Published by : Times of India - Date: December 02, 2020
Quotes and Excerpts from Rajiv on the article:
“The court invalidated both sets of the rules on procedural grounds, but the decision has strong undertones of disapproval on the merits as well,” Rajiv S Khanna, managing attorney at Immigration.com told TOI. “The court noted that the department of labour had known since 2017 they wanted to make changes in the wage structure. There was no reason for them to hasten the implementation without giving the public a chance to participate – known as the notice and comment period.”
“The DHS regulations were invalidated on similar grounds. In a footnote the court pointed out that the definition of specialty occupation had remained unchanged since the year 1991. That is a reference to a principle of administrative law that requires an agency to articulate in detail if they change their position on a long-held opinion. There are several other such indications that the court disapproved the regulations on the merits as well. What that means is that if these regulations were ever promulgated again, they could still be challenged and invalidated,” explained Khanna.
Khanna is of the view that from the beginning, it was pretty clear that these regulations could not survive judicial scrutiny. The actions appear to have been motivated by the desire to pander to anti-immigration voters’ opinion and politics, rather than policy.
For more details please see the attachment below.
Add new comment