Mullin v. Doe · ¶131
And the claims that the majority refuses to review are in fact meritorious, because the Secretary did not consult (as the statute demands) with “appropriate agencies of the Government” about “the conditions” in Haiti and Syria. §1254a(b)(3)(A). As everyone agrees, the only relevant communications here were brief email exchanges between an aide to the Secretary and an official at the State Department (a clearly “appropriate” agency). The aide stated (in two separate emails) that Haiti’s and Syria’s TPS designations were up for review; the official then replied as to each that the State Department had “no foreign policy concerns” with a termination of TPS. 2 App. 763; Administrative Record in No. 25–cv–8686 (SDNY), ECF Doc. 72–2, p. 156. The problem with those exchanges is that they were not about the right thing. The statute insists on consultations about whether country conditions are…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.