) and § 1252(f)(2). Section 1252(f)(1) prohibits the use of injunctive relief against entire provisions of immigration law, 7 whereas § 1252(f)(2) relates solely to enjoining the removal of any alien. The use of the word restrain would be inappropriate as to removal because injunctive relief grants the very affirmative relief sought by aliens instead of merely preserving the status quo. See Zardui-Quintana, 768 F.2d at 1215 n. 7 (Tjoflat, J.) (citing Fernandez-Roque v. Smith, 671 F.2d 426, 429-31 (11th Cir.1982)). As discussed previously, Congress chose the broad word enjoin in § 1252(f)(2) against a specific and consistent backdrop of case law — both generally and in immigration law — interpreting stays as injunctive relief and did not exclude them or include any limiting language in § 1252(f)(2). 8 15 Nor do we believe that § 1252(f)(2) only applies to requests for collateral injunctive relief. Its words speak of no such limitation. 9 In addition, § 1252(f)(2)'s raising of the bar for temporary stays fits into IIRIRA's new landscape. Petitions for review no longer automatically stay removal. Instead only aliens who can show clear-cut errors under established law will receive stays, and those who cannot must either (1) rely on INS' post-IIRIRA discretion not to execute removal orders until judicial review is complete, or (2) if the INS executes the removal order, continue to challenge removal orders after their departure. 10