Stepanovic, Zvonko v. Holder, Eric H.

Seventh Circuit

Stepanovic, Zvonko v. Holder, Eric H.

511 F.3d 653, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 29547, 2007 WL 4465545

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedDecember 21, 2007

Docket07-3883

StatusPublished

This text of 511 F.3d 653 (Stepanovic, Zvonko v. Holder, Eric H.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stepanovic, Zvonko v. Holder, Eric H., 511 F.3d 653, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 29547, 2007 WL 4465545 (7th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

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

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the court on the petitioner’s motion for stay of running of voluntary 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. Stepanovie makes no attempt to describe his arguments on appeal, let alone demonstrate that he would succeed on the merits. Zvonko Stepanovie’s three-paragraph 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 repeatedly 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, 507 F.3d 1074 (7th Cir.2007); Koutcher v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1133, 1134 (7th Cir.2007). A bare-bones motions seeking a stay of voluntary departure is equally unhelpful. Without more information, this court cannot assess the likelihood that Mr. Stepanovie could succeed in demonstrating that the BIA erred by dismissing his appeal.

Accordingly, it is ordered that this motion is denied.

Motion Denied

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the court on the petitioner’s motion for stay of running of voluntary 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. Stepanovie makes no attempt to describe his arguments on appeal, let alone demonstrate that he would succeed on the merits. Zvonko Stepanovie’s three-paragraph 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 repeatedly 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, 507 F.3d 1074 (7th Cir.2007); Koutcher v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1133, 1134 (7th Cir.2007). A bare-bones motions seeking a stay of voluntary departure is equally unhelpful. Without more information, this court cannot assess the likelihood that Mr. Stepanovie could succeed in demonstrating that the BIA erred by dismissing his appeal.

Accordingly, it is ordered that this motion is denied.

Motion Denied

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

511 F.3d 653, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 29547, 2007 WL 4465545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stepanovic-zvonko-v-holder-eric-h-ca7-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack