Casillas v. Holder, 656 F.3d 273

Casillas was served with an immigration complaint in 1995 asserting no right to be in the U.S. and admitted deportability; he waived challenges to the charge.
On September 4, 1996, an IJ ordered removal unless Casillas voluntarily departed by November 4, 1996.
In 2009, DHS located Casillas in the U.S. and detained him regarding the 1996 removal order; he sought a stay arguing he left before the deadline, supported by an expired Mexican passport and a 1998 marriage certificate.
DHS denied the stay on June 2, 2009, concluding the 1996 conditional order had become final because Casillas failed to prove pre-departure departure.
Casillas sought a speedy bond hearing; he was deported on June 9, 2009; the IJ dismissed the bond motion for lack of jurisdiction on June 11, since Casillas was no longer in the U.S.
Casillas filed a petition for review in the Sixth Circuit claiming unlawful removal because he complied with the 1996 voluntary-departure order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the enforcement of a removal order.	Casillas argues enforcement constitutes a final order reviewable by the court.	The government contends enforcement is not a final order and review is barred by statute.	No jurisdiction to review enforcement; only final orders of removal are reviewable.
Whether the petition challenges a final order or its enforcement to create jurisdiction.	Casillas contends he complied with the 1996 order, so enforcement in 2009 is reviewable.	Enforcement in 2009 does not create a new final order; the 1996 order, if time-barred, cannot be challenged now.	No jurisdiction to challenge enforcement of a time-barred 1996 order.
Whether petitioners can obtain review via other avenues (e.g., habeas corpus) for compliance with an order of voluntary departure.	A habeas challenge could test whether a removal order exists.	No direct habeas avenue here; only potential administrative/judicial routes exist, which were not pursued.	Casillas did not pursue a cognizable habeas or exhausted administrative avenues; still no jurisdiction.

Cheng Fan Kwok v. INS, 392 U.S. 206 (1968) (denials of stays not reviewable in court)
Shaboyan v. Holder, 652 F.3d 988 (9th Cir.2011) (review limitations on stay denials)
Lemos v. Holder, 636 F.3d 365 (7th Cir.2011) (review of stays denied; jurisdictional considerations)
Gottesman v. INS, 33 F.3d 383 (6th Cir.1994) (bond/parole decisions are not reviewable)
Madrigal v. Holder, 572 F.3d 239 (6th Cir.2009) (government delay may render removal final, reviewable)
Villegas de la Paz v. Holder, 640 F.3d 650 (6th Cir.2010) (late-filed reinstatement orders and government delay effects on finality)
Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542 (3rd Cir.2001) (exhaustion requirement for petition review)
Prekaj v. INS, 384 F.3d 265 (6th Cir.2004) (time limits for challenging removal orders are jurisdictional)
Madu v. Attorney General, 470 F.3d 1362 (11th Cir.2006) (habeas review available when challenging existence of a removal order)
Kumarasamy v. Attorney General, 453 F.3d 169 (3d Cir.2006) (habeas review for whether a removal order exists)
Mu Ju Li v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 575 (6th Cir.2008) (jurisdiction over final orders of removal)