Background
Abasse Gakou, a native of Senegal held in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody, was scheduled for immediate removal to Sierra Leone. He filed a habeas petition in the Northern District of Texas challenging his continued detention and seeking an injunction against removal to a third country while he pursued claims under the Convention Against Torture.
The district court denied all relief and declined to stay Gakou’s removal. Gakou then asked the Fifth Circuit for an administrative stay and an emergency stay of removal pending appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit denied both requests. It held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) deprived the court of jurisdiction to entertain Gakou’s request because a stay of removal challenges the execution of a removal order, and the statute generally bars courts from hearing claims arising from or directly connected to the government’s execution of such orders.
The court also concluded that Gakou’s challenge to third-country removal could not support a stay. It reasoned that the Supreme Court, while granting certiorari in DHS v. D.V.D., had expressly allowed the government to continue third-country removals pending resolution of that case. Because Gakou had not shown any meaningful probability of success on the merits, the panel did not address the other three stay factors.
Key Takeaways
- Section 1252(g) barred the Fifth Circuit from entertaining a motion seeking to stay the execution of Gakou’s removal order.
- The Supreme Court’s interim action permitting third-country removals to continue undermined Gakou’s request to prevent removal to Sierra Leone.
- After finding Gakou deeply unlikely to succeed on the merits, the court declined to consider irreparable harm, injury to other parties, or the public interest.
Why It Matters
The published order reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s view that § 1252(g) strips courts of jurisdiction over requests to stay removal when those requests directly challenge the execution of removal orders. It also indicates that, while the Supreme Court considers the legality of third-country removals, its interim decision allowing those removals to continue weighs heavily against emergency injunctive relief in individual cases.