"...These People Simply Don’t Have Standing
The Department of Justice argued in its brief that the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the regulations at issue.
To sue, a plaintiff must suffer a cognizable injury and, in this case, the changes to the rules governing asylum do not harm the nonprofit organizations.
The nonprofit organizations attempt to skirt the standing rule by claiming that the revised rules will force them “to divert significant resources to, among other things, understanding the new policy,” and “educating and advising its staff, clients, and prospective clients” on the new policy.
The plaintiffs also complain the new regulations will reduce their funding, which is partly based on the number of clients they serve.
Neither of these claimed injuries are enough for standing.
Perhaps recognizing the weakness of their argument, in a brief filed late Friday, the ACLU changed its tack, arguing for the first time that it has “third party standing” to challenge the new regulations.
...Therein lies the real regulatory change and the real complaint: To receive asylum, an individual need only have a “well-founded fear of persecution” on account of any one of five protected grounds, which is a lower standard than the “reasonable fear” standard governing withholding of removal.
But the “reasonable fear” standard is no high hurdle.
It merely requires an individual to prove that such persecution is more likely than not.
...But, under the new regulations, the only aliens facing removal to their native lands are those who lack a reasonable fear of persecution..."
Read all.
No comments:
Post a Comment