The terms of some of the current CAAs depended on the exchange by the signatory countries of diplomatic notes attesting that each country has established the legal framework for the implementation and operationalization of the agreement. The United States will have a stronger negotiating position to conclude additional agreements if a domestic regulatory framework is already in place during the negotiations. The circumstances of the agreement between the United States and Canada underscore this reality, as it took almost two years between the conclusion of the agreement and its implementation through the proclamation of final rules. This delay has not been as problematic in the context of U.S.-Canada relations, given that relatively few foreigners are subject to the U.S.-Canada agreement. In contrast, a much larger number of foreigners arriving at the southern border will be affected by acAs currently developing outside of Canada. To bring the figures from the United States. Asylum seekers at a more manageable level and to have a strong negotiating position with other potential third countries, the United States needs the flexibility to reach the current AAs much faster than the two-year period that passed between the signing and execution of the agreement between the United States and Canada. In addition, countries that sign CAAs with the United States may be discouraged from maintaining their obligations under the agreements if the United States significantly delays their operationalization, after declared to these countries that their accession to these agreements was an urgent priority for the United States. Cf.
E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 932 F.3d 742, 776 (9th Cir. 2018) (“East Bay I”) (“The impediment to the president`s ability to implement new policy in response to a current foreign policy crisis is the kind of “definitely undesirable international consequence” that justifies invoking the foreign affairs exception.”). This rule will not have a significant direct impact on states, on the relations between national government and states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between different levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have a sufficient impact on federalism to warrant a summary impact assessment on federalism. The Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-224, 31 USC 6301 et seq.) makes the fundamental distinctions between purchase contracts, grants, and cooperation agreements.
It is therefore not necessary – and in fact incompatible with the inA`s legal system of withdrawal – to require IJ to verify a finding that Section 208(a)(2)(A) prevents an alien from seeking asylum. In Section 208(a)(2)(A), Congress authorized the executive branch to work within the president`s foreign policy authority to conclude international agreements that more equitably distribute the burden of potential asylum access for refugees and international asylum seekers. § 208 (a) (2) (A) preserves, by its provisions, the flexibility of the executive in the conclusion of such agreements. The provision imposes two clear requirements that limit these international agreements only to countries that provide access to full and fair protection procedures and are places where the life or liberty of an alien would not be harmed by protected soil. . . .