United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MCNULTY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Edison Torres-Jurado, a native and citizen of Ecuador, is an
immigration detainee proceeding by counsel with a petition
for writ of habeas corpus, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
(Pet., ECF No. 1; Am. Pet., ECF No. 15.) Mr.
Torres-Jurado's amended petition indicates that he was
ordered removed in 2005, but that Immigrations and Customs
Enforcement ("ICE") granted him an indefinite stay
of removal and released him under an order of supervision.
(ECF No. 15, ¶ 13.) He asserts that, despite his full
compliance with the terms of his order of supervision, he was
taken back into ICE custody on November 27, 2017.
(Id. ¶ 2.) His amended petition contends that
ICE seeks to remove him to Ecuador, but that "[t]he
Ecuadorian Consulate has not and will not issue identity and
travel documents necessary for his departure."
(Id. ¶ 3.) Mr. Torres-Jurado alleges that his
present detention violates the terms of the order of
supervision and his due-process rights. (Id. ¶
6.) He also alleges that the duration of his detention has
rendered it unconstitutional and that his removal is not
reasonably foreseeable. (Id.) Accordingly, the
Amended Petition seeks, among other relief, Mr.
Torres-Jurado's immediate release from custody and an
order directing ICE to comply with the indefinite stay of
removal. (Id. at 14.)
filed an Answer on March 22, 2018, contending, among other
things, that Mr. Torres-Jurado had not established that there
was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably
foreseeable future and that Mr. Torres-Jurado had not
cooperated with efforts to obtain a travel document. (ECF No.
24 at 6-8.)
15, 2018, Mr. Torres-Jurado filed a motion seeking an
emergency stay of removal. (ECF No. 27.) His counsel
indicates that Mr. Torres-Jurado has been moved to a staging
facility in Louisiana, which she interprets as a sign that
his removal is imminent. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.)
Counsel stated that a memorandum of law would
"immediately follow" and requested an emergency
stay of removal based upon the reasons to be set forth in
that memorandum of law. (Id. ¶ 8.) As of the
close of business on May 16, 2018, the Court had not yet
received any memorandum of law. Nevertheless, because this
was presented as an emergent motion, I will address it.
Court cannot grant an emergency stay of removal. Under 8
U.S.C. § 1252, it is without jurisdiction to consider
Mr. Torres-Jurado's attempt to challenge the decision by
ICE to execute the removal order that was issued in 2005.
Section 1252(g) removes such jurisdiction from the district
Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any
other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including
section 2241 of Title 28, or any other habeas corpus
provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court
shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on
behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by
the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate
cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this
8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). Judges in districts across the country,
including this one, have found that this jurisdictional bar
applies to applications to stay removal. See Fermin v.
United States, No. 17-cv-1862, 2018 WL 623645 (D.N.J.
Jan. 29, 2018) (finding that "any challenge to the
validity of that removal order or a request for a stay of
that Order could be entertained only by the Court of
Appeals"); Vasquez v. United States, No.
15-cv-3946, 2015 WL 4619805, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2015)
("District courts within this Circuit and across the
country have routinely held that they lack jurisdiction under
§ 1252 to grant a stay of removal, "); see also
Ingram v. Holder, No. 12-cv-390, 2012 WL 1339919 (N.D.
Ala. Apr. 13, 2012); Lage v. Chapdelaine, No.
10-cv-1030, 2010 WL 4688820 (D. Conn. Nov. 10, 2010);
Sanchez v. Florida, No. 09-cv-1223, 2009 WL 1953002
(M.D. Fla. July 6, 2009); Watson v. Stone, No.
13-cv-480, 2013 WL 6072894 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 18, 2013);
Camick v. United States, No. 16-cv-3030, 2016 WL
8943170 (D. Kan. June 7, 2016); Tejada v. Cabral,
424 F.Supp.2d 296 (D. Mass. 2006); Sanchez-Ronquillo v.
Adducci, No. 17-cv-11395, 2017 WL 3386318 (E.D. Mich.
Aug. 7, 2017); Cole v. Byam, No. 11-cv-l 15, 2011 WL
1166899 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 25, 2011); Calderon-Rodriguez v.
Terry, No. 12-cv-691, 2013 WL 1897821 (D.N.M. Apr. 30,
2013); Rosales v. Artus, No. 10-cv-2742, 2011 WL
3845906 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2011); Eisa v. ICE, No.
08-cv-6204, 2008 WL 4223618 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2008);
Adames v. Hinlon, No. 16-cv-963, 2016 WL 7386348
(S.D. Ohio); Guzman v. ICE, No. C-06-23, 2006 WL
2345995 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2006).
this Court lacks any jurisdiction to grant Mr.
Torres-Jurado's motion for an emergency stay of removal,
and die motion will be denied.
 More generally, the provisions of 8
U.S.C. § 1252 grant exclusive jurisdiction to review
removal orders and related matters to the Courts of Appeal
and thus deprive District Courts, like this one, of any such
review power. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5),
(b)(9), (g); see also Vasquez v. Aviles, 639
Fed.Appx. 898, 900-01 (3d Cir. 2016); Gonzalez-Lora v.
Warden Fort Dix FCI, 629 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (3d Cir.
2015). In particular, § 1252(a)(5) states that "a
petition for review filed with an appropriate court of
appeals ... shall be the sole and exclusive means for
judicial review of an order of removal." 8 U.S.C. §
 Mr. Torres-Jurado should note that
this result does not in any way preclude him from seeking
such relief from the Court of Appeals for ...