Fausto Jerardo Amilcar Herrera-Juarez, the petitioner, sought to challenge his removal order, claiming that deportation to a third country with which he has no relationship violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The government moved to dismiss the appeal and opposed the stay. The petitioner filed a motion for a stay of removal to prevent his deportation while the court considered the merits of his appeal. The case involves complex questions regarding the court's jurisdiction to review the underlying petition and whether the petitioner's claims are barred by a pending federal class action in Massachusetts.
The majority order granted the stay of removal without providing a detailed written explanation in the text provided, effectively applying the standard for stays in immigration cases. The dissent, written by Judge Quattlebaum, provides the substantive legal analysis regarding the standard applied. Judge Quattlebaum emphasized that under Nken v. Holder, a stay applicant must make a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits. He argued that the petitioner's likelihood of success is the product of his probability of success on each independent issue: jurisdiction, the effect of the pending class action, and the merits of his constitutional and statutory claims. Judge Quattlebaum reasoned that because the petitioner must prevail on all three issues, and the record was limited, the petitioner could not demonstrate a strong overall likelihood of success. He noted that even if the petitioner showed irreparable harm, that alone is insufficient without a strong showing of success on the merits. The dissent used a mathematical analogy involving basketball free throws to illustrate how the probability of success diminishes when multiple independent issues must be resolved in the applicant's favor.
The petitioner's removal is temporarily halted pending the assignment of a panel to the case. The court has not yet ruled on whether it has jurisdiction to review the underlying petition, which remains a critical unresolved question. The government's motion to dismiss the appeal is also deferred. The decision leaves open the question of whether the petitioner's claims are barred by the pending class action and whether his constitutional arguments will succeed on the merits.