Opinion ID: 773640
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Panel Decision

Text: 25 The panel majority's analysis concluded, based on Black's Law Dictionary, that the plain meaning of enjoin  includes the grant of a stay. Andreiu, 223 F.3d at 1113. Of course, as Judge Learned Hand pointed out many years ago,it is one of the surest indexes of a mature and developed jurisprudence not to make a fortress out of the dictionary; but to remember that statutes always have some purpose or object to accomplish. Cabell v. Markham, 148 F.2d 737, 739 (2d Cir. 1945), aff'd, 326 U.S. 404 (1945). But even if we were to accept Black's as definitive, it still does not follow thatenjoin includes stay. 26 Black's defines enjoin as [t]o legally prohibit or restrain by injunction. Black's Law Dictionary 550 (7th ed. 1999) (emphasis added). It defines stay as thepostponement or halting of a proceeding, judgment or the like. Id. at 1425. These are very different definitions. Enjoin  refers to prohibitions or restraints on conduct through the equitable mechanism of an injunction. A stay, by contrast, is a temporary halt to legal proceedings. Put simply, injunctions run against parties; stays run against courts and judgments. Nothing in Black's suggests that they amount to the same thing. Indeed, Black's definition of injunction contains a lengthy list of various types of injunctions; nowhere in this list does the term stay appear. See id. at 788. 27 Moreover, Supreme Court precedent forbids simply equating enjoin and stay on the basis of dictionary definitions. In Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp. , 485 U.S. 271 (1988), the Court rejected the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine, under which, for reasons relating to the merger of law and equity, certain types of stay orders had been considered as injunctions. The Court stated, An order by a federal court that relates only to conduct or progress of litigation before that court ordinarily is not considered an injunction . . . . Id. at 279. Any conclusion to the contrary could only be based on sterile and antiquated doctrine. Id. at 287. With the merger of law and equity, the practice of describing these stays as injunctions lost all connection with the reality of the federal courts' procedural system. Id. at 283. Gulfstream thereby forecloses any automatic equation of the term enjoin with the term stay. The Court's decision does not necessarily mean that the two terms can never be related, but it does mean that courts must engage in a more probing analysis of the statute before assuming a linguistic identity. APPLICATION 28 In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the en banc court concludes it should address the merits of the stay motion rather than remand the motion to the panel. Since under the permanent IIRIRA rules we retain discretion to grant stays although in fewer categories of cases than before, we hold that the standard to be applied under §§ 1252(f) is the discretionary stay standard in Abbassi. Under Abbassi, the petitioner must show either (1) a probability of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) that serious legal questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the petitioner's favor. Abbassi, 143 F.3d at 514 (enumeration added). 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. Id. We conclude that, even under the more generous Abbassi standard, the panel's conclusion that Andreiu is not entitled to a stay is correct. 29 As to the first Abbassi test, Andreiu has not demonstrated a probability of success on the merits. The BIA concluded that Andreiu had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. Andreiu presented evidence of a single 1991 attack by figures tenuously connected to the government, but presented no evidence demonstrating that the current Romanian government or its officials desire to do him harm. As such, we cannot find on this record that Andreiu has demonstrated a probability of success on the merits. 30 Turning to the second Abbassi test, we note that Andreiu's petition consists primarily of conclusory allegations that the BIA's decision was based on frivolous grounds. Andreiu also contends that he was unable to obtain certain evidence while in INS detention. 2 Although these claims might arguably raise a serious legal question, the balance of hardships does not tip sharply in Andreiu's favor. 31 Ordinarily, the balance of hardships will weigh heavily in the applicant's favor, especially if it appears that the country of origin will not freely permit a return to the United States upon a grant of asylum. Other important factors include separation from family members, medical needs, and potential economic hardship. 32 None of these factors are implicated in this case. As the BIA noted, Andreiu is the son of a wealthy land-owner and a member of an educated Romanian family. Unlike many asylum applicants, he is unlikely to face economic hardship if he were to return to Romania. Andreiu does not appear to have any family in the United States from whom he would be required to separate. Moreover, given the improvements in Romania since 1989, Andreiu's claims of possible persecution, by themselves, are insufficient to show genuine hardship. Cf. Lucacela v. Reno, 161 F.3d 1055, 1056 (7th Cir. 1998) (denying stay of removal to Romanian asylum applicant and noting the substantial improvements in Romania). Finally, we note that during the time in which Andreiu alleged political persecution, he had visas to visit other countries and made up to eight trips outside of Romania between 1990 and 1991. As such, Andreiu cannot establish that he will be unable to return freely to the United States should his petition be successful. 33 Our decision to deny the stay, of course, is not a decision on the merits of Andreiu's petition for review, and nothing we hold today is meant to prejudice Andreiu's ability to advance any of the claims asserted for review in subsequent proceedings.