We changed our privacy policy. Read more.
27

No international body has jurisdiction Australia is a sovereign nation which means it has sole jurisdiction over its immigration policy. So, short answer: no international body has jurisdiction. Who does have jurisdiction? As it seems that the decision made is that the points you have been assessed by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP)...


11

The agency must have provided "reasoned analysis" for rescinding its previous rule The Supreme Court in Motor Veh. Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Ins., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) held that (emphasis added): An agency changing its course by rescinding a rule is obligated to supply a reasoned analysis for the change beyond that which may be required when an ...


11

The "arbitrary or capricious" test is a very forgiving standard that asks little more than whether an agency's decision is supported by a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285 (1974). Using the standard, a reviewing court will not ask ...


8

You don't. The only proper venue to raise the concern you do would be an Australian court or administrative agency process. Each country is the judge of its own immigration policies. There are no international courts which would have jurisdiction over the dispute you describe.


7

WWII Supreme Court Cases During WWII, the Supreme Court dealt with three main issues in their cases on Executive Order 9066: curfews, exclusions, and internment of persons with Japanese ancestry. In the lesser-known Kiyoshi Hirabayashi v. United States case, the court had to determine whether imposing a curfew on those of Japanese descent was valid. The main ...


6

Expungement rules and effects vary greatly by state. Good reading on the question can be had here, with notable exceptions to expungement here. Of particular relevance to this question: In some states, individuals who want to work as public school teachers, corrections guards, or police officers should expect that their employers will have access to ...


6

In the example given, both elements must be established. This is the most common meaning of the word "and" in a statute or rule or contract or other writing, but there are times when "and" does not have that meaning. One must always determine the meaning from context on a case by case basis. Words do not have a single universal meaning in ...


6

They need to show that they have considered the evidence, followed law and procedure and have rendered a decision on that basis This is a good overview. With specific reference to the arbitrary and capricious test: In making this determination, the reviewing court will not find that the administrative body acted arbitrarily unless the agency failed to ...


5

The primary source of law is the various laws passed by Congress known as the FD&C Act and which is codified in the relevant part at 21 USC 352(e)(1)(A)(iii), which says the established name of each inactive ingredient listed in alphabetical order on the outside container of the retail package and, if determined to be appropriate by the Secretary, ...


5

Neither law has precedence - manufacturers have to obey both. The FD&C says that they don't need to list ingredients which are trade secrets; the CFR says they must. If they list the trade secrets they do not break either law. If they don't, they break the CFR. Conclusion: they must list the trade secret ingredients. If the FD&C said it was ...


4

Edith Windsor paid $363053 in taxes that she thought she did not owe. She later challenged the constitutionality of the law that prevented its refund. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) Abigail Fisher paid a $100 application fee to the University of Texas. She sued to get it back, challenging the constitutionality of the university's race-...


4

An employer is likely to advise an employee to not communicate with an individual, if the employee has no legal obligation to communicate with the individual, and the employer believe that there is a risk of the individual suing the employer.


3

The literal translation of nulidad de pleno derecho is "null act of full right" or more ideomatically "fully null" but the phrase of equivalent meaning in English language legal terminology is void ab initio, literally "invalid from the beginning". This is an act that, because it was particularly seriously defective, should not ...


3

Does posting a letter create any 'legal' agreement between myself and the postal service? Is there any obligation to deliver a letter? Assuming that an agreement is formed, at what point in the process? When the letter entered a post-box, when it was picked up from the postbox, or later - perhaps when a post-mark is added by the postal service? ...


3

Taking California as an example, California Labor Code section 6314 (a) provides: To make an investigation or inspection, the chief of the division and all qualified divisional inspectors and investigators authorized by him or her shall, upon presenting appropriate credentials to the employer, have free access to any place of employment to investigate and ...


3

Verbatim, despite sounding like verbal, only means that it is an exact account of what was said during the proceedings. Thus appending electronic to it means that this exact record is available in some electronic form, like as a Word or PDF document - however they store it electronically. So it is simply stating you can get the verbatim record in either ...


2

All of them; it could be freely used by the organisation as evidence in court. The information on an organisation's Google Apps account belongs to the organisation: not the user.


2

Your interpretation is creating an ambiguity when none exists. Your specific question is about 32 CFR 47.4 not applying to the National Guard; however, you hone in on a single phrase while ignoring literally everything else about the regulation. So, there are additional things you look at: The purpose of the part. This part has a nice "Purpose" section at ...


2

International agreements provide that most countries (foreign) will enforce other countries' civil judgements (domestic) unless the domestic law is repugnant to the foreign law. A U.K. court would probably enforce the Thai judgement providing it was satisfied that Thai due process had been followed and that the process was not repugnant to U.K. law.


2

Your example is from 2.4(b)(1) of the style manual for "Commission and Agency Documents and Materials". The New York Public Employment Relations Board is a state level version of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that governs private sector management-union relations nationwide, for public employees in New York State. These boards have both ...


2

FD&C allows keeping of trade secrets. CFR says the inactive ingredients must be disclosed when a safety factor. Let's say we have an inactive ingredient that is a trade secret that is also a safety factor. That is incorrect. In terms of medicines, it says the inactive ingredients must be listed, not that they must only be listed if they are a safety ...


2

Systems like this risk crossing over into legal advice In almost all jurisdictions only lawyers can do this. If you keep your system as a simple automation of a paper process you should be fine but the minute it “translates the law texts into concrete instructions” you are giving legal advice. You can reproduce the law but only a lawyer can explain what it ...


2

ANSWER: NO. THE US PRESIDENT CANNOT EXERCISE POWER VI TWITTER IT APPEARS THAT IT MUST BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER TO BE OPERATIVE "The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the president some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation)." Referencing Contrubis, below. https://en....


2

The clause "assuming all of the above is permitted by statute" introduces an invalid assumption. "Permitted by the statute" is (a) a question of legal interpretation and (b) only a part of the "due process" question. In US law, "due process" means "follows the law". One source of law is the constitution (...


2

Well Britain has parliament and the judiciary and a common law that has developed through precedent. It doesn't have a written constitution as the US does. However, it's taken roughly a thousand years for Parliament to evolve to this stage from the Kings council first held after William the Conquerer conquered England and then much later a civil war, which ...


2

After the experiences of Nazi rule, Germany wrote Article 20(4) in the constitution: All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seek­ing to abolish this constitutional order if no other remedy is available. This right prevents the excuse of many German soldiers and officials after WWII, "but I took an oath on the Führer, I had to follow ...


2

The university gives you no reason to think that the statement "Students may forgive any three courses, provided that they are not required for their major" means "Students may forgive any three courses, provided that they are not used to satisfy any university requirements". They also clearly state that "Forgiveness cannot be ...


1

Competent evidence is admissible under the relevant rules of evidence for the tribunal. Material evidence bears directly on a point that is in contention before the tribunal. Substantial evidence is compelling in deciding the point.


1

To add a bit of detail from the FDA's own write-up on how they navigate the apparently conflicting requirements... they are clearly not fond of such requests for ingredient secrecy, but they may grant them in the sense of putting a more vague label on the product. That doesn't mean the applicant doesn't have to submit the exact nature of the substance to the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible