Case Name: AYUDA, INC., et al., v. Richard THORNBURGH, individually and as Attorney General of the United States, et al., Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1990-11-13
Citations: 919 F.2d 153
Docket Number: No. 90-5293
Parties: AYUDA, INC., et al., v. Richard THORNBURGH, individually and as Attorney General of the United States, et al., Appellants.
Judges: Before WALD, Chief Judge, EDWARDS and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 919
Pages: 153–157

Head Matter:
AYUDA, INC., et al., v. Richard THORNBURGH, individually and as Attorney General of the United States, et al., Appellants.
No. 90-5293.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Nov. 13, 1990.
Before WALD, Chief Judge, EDWARDS and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Chief Judge Wald concurs in part and dissents in part from the order granting a stay, for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion.
Judge Henderson concurs in the order granting a stay, for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of appellants' motion for stay of Supplemental Order XIV, the response thereto, and the reply, and the parties' memoranda and the district court's Memorandum Opinion responding to certain questions posed by this court, it is
Ordered that the motion for stay of Supplemental Order XÍV be granted. Appellants have demonstrated satisfaction of the standards necessary for a stay pending appeal. See Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C.Cir.1977); D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 38-39 (1987). In light of this Court's previous ruling that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review legalization determinations under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, see Ayuda, Inc. v. Thornburgh, 880 F.2d 1325 (D.C.Cir.1989), petition for cert. filed, 58 U.S.L.W. 3451 (U.S. Dec. 27, 1989) (No. 89-1018), appellants have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their appeal, and appellees were unable to make this same requisite showing necessary to obtain interim injunctive relief in the district court. See Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921 (D.C.Cir.1958).