Hamama v. Adducci, 17-cv-11910. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20180626b84
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 25, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 25, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A STAY OF REMOVAL AS TO AALAN KAMAL (Dkt. 212) AS MOOT MARK A. GOLDSMITH , District Judge . On January 26, 2018, Petitioners filed an emergency motion for a stay of removal as to Aalan Kamal (Dkt. 212), after being informed by the Government that it did not consider him protected by the Court's injunction enjoining removal of those who had final orders of removal on June 24, 2017. The Government noted that while Kamal's removal order was ente
Summary: ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A STAY OF REMOVAL AS TO AALAN KAMAL (Dkt. 212) AS MOOT MARK A. GOLDSMITH , District Judge . On January 26, 2018, Petitioners filed an emergency motion for a stay of removal as to Aalan Kamal (Dkt. 212), after being informed by the Government that it did not consider him protected by the Court's injunction enjoining removal of those who had final orders of removal on June 24, 2017. The Government noted that while Kamal's removal order was enter..
More
ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A STAY OF REMOVAL AS TO AALAN KAMAL (Dkt. 212) AS MOOT
MARK A. GOLDSMITH, District Judge.
On January 26, 2018, Petitioners filed an emergency motion for a stay of removal as to Aalan Kamal (Dkt. 212), after being informed by the Government that it did not consider him protected by the Court's injunction enjoining removal of those who had final orders of removal on June 24, 2017. The Government noted that while Kamal's removal order was entered on June 2, 2017, because he reserved appeal, it did not become a final order of removal until the appeal period expired on July 3, 2017. The Court subsequently issued a temporary stay of removal as to Kamal in order to further consider the motion. See 1/26/2018 Order (Dkt. 213).
The Court has since been informed by Petitioners that Kamal was able to file a motion to reopen in the immigration court, and that his motion was granted. Because he has already received the relief ordered by the Court's injunction, the opportunity to file a motion to reopen, and because he is no longer at risk of immediate removal, the Court denies Petitioners' motion (Dkt. 212) as moot.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle