The Ninth Circuit has determined that a District Court has no jurisdiction to stay removal of a non-citizen who has a motion to reopen pending with the Board of Immigration Appeals.
“Matias asserts that applying the plain text of § 1252(g) and refusing to enter a stay of removal pending the resolution of his motion to reopen would deprive a noncitizen [of] his statutory right to file a motion to reopen. But that’s not true. Matias’s motion to reopen has already been filed, and is currently pending before the BIA. Once the BIA decides that motion, Matias will be able to file a petition for our court to review that final agency action—including review of the BIA’s denial of his request for a stay of removal pending its decision. Matias has taken full advantage of his statutory rights and will continue to have access to the process guaranteed to him under the statute even if he is removed.”
The court further determined that “the Suspension Clause does not preserve judicial review in this case because only an extreme and unwarranted expansion of the habeas writ would encompass Matias’s requested relief.”
The full text of Matias Rauda v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/12/12/21-16062.pdf