Rojas-Espinoza v. Bondi - Rehearing En Banc Ordered

FOR PUBLI CATION UNITED STAT ES COURT OF APPEAL S FOR THE NI NTH CIRCUIT MARICRUZ M ARISOL ROJ AS- ESPINOZA; RO BERT DAVI D SALVADOR-GOME Z; DAVID ANGEL SALVADOR-ROJ AS; KORINA SALVADOR-ROJ AS, Petitioners, v. PAMELA BO NDI, Attorney Gener al, Respondent. No. 24 -75 36 Agency Nos. A246-606-483 A246-606-482 A246-606-484 A246-606-485 ORDER MURGUIA, Chief Judge: Dissent by Ju dge VanDyke Upon the vote o f a majori ty of nonrecu sed active jud ges, it is ordere d that this case be rehea rd en banc pursuant to Fe deral Rule of A ppellate Pr ocedure 40(c) and Circuit Ru le 40-3. The order i ssued by the three- judge panel on October 24, 2025, which was previously stayed, is vacated. FILED FEB 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

Rojas - Espinoza v. Bon di, No. 24 - 7536 V ANDYKE, Circ ui t Judge, dissentin g from t he gr ant of rehe ari ng en banc: Imag ine, if y ou are able, t he wo nder ful C ir cuit of Wac ka doo. The attorneys are all wi se, the ju dges are all z ealous, and the law clerks are all above a vera ge. Everyth ing is enlightene d and ef ficient. But alas, there is on e thi ng am iss in Wackado o: the j udg es ar e sim ply too b usy. You s ee, th e Circuit o f Wacka doo cove rs a vas t geog raph ic area. Th e expansi ve territory is populat ed with high ly litigiou s people. Laws uits of all sorts fly fa st an d thic k. And dis appointi ngly, th e ir ele cte d le ader s ha ve enac te d a handf u l of la ws tha t m any of the W acka doo judges find deplora ble. The enforcement of those benig hte d laws account s for around one third of the Circ uit ’s case loa d. Wh a t to do? … W hat to do? The astute ju dge s of W acka doo ca me u p wi th a s olu tion. Afte r tak ing a har d look, they re alize d th at the ir d ocke ts we re cro wded wit h hu ndreds of reques ts for prelim i nary r elief — appeals fro m par ties seekin g te mpo rar y re strai nin g orde rs, prelim i nary in junc ti ons, and sta y s p endi ng appe al. These mot ions we re inco nven ient a nd ti m e - cons umi ng. Resolving the mot ions requir ed the jud ges to addre ss, albeit in an ab bre viate d ma nner, many of the same is sue s that w ould be invol ve d in the subseq uent merits de cis ion in eac h ca se. Th is made for a gre at dea l of red und an t and i nef ficie n t ju dicia l wor k. FILED FEB 20 20 26 MOLLY C. DW YER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEA LS

2 So the ju dges of Wacka do o adop ted a co nven ient, but unw ri tten, pr ac tice. Whenever a p arty made a re quest f or any form of pre lim inar y rel ief, the Circuit would automatically gr ant the reque ste d reli ef as a n “ adm inis tra tive s tay ” pending rev iew. Then t he Circuit would fil e aw ay the technic ally unr eso lve d mot ion f or month s o r yea rs, u nti l some of its j udge s got aro und to revie wi ng the me rit s of the case. Then a t that time, the jud ges cou ld c onve nien tly dust off the moti on for prelim i nary r elief to r esol ve it s im ulta neou sly w ith the merits decisi on. The sy stem wor ked b eautif ull y … f or the j udge s … a t fir st. As it t urne d out, some of the un gra teful li tiga nts i n Wac kado o clung to the bothers ome no tion tha t prelim i nary r elief is a n ext ra ordi nary r eme dy and n ot a matter of right. Non - movin g partie s earnes tly opp osed the C ircu it ’s reflex ive g rant of preli minary r elief, arguing that t he mov ing p art ies had not me t the ir burde n s of s howing that circ umstanc es justif ied the discre tionary r elief. An d even when the court ultima tely “de nied” t he moti on for a sta y or an i njunc tion as pa rt of its mer its deci sion, non - moving p arties were s ubjec ted to the Circu it’s au tomatic admin istrat ive stay dur ing the leng thy pende ncy of t he ca se. Worse, w or d starte d to ge t out. Pretty s oon every W ackado o l itigant, no matte r how frivolous their appe al mi ght be, w as fil ing a mo tion f or prel imin ary relief. Which they got. Even i f their motion was mer itless, opposed, and u ltima tely denie d, th e Circuit’s auto matic - grant an d defer red - r evi ew pro cess would al low them

3 to sec ure a mont hs - or year s - lo ng prelim in ary in junctio n or stay simply by f iling th e reque st. In shor t order, the Cir cuit of Wack adoo’s docke t became mo re crowde d than ever with thousands of utter ly merit less mot ions f or stays a nd inju nctions. F or the hardw orking ju dges of Wa ckadoo, th is only re inf orced their ste adfa st belief tha t the autom atic - gra nt and de ferr ed - re view proc e ss was now more essen tial to the order l y and ef ficie nt mana gement of their d ocket t han eve r before. * * * Now to be clear, the Nin th Circui t is not the Cir cuit of W ackadoo. We don’t refle xively gr ant pre liminar y re lief in all ca ses. Tha t would be cr azy. We only do so in imm igrati on cas es. Each year, im migra tion pe titione rs file sev eral thousa nd appeals in the Ninth Circuit— mor e than half of all imm igra tion appeals f iled across the Un ited Stat es. Unite d States C ourt of Appea ls for the Ninth Circ uit, 2024 Annual Repo rt 37 (2025), https: //www.c a9.uscour ts.gov/a nnual - repor ts/. In thousa nds of the se cas es, t he peti tioners fi le a mot ion to sta y removal wh ile their ap peal is pend ing. And in thousa nds of th ese c ases, the gover nment op poses tha t mot ion. The sta tistics ar e hard to pi n down prec isely but, as be st as ou r court can te ll, t he Ninth Circ uit den ies relief in ove r ninety perc ent o f the i mmigratio n petitio ns invo lving an opp osed stay

4 motio n. Put bluntly, in our circu it the ov erwhelm ing maj ority of the imm igratio n cases in volving a n oppose d stay mot ion are meritless. With t he probab ility of succ ess so l ow, why is our i mmigration case volume so high? T hough we ultimately den y relie f in all but a han dful of immigr ation ca se s, the N inth Circ uit offers es sentiall y all immigr ation peti tioner s som ething th at can be just a s valuable: more time. Since 2019, the Nint h Circ uit ha s autom aticall y grante d a n adm inistr ati ve stay of re mova l to any im migra tion pet itio ner who re que sts one. These stays are gr anted a nd continu ed with out regar d to the me rits o f the peti tione rs ’ case s. Nom inally, th ese aut omatic s tays are “temporary” — intende d to prese rve the stat us quo only lo ng enoug h for the j udges on o ur court t o review wh ether the peti tioner ha s demo nstrate d that the s peci fic circum stance s of the case wa rrant a stay. In rea lity, our cour t has ado pted the g enera l unwritt en pract ice of defer ri ng any judic ial re view of s tay mot ions for many month s or even years, un til the ca se is event ually assig ned to a mer its pa nel for a fi nal dis position. And when the gover nment op pose s the initial sta y mot ion and arg ues tha t pet itioners ha ve not met their b urden of sho wing tha t the circ umsta nces warra nt the extr aordinar y rem edy of prelim inary r elie f, our cour t does n othing to ens ure that t he op posed stay will be revie wed prior to the merits dec ision. This ca se plainl y illust rates how the Ninth Circuit’ s unw ritte n interna l proce dures for gran ting and exte nding sta ys of remov al disrega rd Suprem e Cour t

5 prece dent and a ward aut omati c, extende d stays of r emoval i n utter ly merit less immigr ation appeals. The peti tioners i n this cas e filed a threa dbare reque st for a sta y of removal. The govern ment obje cted. Even so, our cour t grante d the petition ers a n autom atic st ay t hat exte nde d for te n mo nths be fore any judge eve n co nsi der ed the substa nce of their moti on. Whe n a merits panel di d fina lly receive an d review th e petit ioners’ sta y motion, it fou nd no poss ible ba sis to support the awar d of a sta y. And beca use the Supr eme Court ha s clea rly held tha t lower c ourts m ay not refle xively h old a stay order in abeyance p ending rev iew, the pa nel held t hat fu ture stay m otions m ust be ref erre d to the co urt’s mot ions pane ls for pre - merit s review. That holding — im plemen ting the S uprem e Court’ s clear requirement f or timel y and indi viduali zed judic ial revie w of stay mo tions — prom pted thi s sua s ponte en ba nc call. T he en banc co urt is no doub t poise d to m aintai n the Ninth Ci rcuit ’s autom atic - gra nt and defer r ed - revie w process, prima ri ly motivat ed by the belief th at our co urt sim ply la cks the capacit y to conf orm to t he stay procedur es the S upreme Court requires. But capacit y constr aints alon e are not an excuse to ignore the Supre me C ourt’s in structi ons. This c ase is no anom aly. En banc vacatur of th e pane l orde r will ensur e that the Ni nth Circ uit’ s automa tic - grant a nd deferr ed - rev iew pr ocess will co ntin ue to produce the same indefensib le outcom es in t housand s of other imm igration ca ses each year. Because the vast ma jority of the unde rly ing immi gration peti tions in our

6 circ uit ar e merit less, almost a ll the au tom atic sta ys our court gr ants will go to peti tioners who ha ve no valid c laim to rem ain i n the Unit ed Sta tes. And bec ause t he gover nment ca nnot ob tain a pre - me rits de nial of a stay m otion by fili ng an opposi tion, our cou rt will continu e to de lay immigr ation enfor cement by p resuming that e very pet itioner i s entitle d to a sta y of remova l. We w ould never to lerate a similar aut omatic - grant and def err ed - revie w proce dure for a wardin g prel iminary r elie f in any ot her con text. We s houldn ’t tolera te it here. I. The Sup reme Cour t has clear ly proscr ibed the procedure for autom atic ally grant ing and defer ri ng revie w of st ay motion s th at the N inth Ci rcuit ut ilizes in immigr ation a ppeals. Prior to 1996, the I mmigr ation a nd Na tionality Act con tained “a p rovision prov iding mo st al iens with a n automa tic stay of their re moval order while judic ial revie w was pe nding.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 424 (200 9). But a s part of the Illeg al Immigr ation Refo rm and Immig rant Resp onsibili ty Act of 1 996 (“IIRIR A ”), “ Cong ress repea led the pr esum ption of a n automa tic stay ” to “allow for mo re pro mpt removal.” Id. at 424 – 25. In its place, Congres s establ ished th e rule that the f iling of an imm igratio n pet ition “ does no t stay th e remova l of a n alie n … unles s the court order s other wise.” Id. at 425 (qu oting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(3)(B) (2006 ed.)).

7 Congr ess als o “ li fted the ban on adju dicati on of a pet ition for re view once an alie n has depa rte d ” to allow judic ial review to continue after a n alien had bee n remo ved. Id. at 424. Base d on “ Con gress ’ s dec ision ” to “ re peal … the aut omatic st a y ” provi sion and “t o allo w continued prosecuti on of a petition after remov al,” the Supr eme Cour t in Nk en he ld that co urts were to re view motion s for stay s of remo val using “th e tradi tional te st for st ays.” Id. at 433, 4 35 (citatio n omitte d). That tra ditional tes t requir es court s to consi der four fac tors: (1) whet her the sta y ap plicant ha s made a stron g showin g that he is like ly to suc cee d on th e meri ts; (2) whethe r the ap plica nt will be irre para bly injur ed ab sent a sta y; (3) whether i ssuance o f the stay will substa ntial ly injur e the other p arties in terested i n the procee ding; an d (4) whe re the publ ic intere st lie s. Id. at 434 (qu oting Hilton v. Br aunski ll, 481 U.S. 770, 77 6 (1987)). Withi n the imm igrati on co ntext, whe re the go vernm ent is the op posin g party, the thi rd and fourt h factors “me rge” to gethe r in to a si ngle analy sis of t he public intere st. Id. at 43 5. To assess these fa ctor s, our co urt has es tablis hed “a ‘ continuu m ’ in whi ch the re quisite sho wing on the merit s depend s upon t he stren gth of the a lien ’ s showi ng of irre para ble injury and th e potentia l harm to t he pub lic inter est.” Rojas - Espino za v. Bondi, 160 F.4t h 991, 996 (9th Cir. 2025). [A] pe titi oner see king a stay of remova l must sh ow tha t irre parabl e harm is pr obable a nd eithe r: (a) a strong likelih ood of success on the meri ts and that the pu blic inte rest d oes not we igh heav ily agains t a stay; or (b) a su bstantia l case on the merit s and tha t the bala nce of ha rdship s

8 tips sha rply in t he petitio ner ’ s favor. As h as long bee n the case, these stan dards repr esent t he outer e xtremes of a cont inuum, w ith the re lati ve hards hips to t he par ties pro viding the cr itic al eleme nt in dete rminin g at what po int on the con tinuum a stay pe nding re view is ju stif ied. Id. (altera tion in or iginal) (quoting L eiva - Pe rez v. Holde r, 64 0 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2 011)). In Nk en, t he Supre me C ourt also ma de clea r that, when reviewing motion s to stay re mo val, a c ourt “ may not re solve a co nflict be tween co nside red revi ew and effec tive relie f by re flexive ly holdi ng a final ord er in abeya nce pen ding r evie w. ” Nken, 556 U.S. at 4 27. “A stay is an ‘ intrusion into the ordinary pro cesses of admin istrat ion a nd judic ial revi ew, ’” i d. (quoti ng Va. Pet roleum Job bers Ass ’ n v. FPC, 259 F.2 d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 19 58) (per curia m)), and sho uld never be cons idered or gra nted as “ a matter of r ight, ev en if irre parable inj ury might ot herwise resul t to the appel lant,” id. (quoting Virg inian R y. Co. v. Unit ed States, 272 U. S. 658, 67 2 (1926)). Inste ad, “th e t ra ditional stay fact ors conte mplate indi vidualiz ed judgm ents in ea ch ca se.” Hilton, 481 U.S. at 777. And it is the “ party req uesting a stay [who] bear s th e burd en of showin g tha t the circum sta nces justif y ” the extra ordinary r emedy. Nken, 556 U.S. at 433 – 34. Base d on these i nstruc tions f rom the Supr eme Court, you wo uld not expe ct to find a cou rt refle xively h old ing a fina l ord er on a mo tion to stay r emoval in abe yance pend ing revie w. T o the co ntrary, you would exp ect cour ts to gra nt sta ys of remova l only a fter cond ucting a c onside red revie w of the four trad itional st ay factor s and

9 makin g an indi vidualiz ed j udgme nt about whether the party r equest ing a s tay h ad met the ir burde n. But not this court. Be fore 2019, “ ou r Gen eral Order s pro vided that, upon the fili ng of a pre -merits- br iefing m otio n for a stay of removal, ‘ [a] bri efing sche dule will n ot be se t unt il the m otion f or stay is resol ved, ’ there by ensurin g that suc h a pre - brief ing m otion w ould gene rally b e decide d in shor t order b y an avai lable m otions panel. ” Roj as - Espi noza, 160 F. 4th at 100 0 n.2 (fi rst quo ting Ni nth Cir. Gen. Order 6.4(c)(1) (20 12 ed.); a nd the n citin g Nin th Cir. Gen. Or der 6. 4(c)(1) (20 18 e d.)). But in 201 9, o ur court ma de two ch anges to t his pract ice — one wri tten, one un written. First, in 2019 o ur court a m end ed Nint h Circ uit Gener al Order 6.4(c), anno unci ng a new rul e that, “[u ] p on the fi ling of a n initi al motio n or req uest f or stay of remo val or depor tation, t he order of rem oval or de porta tion is tem porar ily sta yed until f urther order of the Cour t. ” Se cond, now that peti tioners coul d unilat erally trigg er auto matic ad ministra tive stay s of removal, our court adopte d the in terna l pract ice of holding tec hnically unreso lved stay mo tions w ithin the Clerk’s Office until merits br iefing was compl eted and t he ca se was a ssigne d to a me rits panel for final dispos ition. Ro jas - Espin oza, 160 F. 4th at 1000 –01. In practice, this aut omati c - g rant an d deferr ed - r evi ew proce ss mean s tha t immigr ation stay m otions within the Ninth Cir cuit are lik ely t o first cr oss the des k of an Ar ticle III ju dge mon ths or some times year s aft er th ey a re fil ed, long after a n

10 automatic stay of remova l has alr ead y been gra nted by court sta ff, and simu ltaneous ly with a pan el’s con siderat ion of the meri ts of the i mmigra tion appea l. When t he tec hnic ally unre solve d stay mot ions fina lly do reach the merit s panel, “ the dispo sition of the ent ire matter is on ly 12 – 14 week s awa y, [and] hundreds of panel s … ch o [ose ] to dec ide a ny still - p ending s tay mot ion a t the same t ime that the meri ts are de cided. ” Id. at 1000 n. 2 (firs t citing H aro Men doza v. Bo ndi, No. 23 - 1976, 2025 WL 51 8147, at * 1 n.1 (9th Cir. 2025); and the n citing Elias C ruz v. Ba rr, 793 F. App ’ x 636, 637 (9th Cir. 2020)). And in such merits de cision s, pane ls frequ ently claim to “ deny ” th e sta y motion, eve n whil e inex plicabl y orderi ng “ th a t the ‘ tem porary s tay of re moval [under General Order 6. 4(c)(1)] remai ns in pl ace until iss uance of the ma ndate.’” Id. (a lteratio n in or iginal) (quoting Fu v. Garland, 848 F. App ’ x 751, 752 (9 th Cir. 2021)). [T] here is no m eani ngful sense, in suc h case s, in which the st ay motion can be said to hav e been ‘ denie d ’; on the cont rary, beca use the ‘ temporar y ’ sta y remain ed in eff ect all the way thro ugh the disp osition of the a ppeal, the s tays in su ch ca ses w ere, for a ll pr actical purposes, grante d in fu ll. Id. The N inth C ircuit’ s automa tic - grant and de ferr ed - review p roce dure is irre concilable with the Sup reme Court ’s instructi ons in Nken. Both the cou rt’s ini tial grant of the sta y motion and our court’ s subse quent ex tension of the sta y are defin itively “ refl ex ive ” and grante d as of righ t —e ver y immigr ation peti tioner w ho

11 reque sts a st ay aut omatica lly recei ves one tha t exte nds at le ast unti l his case is assi gned for a me rits decis ion. Nken, 556 U.S. at 42 7. Bo th the stay a nd the exten sion of t he stay a re awarde d before any judge has mad e an indiv idualiz ed judgm ent abou t whether t he petiti oner has m et the ir burden under th e traditio nal test for a stay. Id. at 433 – 34; Hilton, 481 U.S. at 777. An d many i mmigratio n petitio ners receive, as a fo rm o f prel imina ry r eli ef, a stay that e xte nds a ll the way t hrough issua nce of the mandat e — eve n after a pa nel has fully conside red the m erit s of the case and is sued a w ritten decis ion concl uding tha t the pet itione rs ’ case ha s no meri t. 1 While the S uprem e Cour t antic ipates tha t a stay of rem oval wi ll onl y be grante d when “ the circum stance s just ify ” the e xtraor dinary re medy, in the Nint h Circuit we know — even bef ore conduc ting our lo ng - d elay ed r eview — th at almost ev ery reci pien t of our stays is a petitio ner bringing yet another meritle ss case. Nken, 556 U.S. at 433 – 34. 1 E.g., Miramontes Gar cia v. Bondi, No. 24 - 7345, 2025 WL 3442895, at*2 (9th Cir. Dec. 1, 2025); Espi noza Garc ia v. Bondi, No. 25 - 131 4, 2025 WL 2986475, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 23, 202 5); Cyr ille v. Bo ndi, No. 19 - 7 2955, 20 25 WL 3 281525, at *2 (9th Cir. Nov. 25, 2025); Arriola - Rosales v. Bondi, No. 17 - 71798, 202 5 WL 20282 93, at *2 (9 th Cir. J uly 21, 2025); Kojongian v. Garland, 846 F. App’x 551, 55 1 (9th C ir. 2021); Augu stine v. G arland, 846 F. App’x 55 6, 557 (9th C ir. 202 1); Izagu irre v. Bo ndi, No. 24 - 620, 2025 WL 15 54134, at *2 (9th Cir. J une 2, 20 25); Alvar ez Magall anes v. Garl and, No. 23 - 4219, 2024 WL 42005 79, at *2 (9t h Cir. Sep. 1 6, 2024); Salazar - Noriega v. G arland, N o. 21 - 70618, 2023 WL 315339, at *3 (9th Cir. Ja n. 19, 2023); Coronado - Sanchez v. Ga rland, No. 20 - 70206, 2022 WL 22875 62, at *1 (9th Cir. June 24, 2 022).

12 To comp ound its err ors, our co urt ’ s unwritte n deferr ed - rev iew p rocedu res also ef fective ly al locate the bur den of pro of to the g overnment — gran ting and extendi ng a stay unle ss the g overn ment m akes an af firmative sh owing tha t an exped ited dec ision is warr ant ed. Our court’ s Gen era l Orders ou tline the g over nmen t’s three possi ble resp onses to a motio n for stay of r emoval: (1) silenc e, (2) non - oppos ition, and (3) oppos ition. Ninth Cir. G en. Order 6.4(c)(3), (5). If th e gover nment remain s sile nt, “ the a bse nce of a timel y response will be treate d as a notic e of non - oppositi on.” Ninth Cir. Gen. Or der 6.4(c)(5). If the g overnme nt fil es a state ment of non - opposit ion to the sta y m otion, “ the temporary sta y shall cont inue in eff ect d uring the pe ndency of the petition for revie w, ” until the g overnment moves to lift the sta y, or un til further order of th e court. Id. But w hen the g overn ment files a t imely oppo sition to th e stay m otion, as it has do ne in thou sands o f cases, it woul d not be unrea sona ble to expe ct that opposi tion to hav e some effect. Ninth C ir. Gen. Order 6.4(c)(3). N ot here. I nstead, our c ourt’s unwr itten defer red - re view pr ocedures tre at op pose d and unopp osed s tay motio ns i denticall y — cont inuing the aut omatic s tay and d eferri ng revie w of e ither moti on until the ca se is ass ign ed to a meri ts panel. The gove rnment’s op position s frequ ently cite the standar ds art iculate d in Nk en to the court a nd argue t hat immigr ation pe titione rs have not me t their burde n of showin g tha t a stay of re mov al was jus tified unde r the tra ditiona l test for stay s. But a ll the g over nment’s effort—

13 utiliz ing a brief ing mechan ism outlin ed by our Gener al Orde rs — has neit her trigg ered no r accele rated any pre- merits revi ew of the opp osed stay mot ions. Reco gniz ing the st atistica l fact tha t t he vast maj ority of unde rlying immi gration peti tions in o ur circ uit ar e meritle ss and th at petition ers bear th e burden of demon strati ng tha t their cir cumsta nces warr ant a sta y, one mi ght a nticipate tha t the g over nmen t w ould h ave a bit m ore succe ss. Instea d, in esse ntia lly every imm igrati on case t he Ninth Circuit ’s pres umption in favo r of a stay of removal wins, and the gov ernment los es. It is no a nswer to point to the fac t that th e g overnme nt may f ile a mo tion to ex pedi te review of the st ay moti on. This mo tion, if it makes a suff icient s howin g of a need for a prompt decis ion, cou ld in t heory ea rn the go vernment t h e rare and high ly co veted pre - merits revie w by a motio ns pa nel. But th is op tion only ser ves to reinf orce the poi nt that our co urt’s un writ ten pra ctice i s to gra nt and ex tend a n oppos ed sta y mot ion unles s the gover nment files both a n opposi tion and a moti on to expe dite i ncl uding the requir ed affirm ative s howing. O ur court’s alloca tion of a burden to the g ove rnm ent to demo nstrate that a stay mot ion is not r equired simply ca nnot be square d wit h Nken ’s clear instr uction tha t petit ione rs be ar the b urde n of demon strati ng tha t a stay is warr ante d. Nken, 556 U.S. at 4 33 – 34; H ilton, 4 81 U.S. at 77 7. Ye t again, our court h as the Supre me Cour t’s stan dard ba ckwards, wi th the res ult here being the refle xive award of long stays to mos t unmer ited imm igrati on petitio ners.

14 If ou r court is trul y too b usy to re view fu lly brief ed oppo sed stay motions, o ur defa ult ru le should b e den ial of the ext raordina ry remedy of a stay until judicial revie w confirm s the mo ving par ty ha s met its b urden. T he Supr eme Cour t has ma de clear tha t sta ys of rem oval are not to be gran ted as a matter of rig ht, that pe titioner s — not the g ov ern ment — bear the burden of demonstr ating tha t stays are warrant ed, and that s tays are to be gra nted a nd exten ded only when a judge h as made an indiv idualiz ed ju dgment a bout w hether the petitione r has met his burde n unde r the tradi tional t est for a stay. And th e Suprem e Cour t has ex pressly proscribed refle xively h olding s tay mo tions in ab eyance pendin g final de cision. When you combi ne this wit h our knowle dge that the vast maj ority of the underly ing immigr ation claims turn out to be meri tles s, ther e is no exc use in law or log ic for ou r court’ s perver se practic e of effe ctively ha nding out lo ng “tempora ry” stay s of remov al like can dy t o ever y immigr ati on petit ioner who a sks. I I. T he opp osed m otion to stay rem oval at iss ue in the insta nt ca se nicely illus trates t he proble m, in la rge part because it’s so typica l. The P etiti oners here filed a “threadbare ” stay moti on that entire ly faile d to demo nstra te that the circ umsta nce of the ir ca se warranted a stay of removal. Rojas - Espin oza, 160 F.4th at 998. The gove rnme nt oppo sed the sta y motion, cit ing Nken to argu e tha t Petit ioners fai led to meet t heir bur den. Id. But s imply be cau se they had alr ead y

15 filed a conc lusory a nd fr ivolous reque st for a stay, t he Petiti oners were gra nted an auto matic sta y for ten mont hs befor e any jud ge revie wed the ir moti on or t he gover nment’s op positio n. Id. at 1000. And if th e origin al mer its panel h ad tre ated this ca se like mo st panels h av e treat ed such cas es, the Pe titioner s’ “tempora ry” sta y would h ave laste d many mont hs longer — unti l the pane l issued a decisio n denyin g their underl ying c laims on t he meri ts and the mandate fin ally is sued. Petiti oners — Maricruz Mariso l Roja s - Espinoza, h er dome stic par tner Robe rt Davi d Salvado r - Gom ez, and the ir two min or chil dren — are nati ves and cit izen s of Peru w ho unl awfully entere d the Uni ted Sta tes in Janua ry 2 023. Id. at 99 3. A fter the De partme nt of H omela nd Secur ity ini tiate d remova l pro cee dings, P etitioners appl ied for a sylum, w ithho lding of r emova l, a nd re lief u nder th e Convent ion Ag ainst Tortu re. Id. An Immi gration Judge (“IJ”) denie d their a pplic ations for r elief an d order ed th em deporte d to Peru. Id. at 99 4. When Pet itioners a ppeale d to the Boar d of Immi gration A ppeals (“BIA”), th e B IA uphe ld the IJ ’s den ial of re lief. Id. In Dec embe r 202 4, Pe titioner s peti tioned for revi ew of th e BIA’ s decision in this c ourt and “ mov ed for a st ay of rem ova l pendin g resolut ion of the petition. ” Id. at 994 – 95. Pet itioner’ s stay motio n was “ bare bone s ” and “c on sisted of two pa ges conta ining a m ixtur e of c oncl usory and f rivolo us ar guments. ” Id. at 1000. But simp ly b y movin g for a sta y, Petiti oners auto matical ly r ec eiv ed a “ temporar y admin istrat ive s tay pendi ng resol utio n of that m otion. ” Id. a t 995. In February 2025,

16 the gov ernm ent filed a tim ely op position t o the Petiti oners’ sta y motion. Id. Thou gh our Gene ral Or ders allo wed the Petition ers to fil e a reply to that opp osition, they faile d to do s o. Id. Thus, the m otion to sta y remova l was fully b riefed b y Febr uary 2025. Id. But our cour t did not prese nt the f ully brie fed oppo sed sta y motion to t he next availa ble moti ons panel. S ee Nint h Cir. Gen. Ord er 6.2(a) (establishin g monthly moti ons panels of judge s). Instea d, the Clerk ’ s Office deferred any acti on on the moti on for seven m onths whi le merits br iefing wa s comp leted. Rojas - Esp inoza, 160 F.4t h at 995. The a utom atic sta y of re mo val rema ine d in effec t all the while. Id. In Se ptember 2 025, the case was ca l en dared for a mer i ts pan el, and both the stay mo tion brie fs and the me ri ts briefs w ere sen t to the pane l simu ltaneous ly. Id. This wa s the fir st time t hat any Ar ticle I II jud ge review ed the stay mot ion or th e case. Applying the tradi tional t est for stays outline d in N ken, t he pane l conclud ed that Petiti oners had failed to mee t their bur den of s howing t hat th e specif ic circ umsta nces of the ir case warra nte d the ex traordi nary reme dy of a stay of rem oval. Id. at 997 – 99. Why? Fi rst, Pe titioner s fun ctionally made no attempt to dem onstrate a li keli hood of succe ss on the mer its in t heir stay mo tion — “merely asse rt [i ng], in conclu sory fashi on, that their ‘ appeal [wo uld] raise sub stantia l and no vel issu es of law as to

17 whet her the BI A ap plied the law c orre ctly to t his cas e, ’ ” without “ bo ther [ing] to sa y anyt hing about w hat tho se sup posedly me ritoriou s lega l issues mig ht be.” I d. a t 997. Thes e bare assert ions fa iled to e stablish a “subs tantia l case o n the merits.” Id. (quot ing Leiva - Perez, 64 0 F.3d at 9 70). Second, Petition ers failed to show th at their r emoval would re sult in any “ parti cularize d, irreparable har m be yond mere r emoval.” Id. at 997 – 98 (quoti ng Nken, 55 6 U.S. at 43 8 (Kenne dy, J., conc urring)). Beca use “ an alien s eeking a stay of rem oval ‘ mu st sho w that the re is a re ason specific to his or h er case, a s oppose d to a re aso n that wo uld ap ply equa lly well to all alie ns and a ll cases, that remova l would inflic t irre parable harm,’ ” the pa nel co nclu ded t hat Peti tioners f aile d to ma ke a thre shold s howing o f irrepara ble harm. Id. (qu oting Le iva - Perez, 640 F. 3d at 96 9). Final ly, the pane l conclu ded that the public interest weighed hea vily a gainst a stay. Id. at 999 – 1002. In Nken, the Suprem e Court made clear t hat “ [t] here is alw ays a pub lic inter est in prompt exec ution of re moval or ders: The co ntinued presence of an alie n lawfu lly deem ed remova ble unde rmines the stream lined rem oval proce edi ngs IIRIR A est ablishe d, and perm its and pr olong s a conti nuing violatio n of Unite d Sta tes law.” Id. (altera tions in or igina l) (quoting Nk en, 556 U.S. at 43 6). This “ ‘ in terest in promp t rem oval ma y be heig htened ’ … if t he alie n ‘ has substa ntial ly prol onged his sta y by abusin g the p rocesse s prov ided to him.’ ” Id. at 1000 (quoting Nken, 556 U. S. at 43 6).

18 To eva luate if P etitio ners p rolonge d their s tay by abusin g the cour t’s proce sse s, the pane l had to con side r the fact t hat both the P etition ers and the cou rt cont ribut ed to the delay. Here, Pe t itioner s secured an unwa rranted stay of t heir removal “ merely by filing the ir barebon es stay motio n.” Id. Once they had tr iggere d the a utomat ic sta y, Pe titio ners di d not bother to f ile a sup plement al moti on or a reply to the g overn ment ’ s opp ositi on. Id. And in the mer its brief ing, P etiti oners did n ot bothe r to file a re ply bri ef or a sup plement al brief w hen the o pport unit y was mad e availa ble to th em. “ Pe tit ioner s success fully expl oited a defe ct in thi s cour t ’ s internal proce dures and thereby secure d an un warr anted stay of the ir remova l for the la st 10 month s — and for a f ull se ven mon ths aft er the Gover nment f i led it s oppositi on. ” Id. But the c ourt als o played a substant ial ro le in exte nding Pe titio ners’ stay by autom aticall y grantin g and hol ding t he m otion w ithout “any cas e - specif ic judici al invol vement” for ma ny months. Id. at 100 2. The pa nel concl uded that “ t he prac tice of gene ral ly holdi ng sta y motion s until the y can be presen ted to the m erits pa nel toge ther with the compl eted mer its briefi ng squa rely viola te [d] Nken ’ s instruct ion that c ourts may not ‘ refle xively h old [] a fi nal or der in abe yan ce pe ndin g review. ’” Id. (second a lterati on in origi nal) (quoting N ken, 556 U. S. at 4 27). T he panel concl uded tha t the “ ultra vi res nature ” of the Nint h Circuit ’s au tomatic - award and deferred - re view proc ess “ weigh [ed] heavily in favor of deny ing P etitione rs any furthe r stay of their re mova l. ” Id. at 100 1.

19 B ecause P etitione rs faile d to mak e a ny showing that they we re lik ely to succe ed on the me rit s and fa iled to show that they were lik ely to fac e substanti al harm if removed, the counter vail ing public interes t in avo iding a n erroneo us remova l was limited. Id. at 999. Thu s, becau se the public inte rest w eighe d shar ply in favo r of remo val, ther e was no place o n the Ninth Circui t’s “cont inuum” analys is where the bal ance of the traditio nal stay fac tors wou ld favor gra nting a sta y of rem oval. See id. Without showing any lik elihood o f succ ess on t he merits or any i rre para ble injur y, Petit ioners’ m otion sim ply offer ed “n o basis f or a sta y of remo val.” Id. at 998 (first c iting N ken, 55 6 U.S. at 4 34; and then cit ing L eiva - Per ez, 640 F. 3d at 968). The pa nel den ied the petitio ners’ motion for a sta y of removal. Id. a t 100 2. To preve nt the cour t from committing the same unwr itten pr oced ura l er ror s in the futu re, the panel held that, “ onc e the oppose d stay mot ion in thi s case was full y brief ed, it sho uld have bee n present ed by the C lerk ’ s O ffice to t he next a vailable motio ns panel. ” Id. II I. I ventur e to say th at not a singl e ju dge on our c ourt would concl ude that th e stay m otion in t his case sa tisfied t he Pe titioners ’ bur den under o ur tra ditional test for stay s. Yet a majori ty of the judge s on our court ha ve now called en banc the pa nel’s order den ying the sta y motion. Because the merits offer no rea son for reversal, the call is nece ssar ily d irec ted at the pa nel’s hol ding that, to bring our a utom atic stay

20 proce dure int o complia nce with the Supr eme Court ’s instr ucti on s in Nken, fully brief ed op posed stay m otion s should be pr esente d by the c le rk’s o ffice to the next availa ble mot ions pan el. Roja s - Espinoza, 160 F.4th at 1002. But e n ban c review of this hol ding i s not justif ied. To be sure, our co urt recei ves an incr edibly hi gh number of im migr ation peti tions. B ut our ca pacity c hallenge s canno t justify ign oring the S uprem e Co urt’s instr uctions. T he Ninth Cir cuit is not so busy that t he only p ractica l proced ure for addre ssin g oppose d stay m otion s is (1) gra nting stay s ref lexively upon req uest, (2) ignorin g the govern ment ’ s oppos ition withou t an y in dividua lized revi ew of wheth er peti tioners have met t heir burden unde r the tradi tional te st, and (3) conti nuing sta ys th rough the mer its sta ge with out judic ial i nvol vement. While there may be legiti mate concer ns with t he Ni nth C ircuit’ s case loa d and capac ity, it should be ob vious t hat i gnoring the S uprem e Cour t’s cle ar instru ctions in Nke n is simp ly not a le gitimat e solutio n to thos e conc erns. It is par ticular ly ironic to jus tify ou r auto matic - grant an d defer r ed - revi ew proce dures by pointing to the strain that the high v olume o f sta y motion s pla ces on our co urt’s ca pacity. A nyone who has wa tched the first ni nety se cond s o f a Y ouTube vide o on game theo ry (or who ha s spent a year or t wo rais ing a chi ld) would immedi ately recogn ize the circu larity of this c oncern, be cau se it is th e Ninth Circ uit’ s autom atic - stay and deferre d - re view procedur es them selves tha t perv ers ely

21 incen tivize the e xtraordin arily hig h volume o f meri tless sta y moti ons. When y ou refl exively giv e a kid a coo kie ev ery time he as k s for one, you can expect to hand out a lo t of coo kies. Thi s is why the vas t majorit y of experie nced par ents will te ll you tha t dist ributing co okies is an “ extr aordinar y remed y” that sh ould not be availa ble “as a m atter of rig ht.” When any petit ioner ca n au tomat ically s ecur e an exten ded stay of r emoval s imply by fili ng a threadba re motion, regardless of i ts merits, you don’ t need a P hD in gam e the ory to predic t a ti dal w ave of suc h motion s. Our cou rt ’s manif est ly unla wful stay proc edures no doub t stro ngly cont ribut e to the ver y capacit y cris is that we now use to j ustif y maint aining thos e manif estly unla wful proc edure s. Eviden tly, the N inth Circ uit’ s in ternal dia logue sou nds somet hing li ke a ju dicial O prah W infrey, conf used by he r own p opula rit y: We are … (“ You get a stay! ”) … sincer ely shocked … (“ You get a stay!”) … by th e … (“ Y ou get a sta y! ”) … number o f … (“ You get a stay!”) … utt erly … (“Y ou get a s tay!”) … meritle ss … (“ Yo u get a stay! ”) … i mmigration petitions … (“ You get a st ay! And y ou ge t a stay! And yo u get a stay!”) … that a re fil ed … (“Yo u g et a stay!”) … in our c ourt. (“ Ever yon e get s a stay!”). Righ t now, the Nint h Cir cuit offe rs more tha n half of the immigr ation peti tioners in t he nation an open ta p of time t o rem ain in the Unit ed Sta tes, no m atte r how mer itless their claims m ight be. You don’t e ven nee d to be that luc ky to parl ay a filing fee a nd an im migrati on attor ney’s f lat rate i nto a stay of r emoval an d delayed proce edi ngs that la st long en ough for the next De mocrat adminis trati on to admin istrat ivel y close your case. S o while the pol itica l branch es no doubt bea r thei r

22 share of res ponsibil ity for much of t he ine fficacy of immigr ation enf orcemen t, y ou can squa rely bla me th is court for (proudl y?) keep ing thousa nds of remova ble aliens in the United Sta tes e ven thoug h we all kno w almost a ll of them ha ve no merito rious claim for relief from remo v al. In the e nd, t h ere is simpl y no justific ation f or preser ving o ur cour t’s ille gitimate and previou sly cove rt sta tus quo rathe r than c onf ormin g our circu it ’s unwr itten c ase - ma nageme nt pract ices to t he Supre me C our t’s dicta tes. And whi le the N int h Circ uit may f ace uniq ue capa cit y chal lenges as a c onseque nce of i ts size and caseload, mere capacity pressur es should nev er provi de a basi s for ignor ing gover ning law. IV. So wha t’s nex t? Giv en the e xpecte d en ba nc panel draw, once thi s case goe s en banc I exp ect it will sho rtly wither a way on th e vine. I pre dict t hat not even o ne judge will find a wa y to say th at Pet itioner s’ stay m otion sa tisfi ed their burd en, so the en ba nc co urt wil l simply de ny the pet ition f or a stay pe nding app eal and, with the pa nel order safely e xter minate d by opera tion of o ur rece nt en ba nc rules, o ur court w ill hope tha t this is sue and our co urt’s clan destine practice sim ply fade s back into ob scurit y, awa y from publ ic purvie w. By abroga ting t he panel’ s prior orde r, the en banc court w ill quietl y seek to prese rve th e cour t’s manif estly unla wful

23 autom atic - gra nt and defer red - revie w proced ure and insula te it from Supreme C ourt revie w. But as l ong as the Ninth Cir cuit maint ains our unwrit ten prac tice, t housands of imm igration pe tition ers will sec ure month s or yea rs of extra time in the Unite d State s simply by filing frivolous sta y moti on s in meritless cases. Nearly all the recip ients of those extende d “ tem por ary” sta ys will eve ntually be denied relief o n their utterl y mer itle ss claim s. And no mat ter how f requ ently the g over nment c ites Nken, the tr aditi onal test for stay s, or the pe titi oners’ bur den to o ur cour t, the g over nmen t’s o ppositi on wil l n ot trigger a pre - merits jud icial re view. Some m ight ca ll tha t Wacka doo.