RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                                Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
                                       File Name: 25a0140p.06

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT



                                                             ┐
 ARSEN SARKISOV,
                                                             │
                                             Petitioner,     │
                                                              >        No. 23-3965
                                                             │
        v.                                                   │
                                                             │
 PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,                             │
                                           Respondent.       │
                                                             ┘

                                On Motion for Stay of Removal.
                  Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals.
                                       No. A 098 822 051

                               Decided and Filed: May 29, 2025

                  Before: GILMAN, GRIFFIN, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.
                                  _________________

                                            COUNSEL

ON MOTION FOR STAY OF REMOVAL: Arsen Sarkisov, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina,
pro se. ON RESPONSE: Jennifer A. Bowen, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
                                      _________________

OPINION

                                      _________________

       THAPAR, Circuit Judge. An immigration judge issued a final order holding that Arsen
Sarkisov, an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, is subject to deportation. Over
six years later, Sarkisov moved to reopen his case, but the immigration judge denied that motion.
Sarkisov appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which rejected his claim. In 2023,
Sarkisov appealed the Board’s decision to our court. At the same time, he asked our court to stay
 No. 23-3965                           Sarkisov v. Bondi                                    Page 2


the immigration judge’s deportation order for the duration of the appeal. The United States did
not oppose this request for a stay. The case was then paused for almost a year while Sarkisov
sought to negotiate a resolution with the government. But the litigation resumed when those
efforts failed. Sarkisov’s motion for a stay is now before us.

        The traditional test for a stay governs an alien’s request for a stay of removal pending
appeal. Nken v. Holder, 

 (2009). The alien requesting a stay “bears the burden
of showing” that the court should exercise its discretion to award this extraordinary form of
equitable relief. 

 at 433–34.

        To satisfy that burden, the applicant must show, among other factors, (1) that he is likely
to succeed on the merits of his underlying appeal and (2) that he will be irreparably injured
without a stay. 

. But these two factors “are the most critical.” 

 Only “[o]nce an
applicant satisfies the first two factors” does the court assess (3) the harm to the opposing party
and (4) weigh the public interest. 

 at 434–35. These last two factors merge into a single
inquiry when the government is the opposing party. 

.

        Here, Sarkisov hasn’t met his burden. His two-page motion doesn’t show that he is
entitled to a stay under Nken.

        Start with the first factor, likelihood of success on the merits. Far from persuading us that
he is likely to succeed, Sarkisov’s stay motion doesn’t say anything at all about the merits. So he
can’t establish this factor.

        Second, Sarkisov hasn’t offered a single reason why he would suffer irreparable harm
without a stay. He offers only the conclusory assertion that “I will suffer irreparable harm if I
am removed.” ECF No. 3 at Pg. 1. But removal from the United States “is not categorically
irreparable.” Nken, 

. When Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, it repealed a prior statute that prevented aliens who leave
the United States from continuing to seek review of their removal orders. 

 Since litigants like
Sarkisov are now free to continue pursuing their appeals from abroad if they are deported while
the appeal is pending, “the burden of removal alone cannot constitute the requisite irreparable
 No. 23-3965                           Sarkisov v. Bondi                                   Page 3


injury.” 

 Thus, without any additional arguments showing why his removal during appeal
would cause him irreparable harm, Sarkisov can’t satisfy this factor.

        Sarkisov’s failure to satisfy these two “most critical” stay factors—likelihood of success
on the merits and irreparable harm—dooms his motion. 

; see also D.T. v. Sumner Cnty.
Schs., 

, 326–27 (6th Cir. 2019) (explaining in the analogous context of a
preliminary injunction that irreparable injury is always required before a court may award
preliminary equitable relief). In any event, Sarkisov has also failed to establish that his removal
pending appeal would harm the public interest. “There is always a public interest in prompt
execution of removal orders.” Nken, 

. “The continued presence” in the United
States of an alien lawfully determined to be removable “permits and prolongs a continuing
violation of United States law.” 

 (cleaned up). Sarkisov hasn’t argued that his case is
different.

        To be sure, the government has not opposed Sarkisov’s motion for a stay. But that
doesn’t mean that Sarkisov is entitled to relief.

        First, the government’s non-opposition can’t relieve Sarkisov of his burden to satisfy the
Nken test. Here, neither party has made any arguments about likelihood of success, irreparable
harm, or the public interest. And because Sarkisov is the party who “bears the burden of
showing that the circumstances justify” an exercise of our equitable discretion, we must hold
against him his failure to make that showing. See 

 at 433–34.

        What’s more, the government may not effectively compel a court to enter equitable relief
by failing to oppose a motion that seeks such relief. A stay pending appeal is an extraordinary
remedy that lies within the discretion of the court. Equitable remedies such as stays are “never
awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 

 (2008). Thus, a court
must decide for itself whether this remedy is warranted, even though the government does not
oppose its issuance.

        Accordingly, the motion for a stay of removal is DENIED.