Immigration law
How to request stays of removal and emergency injunctions in federal court to preserve client presence pending review.
A practical guide for attorneys seeking stays of removal and emergency injunctions in federal court to preserve a client's presence pending review, detailing criteria, steps, and strategic considerations for effective litigation and relief.
Published by
Anthony Young
August 04, 2025 - 3 min Read
In federal immigration practice, seeking a stay of removal or an emergency injunction is often the fastest route to preserve a client’s status while the government appeals or litigates its decision. A stay temporarily halts deportation or removal actions, allowing an orderly review process to unfold. Courts consider whether irreparable harm will occur without relief, whether the public interest weighs in favor of delay, and whether the applicant meets the threshold for staying the decision. Successful requests hinge on thorough factual development, clear legal theory, and credible representations about potential consequences for the client if removal proceeds.
The foundational step is identifying the correct procedural avenue. A stay of removal can be sought in parallel with an appeal, or through a petition for review in the circuit alongside a separate request for emergency relief. When the risk is imminent, counsel may file an emergency motion for stay or injunction in the district or appellate court, depending on the posture of the case. Precision in timings matters; delays can erode leverage or undermine a client’s chance for relief. Preparing a robust record early sets the tone for the court’s consideration of necessity and urgency.
Provide concrete records and ties showing potential irreparable harm.
A well-crafted motion for a stay or injunction begins with jurisdictional clarity, establishing the legal basis for equitable relief in immigration matters. The motion should explain why immediate action is required to prevent irreparable harm, such as separation from family, loss of employment, or disruption of health care. The factual section should present concrete, verifiable details, including travel history, prior removals, and any protected characteristics or legal entitlements that could influence the court’s discretionary balance. Citations to controlling authority, including circuit precedent and relevant district court decisions, strengthen the argument and guide the judge toward a favorable assessment of necessity and proportionality.
Supporting affidavits from the client and corroborating witnesses provide indispensable corroboration for the claimed harm. When possible, attach documentary evidence—pending applications, medical records, housing leases, or school enrollments—that demonstrates ongoing ties to the United States and the client’s entrenched interests in remaining. The court’s decision rests not only on abstract legal standards but also on the real-world impact of removal. A careful, organized submission helps judges evaluate whether the stay’s conditions can be fashioned to preserve the client’s presence without compromising public interests or the orderly administration of immigration processes.
Anticipate and address opposing arguments with precise responses.
In the legal theory section, articulate how the stay aligns with the standard for extraordinary relief. Courts often require a likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying immigration claim, a probability of irreparable harm without relief, and a balancing of equities in the movant’s favor. The brief should address how a temporary delay preserves the status quo while the case is litigated. If the government’s position rests on discretionary decisions, highlight the limits of discretion where due process rights or statutory obligations might be implicated. A thorough, well-reasoned argument improves the chance that the court will intervene.
The evidentiary package should also anticipate the government’s anticipated counterarguments. Prepare responses to assertions that delay would prejudice public safety or undermine immigration enforcement. Propose careful conditions for the stay if appropriate, such as reporting obligations, travel restrictions, or supervised entry measures. Detailing practical safeguards demonstrates judicial prudence and reduces perceived risk to the state. The aim is to craft a stay that respects public interests while allowing meaningful appellate review. Clear, cautious drafting helps prevent the court from prematurely concluding that withholding relief serves the national interest.
Structure the filing to emphasize urgency, legality, and safeguards.
When pursuing emergency relief in federal court, timing is the defining variable. The movant must show that the facts supporting relief were not reasonably available earlier and that the applicant acted with diligence. Courts typically require a probability of success on the merits when deciding on extraordinary relief, alongside a credible claim of irreparable harm. If the client’s case involves constitutional considerations, such as due process or nonarbitrary treatment in removal proceedings, emphasize both the constitutional stakes and the practical consequences of deportation during ongoing litigation. The motion should be narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessarily broad relief that could undermine legitimate governmental interests.
Drafting a precise emergency motion involves balancing urgency with meticulous attention to procedural requirements. Include a detailed procedural history, a clear statement of the desired relief, and proposed terms for monitoring compliance. Attach evidence demonstrating the immediacy of risk and the client’s ongoing ties to the United States. The court may require a bond or other security, depending on the circumstances; anticipate such possibilities and propose reasonable safeguards. A well-structured filing presents the court with a ready-made framework to grant temporary relief while ensuring orderly, lawful continuation of the review process.
Present a clear, practical plan for maintaining stability and review.
Section-by-section, the argument should connect facts to law with coherence. The legal standard for a stay remains rooted in the court’s discretion to prevent irreparable harm, provided there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and a balanced public interest. Discuss statutory provisions and applicable regulations alongside relevant case law. Emphasize any protective factors—such as family unity, employment permits, or health needs—that weigh in favor of relief. The court’s evaluation will hinge on how convincingly the moving party demonstrates that the anticipated harms of removal are neither speculative nor reversible at a later stage in the litigation.
After establishing the core standards, include a practical plan for maintaining client presence. Propose specific compliance measures, like periodic check-ins, notification requirements, or medical or educational documentation updates. If the client’s status depends on pending relief, outline a roadmap showing how the case will proceed, including anticipated procedural steps and key deadlines. Demonstrating a realistic path to resolution helps the court assess the likelihood that the stay will be effective and proportionate to the issues presented. Such a plan also reassures the client and their family during a stressful legal process.
Beyond the stay, consider whether an emergency injunction is appropriate. Injunctions, unlike stays, require more robust proof of the likelihood of success on the merits and the chance of irreparable harm. If a constitutional or statutory right is implicated, or if the government’s actions threaten ongoing violations, an injunction may be warranted. The moving party should outline how the injunction would operate in practice, including any limitations or conditions necessary to prevent interference with enforcement priorities. Courts weigh the balance of equities and the public interest with care, ensuring that relief does not impede legitimate governmental functions beyond what is necessary to preserve the status quo.
In closing, preparing effective stays of removal and emergency injunctions demands careful strategy, precise drafting, and thorough record-keeping. The attorney’s role includes safeguarding the client’s rights while respecting the government’s need to enforce immigration laws. A well-supported application, filled with credible evidence and persuasive legal argument, increases the likelihood that a court will intervene promptly. Regardless of outcome, these motions establish a framework for timely relief, enabling continued judicial review and keeping families together during the critical period between decision and disposition. Vigilant preparation and thoughtful advocacy remain the hallmarks of successful immigration litigation.
