has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.’ ” Id. at 434, 129 S.Ct. 1749 (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987)). “There is substantial overlap between these and the factors governing preliminary injunctions.” Id. at 434, 129 S.Ct. 1749. “The first two factors ... are the most critical.” Id. The factors may be weighed on a sliding scale, where “a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); see also Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962,
holding that a serious questions version of the sliding scale approach to preliminary injunctions survives winter holding that agency opinion letters and policy statements unlike regulations are not entitled to deference under chevron usa inc v natural res def council inc 467 us 837 104 sct 2778 81 led2d 694 1984 holding that the slidingscale approach also survives winter in the context of stays holding that the serious questions approach survives winter when applied as part of the fourelement winter test 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