Cluster 1579628

See Regan v. Wald, 468 U.S. 222, 242 (1984) (“Matters relating to the conduct of foreign relations are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.”) (internal citations omitted); Comm. of U.S. Citizens v. Reagan, 33 859 F.2d 929, 944 (1988) (“Our approach reflects concern about separation of powers and a reluctance to constitutionalize foreign policy choices . . . .”); Cubaexport v. U.S. Dep’…

That opinion made the distinction in the context of defending an “already-acquired property right in [the] existing HAVANA CLUB registration” against an attempt to “renew the HAVANA CLUB mark and to thus extend its rights in the mark for another ten years.” Empresa Cubana Exportadora de Alimentos y Productos Varios v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 516 F. Supp. 2d 43, 59 (D.D.C. 2007).

Consequently, the Court declines to dismiss the plaintiff’s APA claim under § 706(2)(B). 15 15 In declining to address legal issues not adequately raised by the defendants in relation to the plaintiff’s claim under § 706(2)(B), the Court is also guided by the “fundamental rule of judicial restraint” that courts should “not reach constitutional questions in advance of the necessity of deciding them.” Empresa Cubana Exportadora de Alimentos y Productos Varios v. U.S. Dep’t of …

Generally speaking, “an agency pronouncement is transformed into a binding norm if the statement’s language, context, and available extrinsic evidence indicate the agency so intended.” Empresa Cubana Exportadora de Alimentos y Productos Varios v. United States, 516 F.Supp.2d 43, 58 (D.D.C.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Generally speaking, “an agency pronouncement is transformed into a binding norm if the statement’s language, context, and available extrinsic evidence indicate the agency so intended.” Empresa Cubana Exportadora de Alimentos y Productos Varios v. United States, 516 F. Supp. 2d 43, 58 (D.D.C. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Further, it should explain what process Cubaexport was afforded with respect to this particular determination.” Cubaexport v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 516 F.Supp.2d 43, 56-57 (D.D.C. 2007).

See Culbro, 213 F.Supp.2d at 256 ; Empresa Cubana Exportadora de Alimentos y Productos Varios v. United States Dep’t of Treasury, 516 F.Supp.2d 43, 47 (D.D.C.2007).

Courts have, however, carved out some exceptions to that rule, such as in circumstances where “admission [of extra-record evidence] is necessary to determine ‘whether the agency has considered all relevant factors and has explained its decision’.... ” Northwest Environmental Advocates v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 460 F.3d 1125, 1145 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019 , 1030 (9th Cir.2005)); see also United States v. Akzo Coatings of Ameri…

Cir. 2002); see also Wildearth Guardians v. Salazar, 783 F.Supp.2d 61, 72 (D.D.C. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted) (“Generally speaking, ‘an agency pronouncement is transformed into a binding norm if the statement’s language, context, and available extrinsic evidence indicate the agency so intended.’ ”), quoting Empresa Cubana Exportada de Alimentos y Productos Varios v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 516 F.Supp.2d 43, 58 (D.D.C. 2007). 1.