# MORIELLO v. BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

> District Court, M.D. North Carolina · November 15, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10254159

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** November 15, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10254159

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

REBECCA MORIELLO, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) 1:22CV969
)
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, )
MERRICK GARLAND, in his official )
capacity as United States Attorney General, )
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
LORETTA C. BIGGS, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Stay
Pending Review. (ECF No. 3.) For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.
Plaintiff Rebecca Moriello initiated this action on November 10, 2022, alleging that the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) misapplied relevant legal standards and disregarded
relevant evidence in issuing its decision to suspend her from legal practice before the
Immigration Courts, BIA, and Department of Homeland Security for a thirty-day period.
(ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff maintains that the BIA’s suspension decision was arbitrary and
capricious and not supported by substantial evidence, thus violating the Administrative
Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (E). (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 29–33.)
“[T]he grant of interim relief [is] an extraordinary remedy involving the exercise of a
very far-reaching power, which is to be applied only in [the] limited circumstances which
clearly demand it.” Steakhouse, Inc. v. City of Raleigh, 166 F.3d 634, 637 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting
Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 814 (4th Cir. 1991)). “[T]he movant
must establish the following to obtain a temporary restraining order or a preliminary

injunction: (1) that [she] is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that [she] is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in
[her] favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest.” Patel v. Moron, 897 F. Supp. 2d
389, 395 (E.D.N.C. 2012) (citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)).
Here, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s motion, the BIA’s decisions and orders, and
other evidence of record, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown that she is likely to

succeed on the merits of her claim, which decidedly weighs against the granting of a temporary
restraining order. Both the BIA’s decision and order dismissing her appeal, (ECF No. 4-1),
and the Adjudicating Official’s initial suspension decision, (ECF No. 4-2), appear to have
considered all relevant evidence and reasonably interpreted 8 C.F.R. § 1003.102(n) to permit
sanction. The evidence shows that Plaintiff repeatedly refused to follow the orders of court
staff when instructed to stop using her phone, and this escalated into a situation where court

proceedings were interrupted, and police ultimately called, resulting in Plaintiff having to be
escorted from the courtroom. (ECF No. 4-2 at 4–9.) The reviewed evidence is supportive of
the BIA’s finding that Plaintiff “seriously impair[ed] or interfere[d] with the adjudicative
process.” (Id. at 11.) Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff’s allegation that BIA’s decision
was “arbitrary and capricious” and “not supported by substantial evidence” is unlikely to
succeed on the merits. While the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff’s thirty-day suspension

will inevitably cause some harm to Plaintiff and her small firm practice, such harm does not
rise to a level permitting the “extraordinary remedy” of interim relief. The Court finds that in
balancing all the necessary factors, a temporary restraining order is not warranted.
For the reasons stated herein, the Court enters the following:

ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order and Stay Pending Review, (ECF No. 3), is DENIED.
This, the 15th day of November 2022.

/s/ Loretta C. Biggs
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10254159. Public record. Not legal advice.