Knez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

How later courts describe this case

• refusing to follow Harvey because “[n]o such claim of patent insubstantiality is made here”
• “Even if subsequent cases reaching the opposite result are truly indistinguishable, it is not our province to ensure an abstract and academic consistency in Board decisions.”
• plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a NEPA action based on the allegation that a proposed hospital should not be constructed near a noisy airport, because the plaintiffs would not suffer from such noise
• Harvey Aluminum distinguished as motivated by “exceptional equitable considerations”
• com-' petitive interests not with NEPA’s zone of interests
• plaintiffs who complained that they would suffer financial injury if a hospital were built did not have standing to bring a NEPA action based on their allegation that a hospital should not be constructed near a noisy airport, because the plaintiffs would not suffer from such noise.
• interrogatories and motion to stay proceedings