活跃农民-感谢提供高质量信息和讨论

- 积分
- 509
- 学分
- 个
- 大米
- 升
- 人参
- 枚
- 水井
- 尺
- 小麦
- 颗
- 萝卜
- 根
- 小米
- 粒
- UID
- 56106
- 注册时间
- 2012-3-17
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 好友
- 收听
- 听众
- 日志
- 相册
- 帖子
- 主题
- 分享
- 精华
|
本帖最后由 tomoran 于 2016-1-13 02:47 编辑 . 鐣欏鐢宠璁哄潧-涓浜╀笁鍒嗗湴
摘录一些
First, they argue that the district court does not have jurisdiction because the case has been appealed. However, case law suggests that the district court can still consider DHS’ request and then DHS can request the appeals court to remand the case back to the district court so the extension can be granted.
Second, Plaintiffs argue that the circumstances are not “extraordinary” enough for relief to be granted.
.鏈枃鍘熷垱鑷1point3acres璁哄潧
Here, DHS requested extension for two reasons, 1. due to the number of comments submitted, and 2. due to the amount of training needed to implement the new rule. Plaintiffs main argument here is that DHS had time since 2008 to properly implement the rule, rather than just the six months the court granted.
Plaintiffs also blame DHS for any possible disruption to students and their employers because DHS could have used this six month period to inform students to prepare to leave the country or look into other options to stay. 好不要脸的plantiffs!给我滚粗!
Next point, Plaintiffs argue that even if the extension is granted, there is no guarantee that DHS will get the new rule in place by even May 10th. . Waral 鍗氬鏈夋洿澶氭枃绔,
=======================
个人作为法盲,觉得原告抗辩的观点属于胡搅蛮缠。
|
|