Some Principles In Federal Courts'  Immigration Rulings

1.   In one case, the Court held that a motion to stay removal filed within the voluntary departure period set by the BIA, might well be sufficient to preserve the court's authority to stay the running of that period pending review of the  BIA order. ( In Macotaj v. Gonzales, 2005 WL 1503866 (6th Cir. 2005) (No. 03-3684)

2.   In one case, the Court granted a motion for stay of removal pending resolution of the merits of the petition for review because the petitioners could show a significant likelihood of success on the merits of their case. Moreover, the extraordinary likelihood of irreparable harm that the petitioners would face if deported and the public interest in having the immigration laws applied correctly and evenhandedly, justified the stay of the order of removal. (In Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 2005 WL 1220939 (5th Cir. May 24, 2005) (N0. 04-61180).

3.   In one case, the Court noted that INA Section 242(b) (5) [8 USCA Section 1252(b)(5)] provided that , where an order of removal was entered against a petitioner and the petitioner claimed to be a national of the US, the federal courts should decide the claim as provided in INA Section 242(b)(5). The plain language of Section 242(b)(5), the court said, required that , upon a petition for review of the BIA's final order of removal, the court must evaluate a petitioner's claim to US nationality regardless of whether the claim was raised below. However, the court held, the petitioner's service in the US military was not itself sufficient to prove nationality. The Court noted its discomfort with a rule of law thatresulted in the deportation of an honrably discharged member of the US Armed Forces who had lived in the US since he was a child. (In Theagene v. Gonzales, 2005 WL 1398833 (9th Cir. 2005) (No. 02-71224).