Blake v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 19-14316 (11th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

The Eleventh Circuit held that petitioner, a convicted drug trafficker who has illegally entered into the United States three times, was not entitled to an emergency stay of removal. The court denied his motion to stay removal and held that, although petitioner presented evidence that he faced a risk of grave harm if he was removed to Jamaica, more was required to prevail on his motion. In this case, petitioner failed to establish a strong showing that he was likely to succeed in proving that the BIA erred when it concluded that he was not entitled to file an untimely motion to reopen. The court granted petitioner's motions to seal his records before this court and will carry his motions for judicial notice with the case.

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 15, 2022.

Download PDF
Case: 19-14316 Date Filed: 12/23/2019 Page: 1 of 19 Case: 19-14316 Date Filed: 12/23/2019 Page: 2 of 19 Case: 19-14316 Date Filed: 12/23/2019 Page: 3 of 19 Case: 19-14316 Date Filed: 12/23/2019 Page: 4 of 19 Case: 19-14316 Date Filed: 12/23/2019 Page: 5 of 19 Case: 19-14316 Date Filed: 12/23/2019 Page: 6 of 19 Case: 19-14316 Date Filed: 12/23/2019 Page: 7 of 19 Case: 19-14316 Date Filed: 12/23/2019 Page: 8 of 19 Case: 19-14316 Date Filed: 12/23/2019 Page: 9 of 19 Case: 19-14316 Date Filed: 12/23/2019 Page: 10 of 19 Case: 19-14316 Date Filed: 12/23/2019 Page: 11 of 19 Case: 19-14316 Date Filed: 12/23/2019 Page: 12 of 19 Case: 19-14316 Date Filed: 12/23/2019 Page: 13 of 19 Case: 19-14316 Date Filed: 12/23/2019 Page: 14 of 19 Case: 19-14316 Date Filed: 12/23/2019 Page: 15 of 19 Case: 19-14316 Date Filed: 12/23/2019 Page: 16 of 19 Case: 19-14316 Date Filed: 12/23/2019 Page: 17 of 19 Case: 19-14316 Date Filed: 12/23/2019 Page: 18 of 19 Case: 19-14316 Date Filed: 12/23/2019 Page: 19 of 19
Primary Holding

The Eleventh Circuit held that petitioner, a convicted drug trafficker who has illegally entered into the United States three times, was not entitled to an emergency stay of removal.


Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.