Patel v. Ashcroft, No. 04-1265.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Posner |
| Citation | 378 F.3d 610 |
| Parties | Rashmika PATEL, Petitioner, v. John D. ASHCROFT, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 04-1265. |
| Decision Date | 03 August 2004 |
Page 610
v.
John D. ASHCROFT, Respondent.
Page 611
Petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals.
James C. Ten Broeck, Jr. (Submitted), Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
George P. Katsivalis, Dept. of Homeland Security Office of District Counsel, Chicago, IL, Aviva L. Poczter, Dept. Justice Civil Div., Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before POSNER, RIPPLE, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
POSNER, Circuit Judge.
Once again we deal with issues arising from the removal (deportation) of an alien in violation of a stay granted by this court. Dimitrov v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 960 (7th Cir.2004) (per curiam). Rashmika Patel, a native of India, was arrested by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE) in July 2003 when she appeared at an office of the Bureau to request a work permit based on her recent marriage to a U.S. citizen. The basis of the arrest was an outstanding removal order that had been entered against her in absentia in August of 1998. Upon being arrested she sought to reopen the removal case, and after the Board of Immigration Appeals turned her down she filed a petition for review in this court. A few weeks later, at 7:45 a.m. on February 27 of this year, BICE phoned her lawyer to tell him that Patel had been moved to a "staging facility" for removal, though he didn't tell the lawyer, and the lawyer was unable to discover by calling others in BICE, when she would be removed. The lawyer did not ask us for a stay of removal until sometime after 3 p.m. At 3:50, BICE was informed that a judge of this court had granted a stay. This information was relayed in only a few minutes to the agent who had accompanied Patel to the airport for her flight to India, but by this time the flight had left. Patel is now in India.
Under both the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that govern Patel's case and the permanent rules, filing a petition for review with this court does not stay an alien's removal. IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(F), reproduced in notes to 8 U.S.C. § 1101; Sofinet v. INS, 188 F.3d 703, 706 (7th Cir.1999); Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1338 n. 6 (11th Cir.2001) (per curiam); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(3)(B). So Patel was subject to removal at any time after the entry of the removal order more than five years ago (except, as we'll see, during the interval when her petition to reopen was pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals); the long delay in asking this court for a stay was a serious error by her lawyer.
He says he didn't file the motion for a stay of removal earlier because his client was entitled to an administrative stay on the basis of a pending motion that she had filed with the Board of Immigration Appeals to reconsider its decision turning down her motion to reopen her case. A regulation provides that "except in cases involving in absentia orders, the filing of a
Page 612
motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider shall not stay the execution of any decision made in the case," 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1)(v) — and Patel's was an in absentia case. But the provision we have just quoted applies only to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Khan v. Holder, Nos. 13–2106
...quotation marks omitted), often “rehash[ing] arguments that should have been presented the first time around,” Patel v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 610, 612 (7th Cir.2004). “Yet motions to reconsider ... are not replays of the main event.” Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 506, 508 (7th Cir.2006). We rev......
-
Qureshi v. Gonzales, No. 05-2009.
...grounds, declined to review petitions seeking a stay of deportation after the alien had already been removed. See Patel v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 610, 613 (7th Cir.2004); Hose v. I.N.S., 180 F.3d 992, 996 (9th Cir.1999). The situation here also resembles that of appellate cases outside the immi......
-
Ahmed v. Ashcroft, No. 03-2620.
...Jimenez v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 783, 788-89 (8th Cir.2004); Zhang v. INS, 348 F.3d 289, 292 and n. 2 (1st Cir.2003); cf. Patel v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 610, 612 (7th The Board's explanation for denying the petition for reconsideration leaves something to be desired; indeed, it appears to be a pi......
-
Hor v. Gonzales, No. 04-1964.
...departure no longer moots his challenge to a removal order. Lopez-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 650, 651 (7th Cir.2004); Patel v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 610, 612 (7th Cir.2004); Rife v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 606, 615 (8th Hor is an Algerian with a technical background who before coming to the Unite......
-
Khan v. Holder, Nos. 13–2106
...quotation marks omitted), often “rehash[ing] arguments that should have been presented the first time around,” Patel v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 610, 612 (7th Cir.2004). “Yet motions to reconsider ... are not replays of the main event.” Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 506, 508 (7th Cir.2006). We rev......
-
Qureshi v. Gonzales, No. 05-2009.
...grounds, declined to review petitions seeking a stay of deportation after the alien had already been removed. See Patel v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 610, 613 (7th Cir.2004); Hose v. I.N.S., 180 F.3d 992, 996 (9th Cir.1999). The situation here also resembles that of appellate cases outside the immi......
-
Ahmed v. Ashcroft, No. 03-2620.
...Jimenez v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 783, 788-89 (8th Cir.2004); Zhang v. INS, 348 F.3d 289, 292 and n. 2 (1st Cir.2003); cf. Patel v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 610, 612 (7th The Board's explanation for denying the petition for reconsideration leaves something to be desired; indeed, it appears to be a pi......
-
Hor v. Gonzales, No. 04-1964.
...departure no longer moots his challenge to a removal order. Lopez-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 650, 651 (7th Cir.2004); Patel v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 610, 612 (7th Cir.2004); Rife v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 606, 615 (8th Hor is an Algerian with a technical background who before coming to the Unite......
-
Executive Defiance and the Deportation State.
...claimed eligibility for DACA and was granted a temporary stay of removal three hours after deportation to Guatemala); Patel v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 610, 611 (7th Cir. 2004) (describing an individual whose stay of removal was issued minutes prior to (142.) Scholars have framed deportations as ......