City & County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Svcs. Summary | Law Case Explained скачать в хорошем качестве

City & County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Svcs. Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 46,200 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... City and County of San Francisco v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services | 944 F.3d 773 (2019) In City and County of San Francisco versus United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, we explore the circumstances under which a court may invalidate a final agency rule. Federal immigration law has long provided that aliens who’re likely to become public charges are inadmissible. In 1996, Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, to provide that an alien is inadmissible if, in the opinion of the attorney general or consular officer, that alien is likely to become a public charge. In making this determination, the attorney general or officer must consider the alien’s health, family status, financial status, and education and skills. These nonexclusive factors are considered under a totality-of-the-circumstances test. The INA didn’t define a public charge. The Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, is tasked with administering and enforcing immigration law. In 2019, after notice and comment, DHS adopted a final rule providing that an alien’s receipt of public cash benefits, such as supplemental security income and some noncash benefits, including certain Medicaid benefits, was relevant to the public-charge determination. An alien’s receipt of noncash benefits hadn’t been relevant before. Most comments received during the comment period were negative, including concerns that the rule would have an adverse financial impact on states. DHS responded to those comments in the final published rule. Several states, counties, and municipalities, referred to here as the states, challenged the new rule in two federal district courts. The states claimed that the rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA. The district courts preliminarily enjoined implementation of the rule. DHS asked the Ninth Circuit to stay the preliminary injunctions pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit consolidated the cases. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/city-an... The Quimbee App features over 46,200 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/city-an... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom   Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom   #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries