Knez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

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 | 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