Which of the following was the result in Alexis Perez v. John Ashcroft, the case in the textbook in which the plaintiff claimed that—without formal rulemaking as required by law—the Immigration and Naturalization Service wrongfully imposed a rule that required visa applicants who work in a professional capacity in a religious vocation to have formal religious training?a)The court ruled that no formal rule making was required because the agency was merely interpreting previously approved regulations.

b)The court ruled that no formal rule making was required because the Immigration and Naturalization Service was exempt from the Administrative Procedures Act.

c)The court upheld the rule on the basis that as a potential immigrant, the plaintiff lacked standing to sue.

d)The court struck the rule on the basis that the Immigration and Naturalization Service lacked the authority to pass any rules whatsoever when First Amendment freedom of religion rights were at issue.

e)The court struck the rule on the basis that all substantive rules adopted by an agency creating law must be implemented through formal rule-making procedures.

The court struck the rule on the basis that all substantive rules adopted by an agency creating law must be implemented through formal rule-making procedures.

Answer: Option E.

Explanation:

Substantive rule is a regulatory principle made by an administration office's activity of assigned semi authoritative power. It is embraced by government offices as per the notification and remark necessities of the Administrative Procedure Act. These standards have the power of law.

The part of the law that creates, defines, and regulates rights, including, for example, the law of contracts,torts, wills, and real property; the essential substance of rights under law are examples of substantive rules.