Here's a bit of it -- but do go read it all:
. . . .[T]his is not a situation where a rule promulgated by a different agency could impact a rule being proposed by DHS. Rather, these were two rules proposed by the same agency, at the same time, on overlapping topics. Further, DHS published the Final Rule in this case on August 3, 2020. The final rule that impacted the waiting period had been published in June. Thus, DHS’ reference in the Final Rule to a 180-day waiting period was, by that time, demonstrably inaccurate. By failing to consider the combined impact of these rules, DHS either failed to consider an important aspect of the problem and disregarded “inconvenient facts” about the combined impact of these rules, Fox, 556 U.S. at 537, or DHS reached a conclusion that defies common sense, cf. Casa de Maryland, 2020 WL 5500165, at *28 (“It is axiomatic that without being able to work, asylum applicants lack the resources to pursue their claims.”). Either situation lends further support to the conclusion that Plaintiffs would be likely to succeed on the merits of this aspect of their challenge to the Final Rule . . .
Now you know. Onward, with a hope for healing, from all the viral outbreaks -- racism, xenophobia and sexism, plainly included.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment