context: Based on the foregoing analysis, we hold that 8 U.S.C. SS 1252(f)(2) does not apply to motions for injunctive relief pending appeal of habeas corpus decisions. Upon reaching a similar conclusion regarding stays of removal pending petitions for review, Andreiu determined that it was appropriate to apply the traditional standard for interim injunctive relief.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 784 F.2d 1354, 1355
citation_a.parenthetical: applying traditional standard in alien's appeal from denial of habeas petition challenging extradition
citation_a.sentence: See also Artukovic v. Rison, 784 F.2d 1354, 1355 (9th Cir.1986) (amended order) (applying traditional standard in alien’s appeal from denial of habeas petition challenging extradition); cf. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987) (“the general standards governing stays of civil judgments should also guide courts when they must decide whether to release a habeas petitioner pending the State’s appeal”).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 481 U.S. 770, 776
citation_b.parenthetical: "the general standards governing stays of civil judgments should also guide courts when they must decide whether to release a habeas petitioner pending the State's appeal"
citation_b.sentence: See also Artukovic v. Rison, 784 F.2d 1354, 1355 (9th Cir.1986) (amended order) (applying traditional standard in alien’s appeal from denial of habeas petition challenging extradition); cf. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987) (“the general standards governing stays of civil judgments should also guide courts when they must decide whether to release a habeas petitioner pending the State’s appeal”).