The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge
The matter before the Court is the Motion to Order Release of Petitioner Paul Guevarra Macalma under an Order of Supervision. (Doc. # 35.)
On November 20, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security took custody of Petitioner and placed him in removal proceedings.
On March 10, 2004, the Immigration Judge found that Petitioner was not a citizen and ordered him removed to the Philippines. Petitioner filed an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
On October 22, 2004, the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the decision of the Immigration Judge that Petitioner had not derived citizenship through his father under former section 321 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a).
On November 16, 2004, Petitioner filed a Petition for Review in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit along with a motion to stay deportation pending resolution of the appeal. Macalma v. Gonzales, No. 04-75821.
On June 14, 2005, Respondents filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion for stay of removal.
On August 5, 2005, the Court of Appeals filed an order which appears in the docket in part as follows: "respondent has filed a statement of non-opp to mtn for stay of removal; temporary stay of removal continues in effect until the issuance of the mdt or further order of the ct." (Docket # 6, Exhibit 12 at 5.)
On February 27, 2006, Petitioner filed his opening brief in the Court of Appeals along with a motion for appointment of counsel.
On March 21, 2006, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for appointment of counsel and ordered Respondents to file an answering brief within 30 days.
On June 5, 2006, Respondents filed a motion to remand to the Board of Immigration Appeals for reconsideration of the determination that Petitioner had not derived citizenship through his father under former section 321 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a). Respondents requested that the Court of Appeals remand the case to the Board "so that it can review this case in light of the Court's decision in Minaysan [v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2005)]." (Doc. #6, Exhibit 16 at 2.)
On August 23, 2006, the Court of Appeals entered an order which appears on the docket in part as follows: "unless an opp to the mtn [to remand] is filed within 14 days of this order, the mtn will be granted." (Doc. # 6, Exhibit 14 at 7.)
On September 22, 2006, the Court of Appeals granted Respondents' "unopposed" motion to remand and stated "the parties are deemed to have agreed that the court's remand order shall stay ...