are not applied mechanically, a movant must establish the existence of both of the first two factors to be entitled to a preliminary injunction.”). A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972, 117 S.Ct. 1865, 138 L.Ed.2d 162 (1997) (quoting 1 1A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948, at 129-30 (2d ed.1995)) (emphasis in the original). 1. Likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff must demonstrate that it is more likely than not to succeed on the merits of its claim to qualify for a preliminary injunction. See Revision Military, Inc. v. Balboa Mfg. Co., 700 F.3d 524, 526 (Fed.Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). On the merits, KWV will have to prove that
holding that for matters unique to the federal circuit a preliminary injunction with the effect of altering the status quo must meet the standard of more likely than not not a clear or substantial likelihood standard as required by certain other circuits in particular types of eases holding that if a state case explicitly states that the state standard is more favorable to the defendant than the federal standard the federal claim is considered adjudicated below when the state standard is applied holding that even if the standard for waiver is clear the standard was not met holding that the standard for withholding of removal is more demanding than the standard for asylum holding that the standard for permanent injunction is the same as that for preliminary injunction with the one exception being that the plaintiff must show actual success on the merits rather than likelihood of success