The emergency stay of removal and who decides it, expedited removal at the border and the fear claim that interrupts it, the credible fear interview and review by a judge, habeas where no other court will hear the detention, parole and release requests, reinstated orders and the narrow objection to them, and the filing mechanics when the clock is measured in hours.
An emergency filing must be served on the government, and in an emergency posture the service has to be actual rather than merely formal. The appellate and civil rules require service and proof of it. Relief granted without notice is available only on a specific showing of why notice was impossible and what efforts were made. Notifying the enforcement office holding the person is a separate step from serving the lawyers who will oppose the motion.
A negative credible fear determination may be reviewed by an immigration judge on request. The statute directs that review be concluded as expeditiously as possible, to the maximum extent practicable within twenty-four hours, and in no case later than seven days after the determination. The hearing is closed unless the applicant waives that protection. The judge may not remand to the asylum officer, and the judge's decision is final and cannot be appealed.
A stay pending review is governed by four factors: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury without a stay, injury to the opposing party if one issues, and the public interest. The first two are the most heavily weighted, and a bare possibility of harm does not satisfy the second. The statutory clear-and-convincing standard governs injunctions against removal, not stays, and conflating the two overstates what an applicant must prove.
Expedited removal applies to people an officer finds inadmissible for fraud or misrepresentation, or for lacking valid entry documents. It reaches arriving travelers and, by designation, people who have not been admitted or paroled and cannot show two years of continuous physical presence. Claims of lawful permanent residence, refugee or asylee status trigger a referral rather than an order, and unaccompanied children are removed from the process by a separate statute.
Emergency filings are built from material obtainable in hours: sworn declarations from the person and from relatives, published country reports, documents already in family hands, and the decision under review. Transcripts, expert reports, medical records requiring release authorizations and certified translations generally cannot be obtained in the same window. The filing should attach the first group and account explicitly for the absence of the second.
An emergency stay motion carries five things beyond the argument: a statement establishing why the matter cannot wait, the decision under review with the record excerpts the argument depends on, sworn declarations supporting irreparable harm, a proposed order the court can sign, and proof that the other side was served. The appellate rules require some of these expressly and courts expect the rest as a matter of local practice.
The reinstatement provision states that the prior order is not subject to being reopened or reviewed. Courts have nonetheless recognized a narrow collateral attack where the earlier order was a gross miscarriage of justice, meaning it had no valid legal basis when entered or when executed. The reinstatement order itself remains challengeable by petition for review, and that route is usually more productive than an attack on the order underneath it.
A petition for review must be filed not later than thirty days after the date of the final order of removal, in the court of appeals for the judicial circuit in which the immigration judge completed proceedings. Filing a motion to reopen or reconsider does not extend the period, and the petition does not by itself suspend removal. A separate stay application is required, and the two filings serve different purposes.
The opening sequence after a detention call is confirmation of custody, identification of the posture, preservation of any running deadline, and lodging of a request to suspend removal. Each depends on the one before it. Drafting begins only once the posture is known, because the posture determines the forum, the standard, the deadline and whether any hearing exists at all.
Credible fear screening applies in expedited removal and asks whether there is a significant possibility of establishing eligibility for asylum or withholding. Reasonable fear screening applies to reinstated and administrative removal orders, and asks whether there is a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture. The second standard is higher, the timetables differ, and a positive reasonable fear finding opens withholding-only proceedings rather than an asylum case.
After a refusal to release, the available routes depend on the detention authority. Where custody rests on the discretionary pre-order provision, redetermination before an immigration judge is available under the regulations. Where custody follows a final order, the agency's own review process governs and there is no judicial redetermination. Habeas remains the route to a federal court on the legality of the custody itself, and it is the only route in some postures.
A stay of removal suspends execution of a final order. It does not vacate the order, grant status, authorize employment or end custody, and it does not reopen the case that produced the order. Four routes generate a stay: the automatic stay while an appeal to the Board runs, a discretionary stay attached to a motion, an administrative stay from the enforcing agency, and a judicial stay from a court of appeals. Each expires on its own terms.
