MEMORANDUM **

Amy Cox appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion for a preliminary injunction in her action alleging Truth in Lending Act and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Am. Hotel & Lodging Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles, 834 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cox’s motion for a preliminary injunction because Cox failed to establish that she is likely to succeed on the merits. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (setting forth factors for issuance of a preliminary injunction); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1603(1); 12 C.F.R. § 226.3(a)(1) (loans made for business or commercial purposes are exempt from the provisions of TILA); Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (where a plaintiff fails to show that she is likely to succeed on the merits, the court need not consider the remaining three Winter factors).

We reject as unsupported by the record Cox’s contention that the district court applied the heightened standard for a mandatory injunction.

We do not consider issues raised or evidence introduced for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.