Singh v. Ashcroft

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
JUL 7 2004
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
LAKHWINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v. No. 04-9561
(Petition for Review)
JOHN ASHCROFT, (No. A78-049-613)
Respondent.
ORDER
Before BRISCOE and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Lakhwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India appearing pro se,
has included a request for a stay of removal within his petition seeking this
court’s review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration
Appeals. We deny the request as: (1) improperly presented, and (2) inadequately
supported.
A petitioner’s request for a stay of removal pending review should be
presented by separate motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 18. The motion should
contain an argument establishing our jurisdiction over petitioner’s appeal and
addressing: “‘(a) the likelihood of success on appeal; (b) the threat of irreparable
harm if the stay or injunction is not granted; (c) the absence of harm to opposing
parties if the stay or injunction is granted; and (d) any risk of harm to the public
interest.’” O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao De Vegetal v. Ashcroft , 314
F.3d 463, 465-66 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting 10th Cir. R. 8.1 as formerly
numbered); see also Fed. R. App. P. 18; 10th Cir. R. 18.1. To facilitate our
consideration of the motion, the petitioner should always attach the decision of
the Board of Immigration Appeals and, in a case such as this one, where the
Board did not write separately on all of the issues, the decision of the immigration
judge (IJ) as well. See Yuk v. Ashcroft , 355 F.3d 1222, 1230 (10th Cir. 2004).
Obviously, whenever possible, the petitioner also should file the administrative
record, or relevant portions of it, to support any factual assertions.
In this case, the only argument appearing in the petition for review is that
the Board’s logic was faulty when it upheld the denial of petitioner’s application
for adjustment of status based on his marriage to a United States citizen. The
argument is not further developed or supported by citation to relevant authority,
and petitioner therefore has not shown that he is likely to succeed on appeal. He
has made no argument at all showing that he will suffer irreparable harm if
removed to India.
-2-
Petitioner’s request for a stay of removal is denied without prejudice.
Entered for the Court
PATRICK FISHER, Clerk
By:
Deputy Clerk
-3-