The excerpt reflects an errata sheet from the First Circuit amending an opinion issued on May 29, 2026. The amendment directs a correction to the spelling of the defendant’s name in the case caption on the cover page.

The excerpt does not provide substantive merits reasoning. It states only that the opinion is amended so the cover page case caption changes the defendant’s name from "GARCÍA-TORRO" to "GARCÍA-TORO."

Cover page (case caption): Please change "GARCÍA-TORRO" to "GARCÍA-TORO"

Errata Sheet

The official opinion caption is corrected to reflect the proper spelling of the defendant’s name. The excerpt does not indicate any change to the court’s substantive ruling.

In this immigration matter, the petitioners sought a stay of removal while their en banc case remained pending. The court had previously denied the stay motion, but after en banc briefing and oral argument it revisited that ruling. The order also directed supplemental briefing on whether Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland supports the Board of Immigration Appeals’ nexus analysis, whether Rodriguez-Zuniga should be overruled in whole or in part, and whether any overruling argument was preserved.

The en banc court stated that, in light of en banc briefing and oral argument, it was now apparent that the petitioners met the standard for a stay of removal under Nken v. Holder. On that basis, it vacated its prior order denying the stay and granted the opposed motion to stay removal pending disposition of the en banc case. The order itself did not further explain the merits analysis, but it identified the asylum and withholding nexus issue and possible reconsideration of Rodriguez-Zuniga as subjects for supplemental briefing.

In light of en banc briefing and oral argument, it is now apparent that Petitioners meet the standard for a stay of removal under Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009).

Order

I would not vacate our earlier denial of the motion seeking a stay of removal because the petitioners still have not made a “strong showing that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits.”

Kenneth K. Lee; Eric C. Tung

The petitioners cannot be removed while the en banc case remains pending, and the parties and amici may file supplemental briefing on the identified Rodriguez-Zuniga questions.

Plaintiffs Joshua Harris and Donita Olds appealed a district court decision regarding arbitration and delegation provisions in loan agreements. The district court had based its decision solely on the prospective waiver doctrine, and the parties initially framed their appeal arguments around that singular issue.

The court determined that contract formation is a clear prerequisite for delegation and arbitration, providing a narrower path to resolving the case. The court noted that even the most sweeping delegation cannot send the contract-formation issue to the arbitrator. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment on any ground supported by the record, having requested and received supplemental briefing on the formation issue from both parties.

Even the most sweeping delegation cannot send the contract-formation issue to the arbitrator

K.F.C., 29 F.4th at 837

The ruling clarifies that courts must independently assess contract formation before enforcing arbitration clauses, even when the parties have not initially raised the issue on appeal.