Stepanovic, Zvonko v. Holder, Eric H. ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    ____________
    No. 07-3883
    ZVONKO STEPANOVIC,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    MICHAEL B. MUKASEY,
    Respondent.
    ____________
    Petition for Review of an Order
    of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
    No. A79-766-597
    ____________
    ON MOTION FOR STAY OF RUNNING OF
    VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE PERIOD AND
    RESPONDENT’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
    MOTION FOR STAY OF RUNNING OF VOLUNTARY
    DEPARTURE PERIOD
    ____________
    DECEMBER 21, 2007Œ
    ____________
    Before FLAUM, RIPPLE and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM. This matter is before the court on the
    petitioner’s motion for stay of running of voluntary
    Œ
    This opinion was released initially in typescript form.
    2                                               No. 07-3883
    departure period, filed by counsel for the petitioner on
    November 30, 2007 and on the respondent’s opposition to
    petitioner’s motion for stay of running of voluntary
    departure period, filed by counsel for the respondent on
    December 13, 2007.
    Voluntary departure is an alternative to removal,
    which allows an alien to leave the United States at his or
    her own expense within a certain period of time. 8 U.S.C.
    § 1229c(a), (b). Once voluntary departure has been
    granted by the immigration service, this court may toll
    the voluntary departure period pending appeal. Lopez-
    Chavez v. Ashcroft, 
    383 F.3d 650
    , 654 (7th Cir. 2004). A
    petitioner seeking a stay of voluntary departure must
    demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the merits.
    
    Lopez-Chavez, 383 F.3d at 654-55
    ; Sofinet v. INS, 
    188 F.3d 703
    , 706 (7th Cir. 1999).
    Mr. Stepanovic makes no attempt to describe his argu-
    ments on appeal, let alone demonstrate that he would
    succeed on the merits. Zvonko Stepanovic’s three-para-
    graph motion does nothing more than make a general
    request for a stay. The motion and attached affidavit from
    counsel even fail to state what type of relief Mr. Stepanovic
    sought before the immigration courts, noting only that
    his “relief application” was denied. This court has repeat-
    edly noted that a motion to stay removal that does not
    set forth information needed for this court to properly
    adjudicate the matter will be denied. See Zheng v. Mukasey,
    No. 07-3673, 
    2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 26137
    (7th Cir. Nov. 9,
    2007); Koutcher v. Gonzales, 
    494 F.3d 1133
    , 1134 (7th Cir.
    2007). A bare-bones motion seeking a stay of voluntary
    departure is equally unhelpful. Without more information,
    this court cannot assess the likelihood that Mr. Stepanovic
    could succeed in demonstrating that the BIA erred by
    dismissing his appeal.
    No. 07-3883                                               3
    Accordingly, it is ordered that this motion is denied.
    MOTION DENIED
    A true Copy:
    Teste:
    _____________________________
    Clerk of the United States Court of
    Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    USCA-02-C-0072—1-4-08
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-3883

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 1/4/2008

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/24/2015