to suffer irreparable harm in the ab sence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008); see also Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1126—27 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). A plaintiff also may obtain a preliminary injunction upon a showing of “serious questions going to the merits and a hardship balance that tips sharply towards the plaintiff ..., so long as the plaintiff also shows a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Alliance For the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1046 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (<HOLDING>). “In all cases, the burden of persuasion
holding that the slidingscale standard for granting preliminary injunctions survives winter v natural resources defense council inc 555 us 7 129 sct 365 172 led2d 249 2008 holding that the serious questions approach survives winter when applied as part of the fourelement winter test holding that the slidingscale approach also survives winter in the context of stays holding that parole survives deportation holding that a serious questions version of the sliding scale approach to preliminary injunctions survives winter