Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Nken: Traditional Stay Factors Govern a Request to Pause Removal During Judicial Review

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published August 29, 2026

Nken v. Holder concerned a request to pause removal to Cameroon while the court of appeals reviewed the denial of a motion to reopen.

A stay postpones rather than invalidates agency action

The Court distinguished a temporary judicial stay from an injunction that commands or restrains conduct as ultimate relief.

Section 1252(f)(2) did not supply the stay standard

The stringent statutory language governing certain injunctions did not displace the courts’ traditional stay framework.

Four familiar factors apply

Courts consider likelihood of success, irreparable injury, injury to other parties, and the public interest, with the first two carrying particular weight.

Removal alone is not automatically irreparable

An applicant must show concrete harm and a meaningful merits position; filing a petition for review does not itself stop removal.

Key takeaways

• File the petition for review and stay motion in the correct court.
• Address all four stay factors with record-supported facts.
• Explain specific irreparable consequences beyond removal’s ordinary effects.
• Do not assume a pending motion or petition creates an automatic stay.