v. Robertson, 28 F.3d 753, 758 (8th Cir.1994). However, “[o]ne does not have to await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain preventative relief.” Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298, 99 S.Ct. 2801, 2308, 60 L.Ed.2d 895 (1979) (citation omitted). One factor in deciding whether plaintiff has alleged an actual or imminent threat of injury is whether plaintiff is challenging a regulation which he himself is the object. When a plaintiff challenges a government regulation that governs the conduct of someone other than the plaintiff, then the plaintiff faces a difficult task to show that the threat of injury to plaintiff is certain and imminent. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561-63, 112 S.Ct. at 2137. On the other hand, if a plaintiff challenges a governme Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). As articulated by the Supreme Court, a
holding that plaintiff met requirements for standing to challenge an agencys actions in lifting restrictions on snowmobiling because she swore that she visits the park at least twice a year and described specific imminent future trips she had planned holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination holding appellant produced no evidence that when she made her complaints to management she ever mentioned that she felt she was being treated unfairly due to her race or sex holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired holding that substantial evidence did not support agencys finding fear speculative when petitioner had offered evidence that she had already had two children that she planned to have more that she had gone to great lengths to avoid being sterilized in china and that she had removed her iud after escaping to the united states