On 7/10/2020 11:49 AM, Const wrote:
> Due to COVID-19, SEVP instituted a temporary exemption regarding online courses for the spring and summer semesters. This policy permitted nonimmigrant students to take more online courses than normally permitted by federal regulation to maintain their nonimmigrant status"
>
> -- то есть облегчила для иностранных студентов регуляции 2012 года.
тут интересно просто взять и почитать Harvard/MIT lawsuit:
http://orgchart.mit.edu/sites/default/files/reports/20200708-Harvard-MIT-Complaint-Injunctive-Relief.pdf
...
39. The March 13 Guidance indicated that it was a “temporary provision”
that would remain “in effect for the duration of the emergency.” SEVP
also noted that the situation was “fluid” and “difficult” and that “SEVP
will continue to monitor the COVID-19 situation and will adjust its
guidance as needed.”
40. The President’s national emergency declaration has not been
rescinded or terminated. An emergency in fact continues to persist, as
daily COVID-19 cases in the United States have never significantly
decreased and have recently begun spiking in several regions.
41. Notwithstanding the March 13 Guidance’s statement that it would
remain “in effect for the duration of the emergency,” on June 4, 2020
SEVP issued a “Frequently Asked Questions” document asserting that “SEVP
has not issued guidance to international students and schools for the
fall semester.”
...
56. On July 6, 2020, without employing notice and comment rulemaking, or
even giving students or universities any indication that it was
considering revising its policy, SEVP issued a document (the “July 6
Directive”), attached as Exhibit 1,10 which an accompanying “News
Release” described as announcing “modifications … to temporary
exemptions for nonimmigrant students taking online classes due to the
pandemic for the fall 2020 semester.
дальше там лоерским языком со ссылкой на акты и прецеденты объясняется,
почему этот agency action является arbitrary and capricious и нарушает
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, потому что он Fails To
Consider Important Aspects Of The Problem Before The Agency (Count I),
Fails To Offer Any Reasoned Basis That Could Justify The Policy (Count
II), и Violates The APA’s Requirement Of Notice-And-Comment Rulemaking
(Count III)
делаем ставки, уроют ли гарвардские лоеры государственных
по китайскому вопросу они их таки урыли:)