The applicants submitted a combined response in support of their request for the application of the Flores transaction and the designation of a particular monitor, and against the defendant`s request for investigation. AILA and the American Immigration Council filed a letter from Amicus with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to support the complainants` request, arguing that the transaction does not allow the government to prevent the timely release of children accompanied by decisions concerning their parents. Amici also argued that the transaction should be interpreted in a strict and faithful manner and that the court should force or create mechanisms to control and enforce the transaction. The applicants responded to the government`s request to expedite the timing of their appeal against Judge Dolly Gee`s August 2015 order that DHS must comply with the Flores Settlement Agreement until October 23, 2015. In their response, the applicants did not answer the question of whether the Tribunal should expedite the government`s appeal. However, the applicants rely on many of the factual assertions made in the government`s request. p> AILA issued a press release saying that these rules „must denounce the Flores Settlement Agreement, a decades-long judicial system set up to ensure the safety and proper care of children in immigration situations.“ According to Justice Department lawyers, the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which oversees housing, has the power to treat children without parental consent because young people are under the guardianship of the authority. The Flores Colony has also set minimum standards for licensed programs and has established that these facilities must comply with all applicable government child protection laws and regulations, as well as all national and local rules on construction, fire, health and safety. The FSA established a „preferential classification for types of sponsorship“ with the parents, then as a legal guardian as a first choice, then as an „adult parent,“ „an adult person or institution designated by the parent or legal guardian of the child,“ a „licensed program that agrees to accept custody of the children,“ an „adult or an agency accredited by the Refugee Reception Authority (RRO). [34]:8[3]:10 or sent to a state-sanctioned agency.

[31] [35] [36] The government sent a letter to the Ninth Circuit and asked the court to do so. to overturn the July 24, 2015 ruling by Judge Dolly Gee, which found that the Obama administration`s imprisonment of immigrant families was contrary to the 1997 Flores Transaction Treaty, which governed the treatment and conditions of unaccompanied minors in federal immigration detention. The government argues that the landgericht erred in the decision that the Flores agreement applies to minors accompanied by non-citizens and their non-citizen adults. Moreover, the government argues that the district court wrongly rejected the government`s request to amend the Flores agreement. (Flores v. Lynch, 1/15/16) p> The court ordered the government to provide treatment to asylum-seeking families until today, October 23, in accordance with the Flores Transaction Treaty. As the government did not wish to reside, the court order was upheld, while the government`s appeal to the Ninth arrondissement progressed and, as of today, children should be released „without unnecessary delay“.“ (See this brochure for more information on the litigation and its impact on family detention.) NPR: The History of the Flores Settlement and Its Effects on Immigration President Trump has ordered the Justice Department to file request to modify a short agreement known the Flores settlement to allow for immigrant families to be detained together at the border.

  Posted in: Allgemein