Abbassi v. I.N.S.

Decision Date01 May 1998
Docket NumberNo. 98-70375,98-70375
Citation143 F.3d 513
Parties98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4534 Fereshteh ABBASSI, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

David L. Ross, Beverly Hills, California, for petitioner.

Karen Ann Hunold, Office of Immigration Litigation, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. INS No. A29-829-424.

Before: BRUNETTI, RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Fereshteh Abbassi moves for a stay of deportation pending disposition of her petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order affirming the denial of her application for asylum and withholding of deportation under sections 208(a) and 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1253(h). Upon her motion, Abbassi's deportation was stayed temporarily pursuant to De Leon v. INS, 115 F.3d 643 (9th Cir.1997). The Immigration and Naturalization Service opposes Abbassi's stay request, and we now decide whether she warrants a discretionary stay of deportation during the pendency of this petition for review.

We evaluate stay requests under the same standards employed by district courts in evaluating motions for preliminary injunctive relief. See Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir.), rev'd in part on other grounds, 463 U.S. 1328, 104 S.Ct. 10, 77 L.Ed.2d 1431 (1983). Petitioner must show either a probability of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious legal questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in petitioner's favor. See Artukovic v. Rison, 784 F.2d 1354, 1355 (9th Cir.1986); see also Arthurs v. INS, 959 F.2d 142, 143-44 (9th Cir.1992). These standards represent the outer extremes of a continuum, with the relative hardships to the parties providing the critical element in determining at what point on the continuum a stay pending review is justified. See Lopez, 713 F.2d at 1435.

Abbassi's stay request, submitted by counsel, states in full: "[p]etitioner respectfully requests a stay of deportation as she has demonstrated a prima facie case for the granting of asylum." Abbassi's perfunctory request for a stay is wholly insufficient to meet the requirements for a stay. See Artukovic, 784 F.2d at 1355. Counsel failed to discuss the merits of Abbassi's petition for review...

To continue reading

Request your trial
83 cases
  • Maldonado v. Fasano
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • May 21, 1999
    ...or (2) "that serious legal questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in petitioner's favor." Abbassi v. I.N.S., 143 F.3d 513, 514 (9th Cir.1998); National Center for Immigrants Rights, Inc. v. I.N.S., 743 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1984). However, INA § 242(f)(2) appears ......
  • Mass. Building Trades Council v. U.S. Dep't of Labor (In re MCP No. 165)
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • December 17, 2021
    ...of irreparable injury’ fails to satisfy the second factor." Nken , 556 U.S. at 434–35, 129 S.Ct. 1749 (quoting Abbassi v. INS , 143 F.3d 513, 514 (9th Cir. 1998) ). Moreover, because this case involves the Government as an opposing party, the third and fourth factors "merge." Id. at 435, 12......
  • Nken v. Holder
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 22, 2009
    ...21 (quoting Brief for Respondent 47). By the same token, simply showing some “possibility of irreparable injury,” Abbassi v. INS, 143 F.3d 513, 514 (C.A.9 1998), fails to satisfy the second factor. As the Court pointed out earlier this Term, the “ ‘possibility’ standard is too lenient.” Win......
  • Pueblo of Pojoaque v. State
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • February 9, 2017
    ...v. INS , 188 F.3d 703, 707 (7th Cir. 1999) ). Likewise, "simply showing some 'possibility of irreparable injury,' Abbassi v. INS , 143 F.3d 513, 514 (9th Cir. 1998), fails to satisfy the second factor." Nken v. Holder , 556 U.S. at 434–35, 129 S.Ct. 1749. Although the factors required for a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT