Replies

In 2013, for example

Once again, joining Ann Coulter as a liar, Breitbart lies about what Kethledge actually held. Here is Ketchledges actual decision in PATEL v UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP ANDIMMIGRATION SERVICES

Here is what Ketledge wrote:

Patel filed suit in federal district court under the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging the denial [of an employment petition] as arbitrary and capricious. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of prudential standing. We reverse.

IOW the district court held that Patel did not have standing to seek judicial review of an administrative decision by USCIS. Kethledge holds that Patel does have standing to seek judicial review.

As Kethledge wrote: in enacting the Administrative Procedure Act, Congress intended to “make agency action presumptively reviewable.” ... Thus, a plaintiff lacks prudential standing only if his “interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress intended to permit the suit.”

...[excerpting a lot more well-written argument] Kethledge concludes:

Disembodied notions of statutory purpose cannot override what the statute actually says. What § 1153(b)(3) says is that the alien, ultimately, is the one who is entitled to the employment visa. The alien’s interest in receiving it is therefore within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the statute. Patel has prudential standing to challenge the denial of his prospective employer’s petition for an employment visa.Of course the Administrative State would like for its determinations not to be judicially reviewable. But that is tyranny.

SO, in conclusion, Breitbart lied, like Coulter lied, and you are too lazy to read what Kethledge actually wrote. Good job there.

First:

With regards to this part of his ruling:

make agency action presumptively reviewable

Pay special attention to the word "presumptively."

In order to prove that this was just not judicial ruling by another court and that it was not just the bench improperly legislating, you'd have to review the notes from the legislation that enacted the "Administrative Procedure Act" to actually determine if Congress actually meant for an Illegal Alien to have that right.

Furthermore, If Congress meant for the Illegal Alien to have that right, instead of just relying on Stare Decisis and "Settled" Federal common-law, it would have been a bit more refreshing if Kethledge actually questions whether or not an Illegal Alien should ever be given legal rights, but instead, focused on the fact that the Illegal Alien was actually "Illegal", and should be deported immediately.

Second:

From the case, PATEL v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, I believe the whole case hinges on whether Patel was a "qualified" alien.

If his VISA had expired, and he was in fact an Illegal Alien, should he be considered a "qualified" alien. I honestly do not know and would have to research that out myself.

As the ruling in this case pointed out, from

(iii) Other workers
Other qualified immigrants who are capable, at the time of petitioning for classification under this paragraph, of performing unskilled labor, not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which qualified workers are not available in the United States.

1. I find it highly doubtful that there were no qualified workers.
2. From my perspective, whether Federal Common Law (Judicial Rulings) alows for it or not, those Aliens that are currently Illegal, should not have that right.