the burden of proving it had a valid reason to terminate asylum status ...; and (3) the termination of the plaintiffs asylum had a direct and immediate effect on the plaintiffs day-to-day life, including the loss of the plaintiffs legal right to live and work in the United States, and to travel in and out of the United States.’ ” R. 31, PagelD#: 569-70. Relying on Singh and Sidhu, Jama maintains because he cannot make the “same legal arguments” in later proceedings and will lose certain benefits means the termination of his refugee status was final agency action. R. 32, PagelD# :590, 593-94. As an initial matter, the practical legal effects of agency decisions on Jama’s life goes to the second element of the Bennett test, not the first. See Bennett, 520 U.S. at 178, 117 S.Ct. 1154 (<HOLDING>). Further, just because legal burdens and
holding the connection is an element holding the fourth element asks if but for the defendants actions the plaintiff would have been in a less harmful position holding the second element asks whether the action is one from which legal consequences will flow holding that second element of qualified immunity test is whether the law violated was clearly established holding that the statement failure to pay will leave our client with no choice but to consider legal action did not violate  1692e5 by threatening legal action because at most the language  threatened that the creditor will have to consider legal action and therefore no action of any kind is threatened by defendant collection agency