The panel held that the Settlement unambiguously
applies both to minors who are accompanied and
unaccompanied by their parents.
The panel held, however, that the district court erred in interpreting the Settlement to provide release rights to accompanying adults. The panel also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the government’s motion to amend the Settlement.
Final Divorce Order Halburn v. Halburn 11d-516 1/23/2013Putnam Reporter
This document is a final divorce order from the Family Court of Putnam County, West Virginia regarding the divorce of Dolores Jean Halburn and Mark Vance Halburn. It details the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached by the court. The court granted the divorce based on irreconcilable differences and allocated primary custody of the minor child to Dolores, with every other weekend visitation to Mark. The court considered forensic psychological evaluations of both parties and found Mark has a personality disorder and tendency to generate interpersonal conflicts, posing a risk of harm to the child. Dolores expressed concerns about Mark's volatile behavior escalating conflicts and potentially endangering the child. The court credited Dolores' testimony in restricting Mark's
Order reversing in part and affirming in part, the Final Divorce Order - Halb...Putnam Reporter
Order reversing in part and affirming in part, the Final Divorce Order in the appeal of the Final Divorce Order in the case of Dolores Jean Halburn v. Mark Vance Halburn. Case #11d-516 in Putnam County Circuit Court.
Forensic Psychiatric Mental Evaluation - Mark Vance Halburn 07c-198Putnam Reporter
An exhibit included in a Motion to Dismiss in the case of Dolores Halburn and Mark Halburn v. The City of Hurricane, Ben Newhouse, Cleveland Construction, and Kanawha Stone Co.
This is not a protected medical record.
It is a report from a court ordered examination.
It is part of the public record in Putnam County WV case #07c-198
This document is a lawsuit filed by Mark Halburn against multiple individuals and organizations. It alleges conspiracy, defamation of character, intentional infliction of emotional distress, deception of the court, and violation of civil rights related to a domestic violence protection order filed against Halburn in 2017. The document makes numerous allegations of lies and false statements in the protection order and related hearings. It requests injunctive relief including expungement of the protection order, makeup parenting time, damages exceeding $100 trillion, transfer of custody of Halburn's son to him, and other remedies.
Bill, an American citizen, wants to apply for asylum in the US on behalf of his niece Jane, a Canadian citizen. However, Jane's father John, a Canadian citizen, has custodial rights over Jane and could oppose the application. For Jane to be granted asylum, she would need to demonstrate a credible well-founded fear of persecution upon returning to Canada, but the facts provided so far do not clearly show this. It is recommended to gather more evidence of specific political persecution before proceeding with the application.
01/04/13 RESPONSE To 11/05/12 US Supreme Court Documents ReturnedVogelDenise
This document is a response from Denise Newsome to the Supreme Court regarding documents returned to her without explanation on November 5, 2012. It requests that the Court provide in writing by January 25, 2013 any deficiencies or lack of understanding regarding Newsome's October 30, 2012 petition that was received by the Court on November 5, 2012. Newsome reiterates demands for information on any conflicts of interest. The response aims to preserve Newsome's rights and address matters of public and international importance.
This document is a joint scheduling report submitted to a federal court in the Southern District of Florida for Case No. 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON. It provides summaries of the plaintiff and defendants' positions. The plaintiff, a former federal inmate, alleges civil rights violations against a halfway house and its employees. He claims they unlawfully searched, arrested, and imprisoned him. The defendants contend the plaintiff violated the conditions of his home detention and was terminated from the halfway house program. No defenses have been asserted yet, as the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.
This joint scheduling report summarizes a civil case between plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu and defendants Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Lashota. Bujduveanu, a former federal inmate, alleges violations of his constitutional rights and other claims related to his imprisonment at Dismas Charities halfway house. The defendants contend that Bujduveanu violated the conditions of his home detention and was terminated from the halfway house program. A motion to dismiss filed by the defendants is pending. The parties disagree on the length of the trial and likelihood of settlement. They outline proposed discovery deadlines and trial dates in an attached schedule.
Final Divorce Order Halburn v. Halburn 11d-516 1/23/2013Putnam Reporter
This document is a final divorce order from the Family Court of Putnam County, West Virginia regarding the divorce of Dolores Jean Halburn and Mark Vance Halburn. It details the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached by the court. The court granted the divorce based on irreconcilable differences and allocated primary custody of the minor child to Dolores, with every other weekend visitation to Mark. The court considered forensic psychological evaluations of both parties and found Mark has a personality disorder and tendency to generate interpersonal conflicts, posing a risk of harm to the child. Dolores expressed concerns about Mark's volatile behavior escalating conflicts and potentially endangering the child. The court credited Dolores' testimony in restricting Mark's
Order reversing in part and affirming in part, the Final Divorce Order - Halb...Putnam Reporter
Order reversing in part and affirming in part, the Final Divorce Order in the appeal of the Final Divorce Order in the case of Dolores Jean Halburn v. Mark Vance Halburn. Case #11d-516 in Putnam County Circuit Court.
Forensic Psychiatric Mental Evaluation - Mark Vance Halburn 07c-198Putnam Reporter
An exhibit included in a Motion to Dismiss in the case of Dolores Halburn and Mark Halburn v. The City of Hurricane, Ben Newhouse, Cleveland Construction, and Kanawha Stone Co.
This is not a protected medical record.
It is a report from a court ordered examination.
It is part of the public record in Putnam County WV case #07c-198
This document is a lawsuit filed by Mark Halburn against multiple individuals and organizations. It alleges conspiracy, defamation of character, intentional infliction of emotional distress, deception of the court, and violation of civil rights related to a domestic violence protection order filed against Halburn in 2017. The document makes numerous allegations of lies and false statements in the protection order and related hearings. It requests injunctive relief including expungement of the protection order, makeup parenting time, damages exceeding $100 trillion, transfer of custody of Halburn's son to him, and other remedies.
Bill, an American citizen, wants to apply for asylum in the US on behalf of his niece Jane, a Canadian citizen. However, Jane's father John, a Canadian citizen, has custodial rights over Jane and could oppose the application. For Jane to be granted asylum, she would need to demonstrate a credible well-founded fear of persecution upon returning to Canada, but the facts provided so far do not clearly show this. It is recommended to gather more evidence of specific political persecution before proceeding with the application.
01/04/13 RESPONSE To 11/05/12 US Supreme Court Documents ReturnedVogelDenise
This document is a response from Denise Newsome to the Supreme Court regarding documents returned to her without explanation on November 5, 2012. It requests that the Court provide in writing by January 25, 2013 any deficiencies or lack of understanding regarding Newsome's October 30, 2012 petition that was received by the Court on November 5, 2012. Newsome reiterates demands for information on any conflicts of interest. The response aims to preserve Newsome's rights and address matters of public and international importance.
This document is a joint scheduling report submitted to a federal court in the Southern District of Florida for Case No. 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON. It provides summaries of the plaintiff and defendants' positions. The plaintiff, a former federal inmate, alleges civil rights violations against a halfway house and its employees. He claims they unlawfully searched, arrested, and imprisoned him. The defendants contend the plaintiff violated the conditions of his home detention and was terminated from the halfway house program. No defenses have been asserted yet, as the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.
This joint scheduling report summarizes a civil case between plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu and defendants Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Lashota. Bujduveanu, a former federal inmate, alleges violations of his constitutional rights and other claims related to his imprisonment at Dismas Charities halfway house. The defendants contend that Bujduveanu violated the conditions of his home detention and was terminated from the halfway house program. A motion to dismiss filed by the defendants is pending. The parties disagree on the length of the trial and likelihood of settlement. They outline proposed discovery deadlines and trial dates in an attached schedule.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit seeking to reunite an asylum-seeking mother and her 7-year-old daughter fleeing violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo, only to be forcibly torn from each other in the U.S. and detained separately 2,000 miles apart.
On June 26, 2018, the court issued 2 orders (1) granting preliminary injunction and (2) certifying class action status.
This order was uploaded by me, Josh Goldstein. I'm an immigration lawyer in Los Angeles, California. You can reach me at:
http://www.immigrationlawyerslosangeles.com/
Law Offices of Joshua L Goldstein, PC
811 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
I am licensed to practice law in Massachusetts, New York. I practice immigration and nationality law in all 50 states and around the world. Not licensed to practice law in California.
A search warrant filed in U.S. District Court, obtained by 7 Eyewitness News, reveals while in the Niagara County jail – James Stivers requested to quote “make a phone call to his sister in order to have her throw out his computer so that he could beat his case.”
06/01/18 Cary Cornelius Johnson's CEASE & DESIST - RedactedVogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
This is a redacted version of Cary Cornelius Johnson’s June 1, 2018, “CEASE AND DESIST – RESPONSE DUE BY JUNE 11, 2018 – NOTIFICATION TO PUBLIC and NOTICE OF REQUEST SEEKING INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL PROSECUTION” filed In The Municipal Court (Greenville, Mississippi).
KNOW YOUR OPTIONS REGARDING LEGAL and/or LAWFUL DEFENSES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES’ DESPOTISM Government Empire’s Nazis and/or WHITE Jews/Zionists/White Supremacists who are DISGUISED in Law Enforcement Uniforms and are engaging in WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, CRIMES AGAINST PEACE, WAR OF AGGRESSION, ACTS OF TERRORISM, etc.
As many are seeking ALTERNATIVES and SOLUTIONS to the United States Of America’s DESPOTISM Government Regime created and CONTROLLED/RUN by Nazis and/or WHITE Jews/Zionists/Supremacists, it is through the Legal and/or Lawful formation of a “NEW” Government – Utica International Embassy – that those seeking FREEDOM, INDEPENDENCE and SEPERATION, etc. from the United States’ DESPOT Empire that LIBERATION “WILL” COME!
Through the Utica International Embassy, we are OVERTHROWING and/or THROWING OFF the United States of America’s DESPOTISM Government and TAKING CONTROL of our DESTINY – Lives, Liberties and Pursuit of Happiness, etc.
The WHITE Man’s ways have FAILED and it is TIME for the NATIVES, NATIVE AMERICANS and those who have been LABELED by the WHITE Man as Blacks/Negroes/African-Americans/People-Of-Color to TAKE CONTROL. .
VIDEO IS AT: https://youtu.be/d8pkPQSzfFU
UTICA INTERNATIONAL EMBASSY WEBSITE:
https://uticainternationalembassy.website
11/11/19 International Criminal Court-Notice of Amicus Curiae Written Submiss...VogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
Notice That The Utica International Embassy’s Interim Prime Minister Vogel Denise Newsome Will Provide Amicus Curiae Written Submission For The Appeals Hearing Of 4-6 December
Request For Protective Witness Services – VICTIMS and WITNESS UNIT
Notice To Request United Nations Police Services…
Update On The Formal Criminal Charges Regarding the Situation In The United States of America
Request For REPARATION, RESTITUTION and SETTING UP Of TRUST FUND(S)
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT REFERENCE:
OTP-CR-367/18
This document summarizes several key Supreme Court cases related to juvenile delinquency and criminal justice:
1) Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) established the right to legal counsel for criminal defendants who cannot afford it.
2) Brady v. Maryland (1963) created a duty for prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence.
3) Miranda v. Arizona (1966) required informing arrested persons of their rights before interrogation.
4) In re Gault (1967) extended due process rights like right to counsel to juveniles in delinquency cases.
5) Batson v. Kentucky (1986) prohibited racial discrimination in jury selection.
Gerald Francis Gault, a 15-year-old boy, was arrested for allegedly making an obscene phone call. He had previously been on probation. Gault's parents were not notified when he was taken into custody. At a juvenile court hearing, Gault was committed to a state industrial school until age 21 without the right to legal counsel. The Supreme Court later ruled in favor of Gault, finding that juveniles deserve basic legal protections similar to those afforded adults.
This document discusses marrying internationally and the immigration process with attorney James P. Hentz. There are three circumstances for a spousal petition: if the spouse is overseas, entered the US with a visa, or entered without documentation. The process involves filing a petition, getting a visa approved, and adjusting status once in the US. Criminal convictions can lead to denied petitions. Co-sponsors may be needed if the petitioner does not meet income requirements.
This document discusses issues that may arise when representing foreign nationals in criminal cases in the United States. It covers:
1) Questions of jurisdiction and what statutes provide extraterritorial jurisdiction for crimes committed abroad or on vessels in international waters.
2) The rights of foreign nationals to consular assistance and how violations of notification treaties could impact cases.
3) The importance of language issues and using qualified interpreters to avoid ineffective representation claims.
4) The severe immigration consequences foreign nationals may face, including removal from the country, for even minor criminal convictions.
5) Challenges obtaining evidence and witnesses from foreign countries and the need to use procedures like letters rog
The Supreme Court ruled that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not claim citizenship and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. The Court also ruled that Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories, effectively nationalizing slavery. This landmark decision had wide-ranging legal and social consequences for decades.
The document provides a summary of the landmark Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright and discusses its significance. It describes how Clarence Gideon was denied a lawyer at his trial, so he petitioned the Supreme Court. The Court then overturned an earlier decision and ruled that the 6th Amendment requires states to provide lawyers for criminal defendants who cannot afford one. This ruling established the right to counsel and transformed the criminal justice system by creating public defender offices.
Brown Memo In Opposition To Contempt MotionJRachelle
This document is a memorandum filed by attorney Susan Brown in opposition to a motion seeking to hold her in contempt of court. It summarizes the following key points:
1) Defendant Thompson owned a property in the Bahamas called "Horizons" and had a right to possession after Anna Nicole Smith's death.
2) After Smith's death, Defendant Shelley and others entered Horizons to secure it upon being told by Bahamian attorneys and courts to do so immediately.
3) Brown's involvement was limited and she claims to never have publicly disclosed or transferred any materials belonging to Smith's estate in violation of the court order.
The document summarizes the Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright. Clarence Gideon was charged with a felony in Florida and requested a court-appointed attorney but was denied. He was subsequently convicted. The Supreme Court later unanimously ruled that Gideon's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated, establishing that states must provide attorneys for criminal defendants unable to afford their own counsel.
This is the final judgment of Oriel Jean Oriel Jean — the former security chief of ex-President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and whose testimony in U.S. courts a decade ago helped take down key figures in Haiti’s drug trafficking underworld
In 2005, Jean was sentenced to three years in prison in a money-laundering plea deal after helping the U.S. Attorney’s Office convict several Haitians and Colombians of moving tons of Colombian cocaine through Haiti to the United States.
At Jean’s November 2005 sentencing, U.S. District Judge Jose Martinez complimented him for his “good work.” In his court testimony, Jean indirectly implicated former Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide and also testified against him before the grand jury.
Those are complex issues with reasonable arguments on both sides. Overall, Miranda seeks to balance law enforcement needs with protecting individual rights.
11/25/19 ICC AMICUS CURIAE Of Vogel Denise Newsome (UIE Seal)VogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
This is the Amicus Curiae that the United States of America’s President Donald Trump, Congressional Members, Military, their Legal Counsel Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz and their CO-Conspirators (Town of Utica MS Officials/Hinds County MS Officials/Newsome’s Siblings, etc.) had the Utica International Embassy’s Interim Prime Minister Vogel Denise Newsome KIDNAPPED over on 03/25/19, and conspired to have her MURDERED for purposes of silencing her voice in efforts of avoiding Investigations and Prosecution for War Crimes not only in Afghanistan, but here in the United States of America and across the WORLD!
While USA’s Congressional Members are using their Zionist-Controlled Mainstream Media to DISTRACT with their President Trump Impeachment Scandal, we are staying focused and are using our time to provide the WORLD with TRUTH and being sure that HISTORY for the FALL of the United States of America is accurate and that Donald Trump does not take the Fall alone for the WAR CRIMES orchestrated and carried out under the direction and Leadership of the Nazi/Zionist Law Firm of Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz!
This is only the BEGINNING of GREAT Things to come now that we are releasing to the PUBLIC/WORLD the attempts on the Utica International Embassy’s Leader’s Life in the USA’s quest to AVOID Investigations and Prosecutions in the Afghanistan Situation, FAILED Venezuela Invasion/Venezuela Situation, and CONSPIRACIES to have Vogel Denise Newsome MURDERED!
FindLaw | Holocaust Museum Shooting Suspect's Murder ChargesLegalDocs
This criminal complaint charges James Wenneker Von Brunn with two counts related to a shooting at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on June 10, 2009. According to the affidavit, Von Brunn drove to the museum armed with a rifle and shot and killed a security guard when he entered. He was then shot by other security guards and taken into custody. The complaint charges Von Brunn with first degree murder and killing in the course of possessing a firearm in a federal facility based on evidence that he planned and carried out the shooting.
Este documento compara la edición de video en dispositivos móviles versus ordenadores. Aunque los dispositivos móviles tienen menos potencia y capacidades, también tienen ventajas como la movilidad, la capacidad de grabar y editar con un solo aparato, y la distribución inalámbrica. Se recomienda mantener los proyectos simples y usar apps adecuadas al tipo de contenido cuando se edite en dispositivos móviles.
O documento fornece instruções sobre o uso do tradutor eletrônico eTraduto, incluindo como selecionar idiomas, fazer traduções, configurar data/hora e resolver problemas.
100 influenceurs des 10 marques influentes sur le web social par Alban Jarry ...Jérôme MONANGE
100 influenceurs des 10 marques les plus influentes sur les réseaux sociaux
Ravi d'être cité pour le groupe de luxe : LVMH
@JérômeMONANGE " Lab LUXURY and RETAIL"
Este documento resume las redes sociales más populares como Facebook y Twitter. Explica que Facebook es un sitio web creado por Mark Zuckerberg que comenzó en Harvard y ahora tiene más de 1,350 millones de usuarios en todo el mundo. También describe Twitter como una red de microblogging que permite publicar mensajes cortos de hasta 140 caracteres llamados tweets. Finalmente, enumera algunas ventajas e inconvenientes del uso de las redes sociales.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit seeking to reunite an asylum-seeking mother and her 7-year-old daughter fleeing violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo, only to be forcibly torn from each other in the U.S. and detained separately 2,000 miles apart.
On June 26, 2018, the court issued 2 orders (1) granting preliminary injunction and (2) certifying class action status.
This order was uploaded by me, Josh Goldstein. I'm an immigration lawyer in Los Angeles, California. You can reach me at:
http://www.immigrationlawyerslosangeles.com/
Law Offices of Joshua L Goldstein, PC
811 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
I am licensed to practice law in Massachusetts, New York. I practice immigration and nationality law in all 50 states and around the world. Not licensed to practice law in California.
A search warrant filed in U.S. District Court, obtained by 7 Eyewitness News, reveals while in the Niagara County jail – James Stivers requested to quote “make a phone call to his sister in order to have her throw out his computer so that he could beat his case.”
06/01/18 Cary Cornelius Johnson's CEASE & DESIST - RedactedVogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
This is a redacted version of Cary Cornelius Johnson’s June 1, 2018, “CEASE AND DESIST – RESPONSE DUE BY JUNE 11, 2018 – NOTIFICATION TO PUBLIC and NOTICE OF REQUEST SEEKING INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL PROSECUTION” filed In The Municipal Court (Greenville, Mississippi).
KNOW YOUR OPTIONS REGARDING LEGAL and/or LAWFUL DEFENSES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES’ DESPOTISM Government Empire’s Nazis and/or WHITE Jews/Zionists/White Supremacists who are DISGUISED in Law Enforcement Uniforms and are engaging in WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, CRIMES AGAINST PEACE, WAR OF AGGRESSION, ACTS OF TERRORISM, etc.
As many are seeking ALTERNATIVES and SOLUTIONS to the United States Of America’s DESPOTISM Government Regime created and CONTROLLED/RUN by Nazis and/or WHITE Jews/Zionists/Supremacists, it is through the Legal and/or Lawful formation of a “NEW” Government – Utica International Embassy – that those seeking FREEDOM, INDEPENDENCE and SEPERATION, etc. from the United States’ DESPOT Empire that LIBERATION “WILL” COME!
Through the Utica International Embassy, we are OVERTHROWING and/or THROWING OFF the United States of America’s DESPOTISM Government and TAKING CONTROL of our DESTINY – Lives, Liberties and Pursuit of Happiness, etc.
The WHITE Man’s ways have FAILED and it is TIME for the NATIVES, NATIVE AMERICANS and those who have been LABELED by the WHITE Man as Blacks/Negroes/African-Americans/People-Of-Color to TAKE CONTROL. .
VIDEO IS AT: https://youtu.be/d8pkPQSzfFU
UTICA INTERNATIONAL EMBASSY WEBSITE:
https://uticainternationalembassy.website
11/11/19 International Criminal Court-Notice of Amicus Curiae Written Submiss...VogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
Notice That The Utica International Embassy’s Interim Prime Minister Vogel Denise Newsome Will Provide Amicus Curiae Written Submission For The Appeals Hearing Of 4-6 December
Request For Protective Witness Services – VICTIMS and WITNESS UNIT
Notice To Request United Nations Police Services…
Update On The Formal Criminal Charges Regarding the Situation In The United States of America
Request For REPARATION, RESTITUTION and SETTING UP Of TRUST FUND(S)
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT REFERENCE:
OTP-CR-367/18
This document summarizes several key Supreme Court cases related to juvenile delinquency and criminal justice:
1) Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) established the right to legal counsel for criminal defendants who cannot afford it.
2) Brady v. Maryland (1963) created a duty for prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence.
3) Miranda v. Arizona (1966) required informing arrested persons of their rights before interrogation.
4) In re Gault (1967) extended due process rights like right to counsel to juveniles in delinquency cases.
5) Batson v. Kentucky (1986) prohibited racial discrimination in jury selection.
Gerald Francis Gault, a 15-year-old boy, was arrested for allegedly making an obscene phone call. He had previously been on probation. Gault's parents were not notified when he was taken into custody. At a juvenile court hearing, Gault was committed to a state industrial school until age 21 without the right to legal counsel. The Supreme Court later ruled in favor of Gault, finding that juveniles deserve basic legal protections similar to those afforded adults.
This document discusses marrying internationally and the immigration process with attorney James P. Hentz. There are three circumstances for a spousal petition: if the spouse is overseas, entered the US with a visa, or entered without documentation. The process involves filing a petition, getting a visa approved, and adjusting status once in the US. Criminal convictions can lead to denied petitions. Co-sponsors may be needed if the petitioner does not meet income requirements.
This document discusses issues that may arise when representing foreign nationals in criminal cases in the United States. It covers:
1) Questions of jurisdiction and what statutes provide extraterritorial jurisdiction for crimes committed abroad or on vessels in international waters.
2) The rights of foreign nationals to consular assistance and how violations of notification treaties could impact cases.
3) The importance of language issues and using qualified interpreters to avoid ineffective representation claims.
4) The severe immigration consequences foreign nationals may face, including removal from the country, for even minor criminal convictions.
5) Challenges obtaining evidence and witnesses from foreign countries and the need to use procedures like letters rog
The Supreme Court ruled that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not claim citizenship and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. The Court also ruled that Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories, effectively nationalizing slavery. This landmark decision had wide-ranging legal and social consequences for decades.
The document provides a summary of the landmark Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright and discusses its significance. It describes how Clarence Gideon was denied a lawyer at his trial, so he petitioned the Supreme Court. The Court then overturned an earlier decision and ruled that the 6th Amendment requires states to provide lawyers for criminal defendants who cannot afford one. This ruling established the right to counsel and transformed the criminal justice system by creating public defender offices.
Brown Memo In Opposition To Contempt MotionJRachelle
This document is a memorandum filed by attorney Susan Brown in opposition to a motion seeking to hold her in contempt of court. It summarizes the following key points:
1) Defendant Thompson owned a property in the Bahamas called "Horizons" and had a right to possession after Anna Nicole Smith's death.
2) After Smith's death, Defendant Shelley and others entered Horizons to secure it upon being told by Bahamian attorneys and courts to do so immediately.
3) Brown's involvement was limited and she claims to never have publicly disclosed or transferred any materials belonging to Smith's estate in violation of the court order.
The document summarizes the Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright. Clarence Gideon was charged with a felony in Florida and requested a court-appointed attorney but was denied. He was subsequently convicted. The Supreme Court later unanimously ruled that Gideon's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated, establishing that states must provide attorneys for criminal defendants unable to afford their own counsel.
This is the final judgment of Oriel Jean Oriel Jean — the former security chief of ex-President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and whose testimony in U.S. courts a decade ago helped take down key figures in Haiti’s drug trafficking underworld
In 2005, Jean was sentenced to three years in prison in a money-laundering plea deal after helping the U.S. Attorney’s Office convict several Haitians and Colombians of moving tons of Colombian cocaine through Haiti to the United States.
At Jean’s November 2005 sentencing, U.S. District Judge Jose Martinez complimented him for his “good work.” In his court testimony, Jean indirectly implicated former Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide and also testified against him before the grand jury.
Those are complex issues with reasonable arguments on both sides. Overall, Miranda seeks to balance law enforcement needs with protecting individual rights.
11/25/19 ICC AMICUS CURIAE Of Vogel Denise Newsome (UIE Seal)VogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
This is the Amicus Curiae that the United States of America’s President Donald Trump, Congressional Members, Military, their Legal Counsel Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz and their CO-Conspirators (Town of Utica MS Officials/Hinds County MS Officials/Newsome’s Siblings, etc.) had the Utica International Embassy’s Interim Prime Minister Vogel Denise Newsome KIDNAPPED over on 03/25/19, and conspired to have her MURDERED for purposes of silencing her voice in efforts of avoiding Investigations and Prosecution for War Crimes not only in Afghanistan, but here in the United States of America and across the WORLD!
While USA’s Congressional Members are using their Zionist-Controlled Mainstream Media to DISTRACT with their President Trump Impeachment Scandal, we are staying focused and are using our time to provide the WORLD with TRUTH and being sure that HISTORY for the FALL of the United States of America is accurate and that Donald Trump does not take the Fall alone for the WAR CRIMES orchestrated and carried out under the direction and Leadership of the Nazi/Zionist Law Firm of Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz!
This is only the BEGINNING of GREAT Things to come now that we are releasing to the PUBLIC/WORLD the attempts on the Utica International Embassy’s Leader’s Life in the USA’s quest to AVOID Investigations and Prosecutions in the Afghanistan Situation, FAILED Venezuela Invasion/Venezuela Situation, and CONSPIRACIES to have Vogel Denise Newsome MURDERED!
FindLaw | Holocaust Museum Shooting Suspect's Murder ChargesLegalDocs
This criminal complaint charges James Wenneker Von Brunn with two counts related to a shooting at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on June 10, 2009. According to the affidavit, Von Brunn drove to the museum armed with a rifle and shot and killed a security guard when he entered. He was then shot by other security guards and taken into custody. The complaint charges Von Brunn with first degree murder and killing in the course of possessing a firearm in a federal facility based on evidence that he planned and carried out the shooting.
Este documento compara la edición de video en dispositivos móviles versus ordenadores. Aunque los dispositivos móviles tienen menos potencia y capacidades, también tienen ventajas como la movilidad, la capacidad de grabar y editar con un solo aparato, y la distribución inalámbrica. Se recomienda mantener los proyectos simples y usar apps adecuadas al tipo de contenido cuando se edite en dispositivos móviles.
O documento fornece instruções sobre o uso do tradutor eletrônico eTraduto, incluindo como selecionar idiomas, fazer traduções, configurar data/hora e resolver problemas.
100 influenceurs des 10 marques influentes sur le web social par Alban Jarry ...Jérôme MONANGE
100 influenceurs des 10 marques les plus influentes sur les réseaux sociaux
Ravi d'être cité pour le groupe de luxe : LVMH
@JérômeMONANGE " Lab LUXURY and RETAIL"
Este documento resume las redes sociales más populares como Facebook y Twitter. Explica que Facebook es un sitio web creado por Mark Zuckerberg que comenzó en Harvard y ahora tiene más de 1,350 millones de usuarios en todo el mundo. También describe Twitter como una red de microblogging que permite publicar mensajes cortos de hasta 140 caracteres llamados tweets. Finalmente, enumera algunas ventajas e inconvenientes del uso de las redes sociales.
O documento descreve o tratamento Celluforce Shock para celulite, que contém vários produtos como esfoliantes, soluções ativadoras e redutoras que agem de forma sinérgica para combater a celulite de forma personalizada através de ações como drenagem, redução de gordura e inibição da formação de novas células de gordura.
La evolución histórica de la información comenzó con los primeros mensajes permanentes a través de objetos y dibujos en el Paleolítico. Los ideogramas evolucionaron a los fonogramas que asignaban sonidos a los dibujos. En el siglo I a.C., Julio César ordenó publicar diariamente el Acta Diurna, el primer periódico conocido. En los siglos siguientes, la escritura cuneiforme permitió registrar historias en tablillas de arcilla y el alfabeto cananeo contenía solo consonantes
Feasibility of phosphatase assay using the lance® ultra technology platformPerkinElmer, Inc.
This document describes the development of phosphatase assays using the LANCE Ultra TR-FRET technology. Three assays for the serine/threonine phosphatases PP1A and PP2A were developed using phosphorylated ULight-labeled peptides derived from TAU, TOPOIIa and 4E-BP1 as substrates. A tyrosine phosphatase assay for TCPTP was also developed using a phosphorylated ULight-JAK1 peptide. The assays function by monitoring the decrease in TR-FRET signal as the phosphatases dephosphorylate the peptide substrates over time. Optimization studies established suitable concentrations of peptides and antibodies. The PP2A assays demonstrated dose-dependent inhibition by okadaic acid
The Need to Eliminate Corruption ( Around the Globe)Varun
The Effects of corruption all around the Globe. The Slide Includes the Information which can be used for a seminar to be conducted on this topic. It has a Defined case Study of the 2011 Husni Mubarak regime or The Egytian revolution. There are Also the causes of Corruption and the main Reasons Mentioned and How The Removal of Corruption will Lead to better governance.
I Hope this what you want and may this Help
Done by : Varun Kakkar (IIS)
Sharjah, UAE
El periodismo digital utiliza Internet y las redes digitales como su principal medio de desarrollo y difusión de contenidos periodísticos. En los años 90, muchos periódicos estadounidenses publicaron información en plataformas digitales como precursores del periodismo digital. Hoy en día, el periodismo digital se ha convertido en un género propio con características como la multimedialidad, hipertextualidad e interactividad. Existen varios roles en el periodismo digital como el redactor web, periodista multimedia y reportero digital.
Brexit - Positionen des BankenverbandesBankenverband
Auswirkungen des Brexit auf deutsche Banken bleiben begrenzt
„Das Kundengeschäft unserer Institute wird durch den Brexit nicht beeinflusst“, erklärt Michael Kemmer, Hauptgeschäftsführer des Bankenverbandes, heute in Frankfurt. Zwar bedauere der Bankenverband die Ankündigung eines harten Brexit durch die britische Premierministerin Theresa May, die unmittelbaren Auswirkungen auf deutsche Institute seien aber begrenzt. „Deutsche Banken werden in den nächsten beiden Jahren Geschäft nach Deutschland verlagern, dies ist schon heute aufsichtlich und organisatorisch relativ einfach“, betont Kemmer. Der Bankenverband geht davon aus, dass London auch weiterhin ein bedeutender Finanzplatz bleibe. Insofern sei kein vollständiger Rückzug der Institute zu erwarten. „Das Vereinigte Königreich wird nach dem Austritt den Status eines Drittlandes erhalten. Dies ist für unsere Institute nichts Ungewöhnliches“, so Kemmer. Für die Sicherung bestehender Geschäfte seien aber rechtliche Anpassungen erforderlich.
Die Banken, so Kemmer weiter, seien an Kontinuität in der Beziehung zum Vereinigten Königreich interessiert. Langfristig müsse diese durch ein neu zu verhandelndes Wirtschaftsabkommen gesichert werden, das einen umfassenden Marktzugang ermöglicht. Kemmer betont, dass der Wirtschaftsraum der EU27 für die Banken Priorität habe. Ein Cherry-Picking des Vereinigten Königreichs dürfe es nicht geben. Der vollständige Zugang zum Europäischen Binnenmarkt sei untrennbar mit den vier Grundfreiheiten verbunden.
Negative Effekte des Brexit befürchtet Kemmer vor allem für Großbritannien. Die andauernde Unsicherheit führe zu Zurückhaltung bei Investitionen. Als wichtiger Handelspartner des Vereinigten Königreichs werde auch Deutschland davon nicht verschont bleiben. Insgesamt erwartet der Bankenverband aber nur geringe Auswirkungen auf das Wachstum und die Beschäftigung in Deutschland.
Este documento describe un proyecto realizado con estudiantes de segundo grado de preescolar sobre mezclas. El proyecto surgió de la observación de los estudiantes al mezclar crayolas y generar nuevos colores. El proyecto involucró varias actividades prácticas como mezclar pinturas, alimentos y otros materiales. Los estudiantes registraron y compartieron sus observaciones. Al final, concluyeron que existen dos tipos de mezclas - homogéneas y heterogéneas - y que las mezclas son parte de
El documento presenta un plan de las cinco erres ecológicas: reutilizar, reducir, reparar, reciclar y regular. Explica que reutilizar significa volver a usar objetos como zapatos o aceite de cocina. Reducir se refiere a sobre-envasar productos. Reciclar incluye reciclar aluminio, papel, plástico y vidrio usando diferentes contenedores de colores. La diferencia entre reutilizar y reciclar es que reutilizar usa un producto de nuevo mientras que reciclar lo convierte en algo nuevo
The document describes different types of LAB formats offered by Deloitte Greenhouse to help clients address various business needs. These include Innovation LABs to generate new ideas, Digital LABs tailored for different maturity levels in digital transformation, Strategy LABs to develop business and functional strategies, Analytic LABs to define analytics use cases, Relationship LABs to improve client relationships, Leadership LABs to address leadership strengths and barriers, Transformation LABs to develop division strategies, and Transition LABs to support executive transitions. Additionally, every LAB session is customized to the specific client business problem or developed uniquely for that client.
This power point was developed by Jackson Chin and Jose Perez of LatinoJustice for a webinar hosted by NYIC. This subject-matter will be of great concern for the unforeseeable future given the fear and panic sweeping the nation due to Trump’s Exec. Order and DHS Kelly directives to expand ICE’s enforcement and arrests.
Disclaimer: We provide this as general legal information. As legal developments and law may change, consult an attorney for legal advice suitable to one's own particular facts and circumstances.
Copyright2017 - Please give credit to LatinoJustice when citing or using any part of this material. Thank you.
Parental Kidnapping and Custody Issues PresentationReina
The document summarizes information presented by various members of Group 5 on the topic of parental kidnapping. It discusses definitions and laws related to parental kidnapping, statistics on parental kidnapping cases nationally and internationally, the economic impacts and psychological effects on children, and intervention steps and resources available. Key presenters included Scott Church on definitions and laws, Albandari Alrayes on statistics, Jake Discrol on economic impacts, Megan Griffith and Amanda on psychological effects, and Reina Connolly on intervention resources.
Protections and Care for Asylum-Seeking Children in the USDavid Rothenberg
This document discusses protections and care for asylum-seeking children in the US immigration system. It outlines how children often face detention in prison-like conditions and lack access to proper legal services. While reforms have improved conditions, more are still needed to uphold international laws regarding undocumented children. The document also examines the history of US immigration laws and policies impacting children, challenges children face in the legal process, and the Special Immigrant Juvenile Status program providing relief to abused/neglected children.
The document is a proposed court order implementing remedies for the Department of Homeland Security's breach of the Flores Settlement Agreement regarding the detention of accompanied children. Some key points of the order include:
1) Families detained by DHS can be placed in expedited removal or reinstatement processes and detained together, but must be released within 20 days on average if found to have a credible or reasonable fear of persecution.
2) Factors like risk of flight, danger, and national security will be considered in determining whether to release families, and monetary bonds can be set for those not immediately released.
3) Families may remain detained longer if release is not deemed appropriate, and detention exceeding 90 days will trigger further
As attorneys who represent hundreds of unaccompanied children and asylum seekers from Central America, we write this letter to respectfully demand that you rescind the Section M, “Accountability Measures to Protect Alien Children from Exploitation and Prevent Abuses of Our Immigration Laws” of the February 20, 2017 memorandum entitled “Implementing the Presidnet’s Enforcement Improvement Policies” given that it is in direct violation of the Flores v. Meese Settlement (“Flores”) and the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (PUBLIC LAW 110–457—DEC. 23, 2008) (“TVPRA”)
The document outlines key differences between juvenile proceedings and criminal proceedings:
1) Juvenile proceedings focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment and aim to avoid stigma, while criminal proceedings emphasize punishment.
2) Juvenile proceedings provide certain due process rights like notice, counsel, confrontation, and privilege against self-incrimination that were established in In re Gault.
3) Juveniles can be tried in juvenile court under juvenile justice processes or transferred to adult criminal court through waiver, legislative exclusion, or prosecutorial discretion.
7 Juvenile Justice Procedures
Chapter Learning Objectives
On completion of this chapter, students should be able to do the following:
Understand and discuss juvenile court procedures
Discuss the rights of juveniles at various stages, from taking into custody through appeals
Understand requirements for bail, notification, and filing of petitions
Discuss procedures involved in detaining juveniles
What Would You Do?
It is Friday night and you are in bed. Your 13-year-old daughter is spending the night with a friend. The two girls told you they were going to a movie and back to
her friend’s home. Her friend’s older sister, who is 18, is going to drive them to and from the movie. At approximately 2:15 a.m. you get a phone call. The caller
identifies herself as Lisa Strom, an employee of the Forten County Detention Center. She says that your daughter has been taken into custody for curfew violation,
possession of alcohol by a minor, peace disturbance, and assaulting a police officer. Ms. Strom informs you that your daughter will be held in detention pending a
review of her case by a juvenile intake officer. This review will take place within the next 24 hours and you will receive another phone call once the juvenile intake
officer decides to hold or release the child. She states that you are allowed to visit your daughter once within the next 24 hours and informs you that visitation is
allowed between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. that day. The only question you can think to ask is if your daughter is okay. Ms. Strom says your daughter is going through
the intake process and is in good health. You hang up the phone wide awake and wondering what to do next.
What Would You Do?
1. Would your daughter be classified as a status offender or a delinquent, according to the charges?
2. What would be your next course of action? Would you contact a lawyer, wait for the phone call from the juvenile intake officer, visit your daughter during
visiting hours, or do something else?
3. If you were the juvenile intake officer, would you continue to detain this child or release her to her parents pending court?
Juvenile court acts discuss not only the purposes and scope of the juvenile justice system but also the procedure the juvenile courts are to
follow. Proceedings concerning juveniles officially begin with the filing of a petition alleging that a juvenile is delinquent, dependent,
neglected, abused, in need of supervision, or in need of authoritative intervention. Most juvenile court acts, however, also discuss the unofficial
or diversionary activities available as remedies prior to the filing of a petition such as a stationhouse adjustment and a preliminary
conference. A stationhouse adjustment occurs when a police officer negotiates a settlement with a juvenile, often with his or her parents,
without taking further official action (a full discussion of stationhouse adjustments follows in Chapter 8). A preliminary conference is a
voluntary meeting arranged by .
This listing of immigration terms, from a to z, provides easy-to-grasp, jargon-minimized tips and definitions, as well as examples taken from various writings and blog posts of Immigration Attorney Carlos Batara.
These terms pertain to several major areas of immigration law, including family visas and marriage-based petitions, permanent resident programs, citizenship and naturalization, deportation and removal defense, immigration appeals, humanitarian programs involving asylum, refugees, TPS, and trafficking victims, as well as immigrant domestic violence protections, such as VAWA and U visas.
Immigration law is one of the toughest areas of law because rules are consistently changing due to the political ramifications of international policy measures.
This A - Z presentation hopes to provide insight on many of the commonly asked questions asked by immigrants and immigration reform advocates.
The document discusses child neglect and abandonment laws in Florida and Nebraska. It provides definitions of child neglect according to Florida law, including willfully or negligently failing to provide necessary care, supervision, or medical services. It then discusses Nebraska's original safe-haven law that allowed parents to abandon children of any age without prosecution, which resulted in over 30 children being abandoned, some as old as 17. The law was then changed on Friday to limit abandonments to infants under 30 days old.
This document discusses a custody case involving a father (petitioner) seeking custody of his daughter from his estranged wife (1st respondent) and the child's grandmother. It summarizes:
1) The petitioner left for Canada in 1995, leaving his family behind, and made unsubstantiated allegations against the 1st respondent upon returning.
2) The child has lived with and bonded with her grandmother for over two years.
3) Applying the "best interests of the child" standard, the court determined the child should remain in the custody of her grandmother, as changing custody could psychologically harm the child.
This ppt was used in a Legal English lesson based on the 1980 Hague convention on the Abduction of Children. Legal English. Universidad Catolica de Cuyo sede San Luis. Dra. Daniela Zabala.
Special Rules on Implementing the Family Court Act of 1997lspujurists
The Regional Trial Court rendered a judgment against Manuela Sarte requiring her to pay Juan Gorostiaga P2,285.51. However, nine days before the case was filed, a petition was filed declaring Manuela mentally incompetent and unable to manage her affairs. As such, the court did not have jurisdiction over Manuela since no summons or notice was served to her guardian. The Supreme Court ruled that all proceedings in the lower court were null and void since the court did not have jurisdiction over Manuela as an incompetent person. The case was remanded for a new trial after appointing Manuela's guardian as a party defendant.
Selecting and Prosecuting Police LiabilityAlice Shikina
This document provides guidance on selecting and prosecuting police misconduct cases under 42 U.S.C. §1983. It discusses factors to consider such as identifying the client, commencing an investigation, obtaining official reports, deciding whether to file a case, jury selection, and presenting the case. The presentation includes a fact pattern describing the alleged misconduct and ends with sources for additional information.
The juvenile justice system originated from the child-saving movement which argued the state has a responsibility to protect children. The first juvenile court was established in Illinois in 1899 and differed from adult courts by having no juries, different terminology, and focus on rehabilitation over punishment. A series of Supreme Court cases from 1966-1975 gave juveniles some due process rights like right to counsel. Today states set their own juvenile justice policies but the system focuses on rehabilitation for youth offenders.
All people in the United States, regardless of immigration status, have certain rights and protections under the U.S. Constitution. Knowing and asserting rights can make a huge difference in many situations, such as when ICE agents go to a home. The information included in this resource guide provides students, families and school staff with critical information for working together to assert the rights of all within the LAUSD school community.
This document summarizes Proposition 9, known as Marsy's Law, which passed in California in 2008. It amended the state constitution to define crime victims and provide additional rights to victims, including the right to be notified of criminal justice proceedings, make statements during sentencing, and receive restitution. The document lists 17 specific rights guaranteed to victims under Marsy's Law and provides contact information for victim services.
The petitioner, Diwata Ramos Landingin, filed a petition to adopt her deceased brother's three children - Elaine, Elma, and Eugene Dizon Ramos. However, the petition was denied for three key reasons: 1) Landingin did not obtain written consent from the biological mother, Amelia Ramos, as required by law; 2) the authenticity of the written consent from Landingin's children was not sufficiently proven; and 3) there was doubt about Landingin's financial capacity to support the children given her part-time job and age. The court ruled that adoption requires fulfilling all legal requirements and considering the best interests of the children.
Similar to 9th Circuit Appeal Court Flores Decision. (20)
Hieleras ruled deprivation of constitutional rightsBryan Johnson
This order grants a preliminary injunction requiring the US Border Patrol to comply with its own guidelines for holding detainees, based on evidence that detainees' basic human needs were not being met. The court found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that conditions violated detainees' due process rights by depriving them of adequate sleep, hygiene, medical care, food and water, and warmth. While acknowledging funding constraints, the court ruled constitutional rights cannot be denied for fiscal reasons and ordered compliance with guidelines to provide these basic needs as outlined in the Border Patrol's 2008 policy and TEDS standards.
Immigration Judge Credible Fear Denial Rates FY'14-'16Bryan Johnson
The document shows data on credible fear denials and grants by US immigration judges from FY2014 to FY2016. It lists the judges' names along with the number of denials and grants for each, as well as their denial rate. Some judges had a 100% denial rate while others had rates below 10%. The judges with the highest number of denials included James Nugent with 220 denials and Silvia Arellano with 227 denials.
Politics over the law: USCIS' Violation of TVPRA for child asylum applicantsBryan Johnson
HQi s moving to a random QA review of the UAC caseload beginning immediately. This means that you are no longer
submitting all referrals and NOIDs of cases in which the principal applicant is less than 18 years old at the time of filing."
Dilley Children Jail Medical Services ContractsBryan Johnson
ICE contracted with private healthcare staffing corporation, Maxim Healthcare Services, to provide medical services to children and mothers detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center (STFRF) located in Dilley, Texas. From 09/22/2015 to 09/22/2016, ICE was obligated to pay Maxim $28,799,940.48. However, ICE apparently paid nearly $6 million more than the maximum allowed: $34,713,350.00, according to USAspending.gov
The document discusses three pilot initiatives between ICE and the governments of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. The initiatives aim to streamline the repatriation process for citizens of those countries detained in the US. The Guatemalan and Honduran initiatives allow for consular interviews and travel document issuance in ICE custody within 1 day. Both initiatives have increased removals and decreased average length of stays in custody. The El Salvadoran initiative temporarily participated but is currently unable to due to staffing issues. The initiatives have reduced detention times and improved conditions for detainees awaiting repatriation.
Department of homeland security foia 2016 hqfo-00609 acknowledgmentBryan Johnson
From our initial FOIA request,
"The purpose of is FOIA is to provide the public with knowledge of why DHS' enforcement operations overwhelmingly targeted family units and unaccompanied minors who were ordered removed in the Charlotte and Atlanta Immigration Courts."
This deposition transcript discusses:
1) The deposition of Ted Kim regarding a case involving unaccompanied immigrant children.
2) Testimony is provided about documents provided to unaccompanied children in immigration court and instructions for applying for asylum with US Citizenship and Immigration Services.
3) The witness provides details on the application process for unaccompanied children seeking asylum, including required forms and documentation.
Immigration Judge Pelletier Unaccompanied Children Asylum ClaimsBryan Johnson
Since 2014, the Board of Immigration Appeals remanded Immigration Judge Dan Pelletier a total of 8 times specifically for denying unaccompanied alien children right to apply for asylum before USCIS as mandated by the 2008 Trafficking and Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Michael Baird from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
- The respondent, a native and citizen of Zimbabwe, appealed the denial of her applications for withholding of removal and cancellation of removal by the Immigration Judge.
- The Board upheld the finding that she did not show the government of Zimbabwe was unable or unwilling to protect her from persecution. However, the case was remanded for further consideration of her application for cancellation of removal based on the passage of time.
- On remand, the parties were instructed to further address issues such as good moral character, hardship if relocated to Zimbabwe, and whether relief should be granted as a matter of discretion based on an updated record.
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Deitrich from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
The document discusses (b) (6) involvement in various activities and events over the course of (b) (6). It notes that (b) (6) participated in several school clubs and sports, held a part-time job, and also helped care for family members. The document expresses that (b) (6) is a responsible individual and recommends (b) (6) for a position that requires multitasking, communication skills and the ability to manage time effectively.
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Theresa Holmes-Simmons from 01/01/2014 to 05...Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Barry Pettinato from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
The document discusses (b) (6) involvement in various activities and organizations from (b) (6) to present. It notes that (b) (6) has held leadership roles in community organizations and details some professional experiences and education. The document also provides biographical details, such as place of birth and relatives.
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Madline Garcia from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Earle Wilson from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Dan Pelletier from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge William Cassidy 01/01/2014-05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
Deported U.S. citizen Sues Feds For Unlawful ImprisonmentBryan Johnson
"On March 28, 2013, after a week of unlawful detention, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) 'determined that Alfaro has established a probative claim to U.S. citizenship.'
In support of its conclusion, the OPLA cited the fact that all it took was a phone call to the Department of Vital Statistics in Texas, to verify the authenticity of the birth certificate, and a phone call to Ms. Alfaro's mother, to confirm that Ms. Alfaro was born in the United States.
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
This document briefly explains the June compliance calendar 2024 with income tax returns, PF, ESI, and important due dates, forms to be filled out, periods, and who should file them?.
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdfveteranlegal
https://veteranlegal.in/defense-lawyer-in-india/ | Criminal defense Lawyer in India has always been a vital aspect of the country's legal system. As defenders of justice, criminal Defense Lawyer play a critical role in ensuring that individuals accused of crimes receive a fair trial and that their constitutional rights are protected. As India evolves socially, economically, and technologically, the role and future of criminal Defense Lawyer are also undergoing significant changes. This comprehensive blog explores the current landscape, challenges, technological advancements, and prospects for criminal Defense Lawyer in India.
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
Receivership and liquidation Accounts
Being a Paper Presented at Business Recovery and Insolvency Practitioners Association of Nigeria (BRIPAN) on Friday, August 18, 2023.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
Business law for the students of undergraduate level. The presentation contains the summary of all the chapters under the syllabus of State University, Contract Act, Sale of Goods Act, Negotiable Instrument Act, Partnership Act, Limited Liability Act, Consumer Protection Act.
1. FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JENNY LISETTE FLORES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney
General, Attorney General of
the United States; JEH JOHNSON,
Secretary of Homeland
Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, and its
subordinate entities; U.S.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT; U.S. CUSTOMS
AND BORDER PROTECTION,
Defendants-Appellants.
No. 15-56434
D.C. No.
2:85-cv-04544-
DMG-AGR
OPINION
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 7, 2016
Pasadena, California
Filed July 6, 2016
2. 2 FLORES V. LYNCH
Before: Ronald M. Gould, Michael J. Melloy*,
and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Hurwitz
SUMMARY**
Immigration
The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the
district court’s order granting the motion of a plaintiff class
to enforce a 1997 Settlement with the government which set
a nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment
of minors detained in Immigration and Naturalization
Service custody, and remanded for further proceedings.
The panel held that the Settlement unambiguously
applies both to minors who are accompanied and
unaccompanied by their parents. The panel held, however,
that the district court erred in interpreting the Settlement to
provide release rights to accompanying adults. The panel
also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the government’s motion to amend the Settlement.
*
The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
**
This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
3. FLORES V. LYNCH 3
COUNSEL
Leon Fresco (argued), Deputy Assistant Attorney General;
Sarah B. Fabian, Senior Litigation Counsel; William C.
Peachey, Director, District Court Section; Benjamin C.
Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division; United States Department of Justice, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-
Appellants.
Peter Anthony Schey (argued) and Carlos R. Holguin,
Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, Los
Angeles, California; T. Wayne Harman and Elena Garcia,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Los Angeles,
California; for Plaintiff-Appellee.
OPINION
HURWITZ, Circuit Judge:
In 1997, the plaintiff class (“Flores”) and the government
entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement”)
which “sets out nationwide policy for the detention, release,
and treatment of minors in the custody of the INS.”
Settlement ¶ 9. The Settlement creates a presumption in
favor of releasing minors and requires placement of those
not released in licensed, non-secure facilities that meet
certain standards.
In 2014, in response to a surge of Central Americans
attempting to enter the United States without documentation,
the government opened family detention centers in Texas
and New Mexico. The detention and release policies at these
centers do not comply with the Settlement. The government,
4. 4 FLORES V. LYNCH
however, claims that the Settlement only applies to
unaccompanied minors and is not violated when minors
accompanied by parents or other adult family members are
placed in these centers.
In 2015, Flores moved to enforce the Settlement, arguing
that it applied to all minors in the custody of immigration
authorities. The district court agreed, granted the motion to
enforce, and rejected the government’s alternative motion to
modify the Settlement. The court ordered the government
to: (1) make “prompt and continuous efforts toward family
reunification,” (2) release class members without
unnecessary delay, (3) detain class members in appropriate
facilities, (4) release an accompanying parent when releasing
a child unless the parent is subject to mandatory detention or
poses a safety risk or a significant flight risk, (5) monitor
compliance with detention conditions, and (6) provide class
counsel with monthly statistical information. The
government appealed, challenging the district court’s
holding that the Settlement applied to all minors in
immigration custody, its order to release parents, and its
denial of the motion to modify.
Although the issues underlying this appeal touch on
matters of national importance, our task is straightforward—
we must interpret the Settlement. Applying familiar
principles of contract interpretation, we conclude that the
Settlement unambiguously applies both to accompanied and
unaccompanied minors, but does not create affirmative
release rights for parents. We therefore affirm the district
court in part, reverse in part, and remand.
5. FLORES V. LYNCH 5
BACKGROUND
I. History of the Litigation
In 1984, the Western Region of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (“INS”) adopted a policy prohibiting
the release of detained minors to anyone other than “a parent
or lawful guardian, except in unusual and extraordinary
cases.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 296 (1993) (quotation
marks omitted). The next year, Flores filed this action in the
Central District of California, challenging that policy and the
conditions under which juveniles were detained pursuant to
the policy. Id.
In 1986, the district court certified two classes:
1. All persons under the age of eighteen (18)
years who have been, are, or will be arrested
and detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 by
the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(“INS”) within the INS’ Western Region and
who have been, are, or will be denied release
from INS custody because a parent or legal
guardian fails to personally appear to take
custody of them.
2. All persons under the age of eighteen (18)
years who have been, are, or will be arrested
and detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 by
the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(“INS”) within the INS’ Western Region and
who have been, are, or will be subjected to
any of the following conditions:
a. inadequate opportunities for
exercise or recreation;
6. 6 FLORES V. LYNCH
b. inadequate educational instruction;
c. inadequate reading materials;
d. inadequate opportunities for
visitation with counsel, family,
and friends;
e. regular contact as a result of
confinement with adult detainees
unrelated to such minors either by
blood, marriage, or otherwise;
f. strip or body cavity search after
meeting with counsel or at any
other time or occasion absent
demonstrable adequate cause.
In 1987, the court approved a consent decree settling the
detention condition claims. Id. That agreement required the
government to “house all juveniles detained more than 72
hours following arrest in a facility that meets or exceeds”
certain standards, except in “unusual and extraordinary
circumstances.”
The district court then granted the Flores class partial
summary judgment on the claim that the INS violated the
Equal Protection Clause by treating alien minors in
deportation proceedings differently from alien minors in
exclusion proceedings, the latter of whom were sometimes
released to adults other than their parents. Id. In response,
the INS adopted a rule allowing juveniles to be released to
their parents, adult relatives, or custodians designated by
their parents; if no adult relative was available, the rule gave
the INS discretion to release a detained relative with the
child. Id. at 296–97; see Detention and Release of Juveniles,
7. FLORES V. LYNCH 7
53 Fed. Reg. 17449, 17451 (1988) (now codified, as
amended, at 8 C.F.R. § 236.3). The Supreme Court upheld
the INS rule against Flores’ facial Due Process challenge.
Flores, 507 U.S. at 315.
II. The Settlement
In 1997, the district court approved the Settlement. The
Settlement defines a “minor” as “any person under the age
of eighteen (18) years who is detained in the legal custody
of the INS,” except for “an emancipated minor or an
individual who has been incarcerated due to a conviction for
a criminal offense as an adult.” Settlement ¶ 4. The
Settlement defines the contracting class similarly, as “[a]ll
minors who are detained in the legal custody of the INS.”
Id. ¶ 10.
The Settlement provides that “[w]henever the INS takes
a minor into custody, it shall expeditiously process the minor
and shall provide the minor with a notice of rights.” Id. ¶
12(A). “Following arrest, the INS shall hold minors in
facilities that are safe and sanitary and that are consistent
with the INS’s concern for the particular vulnerability of
minors.” Id. Within five days of arrest, the INS must
transfer the minor to a non-secure, licensed facility; but “in
the event of an emergency or influx of minors into the United
States,” the INS need only make the transfer “as
expeditiously as possible.” Id.
The Settlement creates a presumption in favor of release
and favors family reunification:
Where the INS determines that the detention
of the minor is not required either to secure
his or her timely appearance before the INS
or the immigration court, or to ensure the
8. 8 FLORES V. LYNCH
minor’s safety or that of others, the INS shall
release a minor from its custody without
unnecessary delay, in the following order of
preference, to:
A. a parent;
B. a legal guardian;
C. an adult relative (brother, sister, aunt,
uncle, or grandparent);
D. an adult individual or entity
designated by the parent or legal
guardian . . .
E. a licensed program willing to accept
legal custody; or
F. an adult individual or entity seeking
custody . . .
Id. ¶ 14; see also id. ¶ 18 (requiring “prompt and continuous
efforts . . . toward family reunification and the release of the
minor”). But, if the INS does not release a minor, it must
place her in a “licensed program.” Id. ¶ 19. A “licensed
program” is one “licensed by an appropriate State agency to
provide residential, group, or foster care services for
dependent children,” which must be “non-secure as required
under state law” and meet the standards set forth in an exhibit
attached to the Settlement. Id. ¶ 6. Those standards include
food, clothing, grooming items, medical and dental care,
individualized needs assessments, educational services,
recreation and leisure time, counseling, access to religious
services, contact with family members, and a reasonable
right to privacy. Some minors, such as those who have
9. FLORES V. LYNCH 9
committed crimes, may be held in a juvenile detention
facility instead of a licensed program. Id. ¶ 21.
The Settlement generally provides for the enforcement
in the Central District of California, id. ¶ 37, but allows
individual challenges to placement or detention conditions
to be brought in any district court with jurisdiction and
venue, id. ¶ 24(B). The Settlement originally was to
terminate no later than 2002. Id. ¶ 40. But, in 2001, the
parties stipulated that the Settlement would terminate “45
days following defendants’ publication of final regulations
implementing this Agreement.” The government has not yet
promulgated those regulations.
III. Developments Subsequent to the Settlement
Before 2001, “families apprehended for entering the
United States illegally were most often released rather than
detained because of a limited amount of family bed space;
families who were detained had to be housed separately,
splitting up parents and children.” Bunikyte ex rel.
Bunikiene v. Chertoff, No. 1:07-cv-00164-SS, 2007 WL
1074070, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2007). “In the wake of
September 11, 2001, however, immigration policy
fundamentally changed,” with “more restrictive immigration
controls, tougher enforcement, and broader expedited
removal of illegal aliens,” which “made the automatic
release of families problematic.” Id.
In 2001, the INS converted a nursing home in Berks
County, Pennsylvania (“Berks”) into its first family
detention center. Id. Because Pennsylvania has no licensing
requirements for family residential care facilities, Berks has
been monitored and licensed by state authorities under the
state standards applicable to child residential and day
treatment facilities. Id. at *8.
10. 10 FLORES V. LYNCH
In 2002, Congress enacted the Homeland Security Act,
Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, abolishing the INS and
transferring most of its immigration functions to the newly-
formed Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), in
which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) is
housed. 6 U.S.C. §§ 111, 251, 291. The Homeland Security
Act transferred responsibility for the care and custody of
unaccompanied alien children to the Office of Refugee
Resettlement in the Department of Health and Human
Services. 6 U.S.C. § 279(a), (b)(1)(A), (g)(2).
In 2006, DHS converted a medium security prison in
Taylor, Texas into its second family detention facility, the
Don T. Hutto Family Residential Center (“Hutto”).
Bunikyte, 2007 WL 1074070, at *1. In 2007, three children
at Hutto, who were not represented by Flores’ class counsel,
filed suit in the Western District of Texas, contending that
the conditions at Hutto violated the Settlement. Id. at *1–2.
In response, the government argued that the Settlement
applied only to unaccompanied minors. The district court
rejected that argument, holding that “by its terms, [the
Settlement] applies to all ‘minors in the custody’ of ICE and
DHS, not just unaccompanied minors.” Id. at *2–3 (quoting
Settlement ¶ 9). The court then concluded that the minors’
confinement at Hutto violated the Settlement’s detention
standards, id. at *6–15, but rejected the claim that the
Settlement entitled the plaintiffs to have their parents
released with them, id. at *16. The suit settled before trial.
In re Hutto Family Det. Ctr., No. 1:07-cv-00164-SS, Dkt.
94, (W.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2007).
In 2008, Congress enacted the William Wilberforce
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008
(“TVPRA”), Pub. L. No. 110-457, 122 Stat. 5044
(principally codified in relevant part at 8 U.S.C. § 1232).
11. FLORES V. LYNCH 11
TVPRA partially codified the Settlement by creating
statutory standards for the treatment of unaccompanied
minors. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(A) (an
unaccompanied alien child “shall be promptly placed in the
least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the
child,” subject to considerations of flight and danger).
IV. The Enforcement Action and R.I.L-R v. Johnson
In 2014, a surge of undocumented Central Americans
arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border. In response, ICE opened
family detention centers in Karnes City and Dilley, Texas,
and Artesia, New Mexico. It closed the Artesia center later
that year. The detention centers operate under ICE’s Family
Residential Detention Standards, which do not comply with
the Settlement.
In January 2015, a group of Central American migrants,
who were not represented by Flores class counsel, filed a
putative class action, claiming that the government had
adopted a no-release policy as to Central American families,
and challenging that alleged policy under the Due Process
Clause. R.I.L-R v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164, 170 (D.D.C.
2015). On February 20, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a
preliminary injunction. Id. at 171. The court found that ICE
had not adopted a blanket no-release policy, but found ample
support for the plaintiffs’ alternative contention that “DHS
policy directs ICE officers to consider deterrence of mass
migration as a factor in their custody determinations, and
that this policy has played a significant role in the recent
increased detention of Central American mothers and
children.” Id. at 174. The court preliminarily enjoined the
government from using deterrence as a factor in detaining
class members. R.I.L-R v. Johnson, No. 1:15-cv-00011-
JEB, Dkt. 32 (D.D.C. Feb. 20, 2015).
12. 12 FLORES V. LYNCH
In May 2015, the government notified the court that it
had decided “to discontinue, at this time, invoking
deterrence as a factor in custody determinations in all cases
involving families, irrespective of the outcome of this
litigation,” while maintaining that it could lawfully reinstate
the policy. Id. Dkt. 40. In June 2015, by the agreement of
the parties, the district court in R.I.L-R dissolved the
preliminary injunction and closed the case, allowing
plaintiffs to move to reinstate the preliminary injunction if
the government again invoked deterrence in custody
determinations. Id. Dkt. 43.
Meanwhile, on February 2, 2015, Flores filed a motion
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California to enforce the Settlement, arguing that ICE had
breached it by (1) adopting a no-release policy, and
(2) confining children in the secure, unlicensed facilities at
Dilley and Karnes.1 The government argued in response that
the Settlement does not apply to accompanied minors, and
filed an alternative motion to amend the Settlement to so
provide. On July 24, 2015, the district court granted Flores’
motion, denied the government’s motion to amend, and also
held that the Settlement requires release of a minor’s
accompanying parent, “as long as doing so would not create
a flight risk or a safety risk.”2 On August 21, 2015, the
district court filed a remedial order. The government timely
appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292.
1
Flores also argued that the government breached Paragraph 12(A) by
exposing children in temporary Border Patrol custody to “harsh,
substandard” conditions. That issue is not implicated in this appeal.
2
The case was reassigned to Judge Dolly M. Gee, because the original
judge, Robert J. Kelleher, had died.
13. FLORES V. LYNCH 13
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Settlement is a consent decree, which, “like a
contract, must be discerned within its four corners, extrinsic
evidence being relevant only to resolve ambiguity in the
decree.” United States v. Asarco Inc., 430 F.3d 972, 980 (9th
Cir. 2005). We review the district court’s interpretation of
the contract de novo. Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co.,
758 F.2d 364, 367 (9th Cir. 1985). “Motions for relief from
judgment under Rule 60(b) are reviewed for abuse of
discretion.” Asarco, 430 F.3d at 978.
DISCUSSION
I. The Settlement Applies to Accompanied Minors
We agree with the district court that “[t]he plain
language of the Agreement clearly encompasses
accompanied minors.” First, the Settlement defines minor
as “any person under the age of eighteen (18) years who is
detained in the legal custody of the INS”; describes its scope
as setting “nationwide policy for the detention, release, and
treatment of minors in the custody of the INS”; and defines
the class as “[a]ll minors who are detained in the legal
custody of the INS.” Settlement ¶¶ 4, 9, 10. Second, as the
district court explained, “the Agreement provides special
guidelines with respect to unaccompanied minors in some
situations,” and “[i]t would make little sense to write rules
making special reference to unaccompanied minors if the
parties intended the Agreement as a whole to be applicable
only to unaccompanied minors.” See id. ¶ 12(A) (“The INS
will segregate unaccompanied minors from unrelated
adults.”); id. ¶ 25 (“Unaccompanied minors arrested or taken
into custody by the INS should not be transported by the INS
in vehicles with detained adults except . . . .”). Third, as the
district court reasoned, “the Agreement expressly identifies
14. 14 FLORES V. LYNCH
those minors to whom the class definition would not
apply”—emancipated minors and those who have been
incarcerated for a criminal offense as an adult; “[h]ad the
parties to the Agreement intended to exclude accompanied
minors from the Agreement, they could have done so
explicitly when they set forth the definition of minors who
are excluded from the Agreement.” See id. ¶ 4.
The government nevertheless argues that certain terms
of the Settlement show that it was never meant to cover
accompanied minors. The Settlement defines “licensed
program” as “any program, agency or organization that is
licensed by an appropriate State agency to provide
residential, group, or foster care services for dependent
children, including a program operating group homes, foster
homes, or facilities for special needs minors.” Id. ¶ 6. The
government contends that this makes only “dependent
minors” eligible for licensed programs; that Black’s Law
Dictionary defines dependent minors to exclude
accompanied minors, see Child, Black’s Law Dictionary
(10th ed. 2014); and that it would make little sense for the
Settlement to apply to accompanied minors but exclude them
from licensed programs. We reject this argument. That a
program is “licensed . . . to provide . . . services for
dependent children” does not mean that only dependent
children can be placed in that program. And, the definition
of “licensed program” does not indicate any intent to exclude
accompanied minors; rather, its obvious purpose is to use the
existing apparatus of state licensure to independently review
detention conditions.
At oral argument, the government cited a provision of
the Settlement requiring that, “[b]efore a minor is released
from INS custody pursuant to Paragraph 14 above, the
custodian must execute an Affidavit of Support (Form I-134)
15. FLORES V. LYNCH 15
and an agreement to,” among other things, provide for the
minor’s well-being and ensure the minor’s presence at
immigration proceedings. Settlement ¶ 15. The government
claims that the reference to the “custodian” demonstrates
that the Settlement did not contemplate releasing a child to
an accompanying parent. The government is right in one
sense—the Settlement does not contemplate releasing a
child to a parent who remains in custody, because that would
not be a “release.” But, it makes perfect sense to require an
aunt who takes custody of a child to sign an affidavit of
support, whether or not the child was arrested with his
mother.
The government correctly notes that the Settlement does
not address the potentially complex issues involving the
housing of family units and the scope of parental rights for
adults apprehended with their children. For example,
Exhibit 1, which sets forth requirements for licensed
programs, does not contain standards related to the detention
of adults or family units. But, the fact that the parties gave
inadequate attention to some potential problems of
accompanied minors does not mean that the Settlement does
not apply to them. See Bunikyte, 2007 WL 1074070, at *3
(“Though it is no defense that the Flores Settlement is
outdated, it is apparent that this agreement did not anticipate
the current emphasis on family detention. . . . Nonetheless,
the Flores Settlement, by its terms, applies to all ‘minors in
the custody’ of ICE and DHS, not just unaccompanied
minors.”) (quoting Settlement ¶ 9); id. (“Paragraph 19 sets
out the foundation of the detention standards applicable to
any minor in United States immigration custody, and there
is no reason why its requirements should be any less
applicable in a family detention context than in the context
of unaccompanied minors.”).
16. 16 FLORES V. LYNCH
The government next argues that the Complaint and
certified classes were limited to unaccompanied minors, and
that the parties therefore could not have entered into a
Settlement granting rights to accompanied minors. To be
sure, this litigation initially focused on the problems facing
unaccompanied minors, who then constituted 70% of
immigrant children arrested by the INS. See Flores,
507 U.S. at 295. But, the Complaint was not limited to
unaccompanied minors. The conduct Flores challenged—
INS detention conditions and the Western Region release
policy—applied to accompanied and unaccompanied minors
alike. See Complaint ¶ 50 (challenging the INS’ “policy to
indefinitely jail juveniles, particularly those whose parents
INS agents suspect may be aliens unlawfully in the United
States, unless and until their parent or legal guardian
personally appears before an INS agent for interrogation and
to accept physical custody of the minor.”); id. ¶¶ 65, 70–79
(challenging juveniles’ condition of confinement in INS
facilities, including the lack of education, recreation, and
visitation, and the imposition of strip searches). So did the
remedies sought and the classes the district court certified.
See id. at 29 ¶ 4 (requesting an order that the INS admit
juveniles to bail without requiring that their parents or legal
guardians appear before INS agents); Order re Class
Certification (certifying a class for the release claims and a
class for the detention conditions claims).
The government has not explained why the detention
claims class would exclude accompanied minors; minors
who arrive with their parents are as desirous of education and
recreation, and as averse to strip searches, as those who come
alone. As for release, the government focuses narrowly on
the release class definition. See Order re Class Certification
at 2 (defining the release class to include all minors arrested
in the INS’ Western Region “who have been, are, or will be
17. FLORES V. LYNCH 17
denied release from INS custody because a parent or legal
guardian fails to personally appear to take custody of them”).
But, the release class was certified expressly to challenge the
Western Region’s policy of not releasing detained minors to
anyone other than a parent or guardian. Complaint ¶ 50; see
also Flores, 507 U.S. at 296. That policy applied equally to
accompanied minors, such as a boy detained with his mother
who wanted to be released to his aunt but was refused
because his father “fail[ed] to personally appear to take
custody of [him].” See Order re Class Certification at 2.3
The government also contends that, because the four
named plaintiffs in the Complaint were unaccompanied, a
class including accompanied minors would run afoul of the
requirements of typicality and representativeness. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23. The government’s factual premise is
questionable: one of the named plaintiffs was accompanied
at the time of arrest by her adult brother, although he was
released without her. Complaint ¶ 34. But, more
importantly, the government waived its ability to challenge
the class certification when it settled the case and did not
timely appeal the final judgment. And, to the extent this and
other arguments are aimed at providing extrinsic evidence of
the meaning of the Settlement, they fail because the
3
Even if the Complaint only sought to assert the detention and release
rights of unaccompanied immigrant children, it is far from clear that a
settlement governing detention and release for all immigration children
would be invalid. A consent decree may “provide[ ] broader relief than
the court could have awarded after a trial”; the law only requires that the
agreement “come within the general scope of the case made by the
pleadings.” Local No. 93, Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland,
478 U.S. 501, 525 (1986) (alterations, citations, and quotation marks
omitted).
18. 18 FLORES V. LYNCH
Settlement unambiguously applies to accompanied minors.
See Asarco, 430 F.3d at 980.
II. The Settlement Does Not Require the Government to
Release Parents
Flores’ motion to enforce argued that ICE’s purported
no-release policy, which allegedly denied accompanying
parents “any chance for release,” frustrated the minor class
members’ right to preferential release to a parent, and that to
safeguard that right, ICE was required to give parents
individualized custody determinations. After the district
court tentatively agreed, Flores went further, proposing an
order providing that “Defendants shall comply with the
Settlement ¶ 14(a) by releasing class members without
unnecessary delay in first order of preference to a parent,
including a parent subject to release who presented her or
himself or was apprehended by Defendants accompanied by
a class member.”
While acknowledging that “the Agreement does not
contain any provision that explicitly addresses adult rights
and treatment in detention,” the district court nonetheless
reasoned that “ICE’s blanket no-release policy with respect
to mothers cannot be reconciled with the Agreement’s grant
to class members of a right to preferential release to a
parent.” The court also found that the regulation upheld in
Flores, 507 U.S. at 315, supported the release of an
accompanying relative. See 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(b)(3)(ii) (“If a
relative who is not in detention cannot be located to sponsor
the minor, the minor may be released with an accompanying
relative who is in detention.”). It also found support for that
conclusion in ICE’s practice, until June 2014, of generally
releasing parents who were not flight or safety risks.
19. FLORES V. LYNCH 19
The district court therefore concluded that the
government “must release an accompanying parent as long
as doing so would not create a flight risk or a safety risk,”
and it ordered:
To comply with Paragraph 14A of the
Agreement and as contemplated in Paragraph
15, a class member’s accompanying parent
shall be released with the class member in
accordance with applicable laws and
regulations unless the parent is subject to
mandatory detention under applicable law or
after an individualized custody determination
sthe parent is determined to pose a significant
flight risk, or a threat to others or the national
security, and the flight risk or threat cannot
be mitigated by an appropriate bond or
conditions of release.
The district court erred in interpreting the Settlement to
provide release rights to adults. The Settlement does not
explicitly provide any rights to adults. Bunikyte, 2007 WL
1074070 at *16. The fact that the Settlement grants class
members a right to preferential release to a parent over others
does not mean that the government must also make a parent
available; it simply means that, if available, a parent is the
first choice. Because “the plain language of [the] consent
decree is clear, we need not evaluate any extrinsic evidence
to ascertain the true intent of the parties.” See Nehmer v.
U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 494 F.3d 846, 861 (9th Cir.
2007). In any case, the extrinsic evidence does not show that
the parties intended to grant release rights to parents. “In
fact, the context of the Flores Settlement argues against this
result: the Settlement was the product of litigation in which
unaccompanied minors argued that release to adults other
20. 20 FLORES V. LYNCH
than their parents was preferable to remaining in custody
until their parents could come get them.” Bunikyte, 2007
WL 1074070 at *16. The regulation the district court relied
upon at most shows that the parties might have thought about
releasing adults when executing the Settlement, not that they
agreed to do so in that document. And, there is no evidence
that ICE once released most children and parents because of
the Settlement, rather than for other reasons.
Flores suggests that we construe the district court’s order
narrowly, arguing that it only requires, as she initially
requested, that the government grant accompanying parents
individualized custody determinations “in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations,” just as it would single
adults. But, the district court plainly went further. A non-
criminal alien detained during removal proceedings
generally bears the burden of establishing “that he or she
does not present a danger to persons or property, is not a
threat to the national security, and does not pose a risk of
flight.” In re Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37, 38 (BIA 2006).
But, the district court placed the burden on the government,
requiring it to release an accompanying parent “unless the
parent is subject to mandatory detention under applicable
law or after an individualized custody determination the
parent is determined to pose a significant flight risk, or a
threat to others or the national security.” In addition, the
order requires a “significant flight risk” to justify detention,
while the usual standard is merely “a risk of flight.” Id.
More importantly, parents were not plaintiffs in the Flores
action, nor are they members of the certified classes. The
Settlement therefore provides no affirmative release rights
21. FLORES V. LYNCH 21
for parents, and the district court erred in creating such rights
in the context of a motion to enforce that agreement.4
III. The District Court Correctly Denied the
Government’s Motion to Amend the Settlement
Even if the Settlement applies to accompanied minors,
the government argues that it is “no longer equitable” to
apply it as written. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) (allowing
relief from judgment if “applying it prospectively is no
longer equitable”); Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 447
(2009) (“Rule 60(b)(5) serves a particularly important
function in what we have termed ‘institutional reform
litigation.’”). The district court denied this motion. We
review that decision for abuse of discretion. Asarco,
430 F.3d at 978.
“[A] party seeking modification of a consent decree
bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in
circumstances warrants revision of the decree. If the moving
party meets this standard, the court should consider whether
the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed
circumstance.” Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail, 502 U.S.
367, 383 (1992). When the basis for modification is a
change in law, the moving party must establish that the
provision it seeks to modify has become “impermissible.”
Id. at 388.
4
In so holding, we express no opinion whether the parents of
accompanied minors have a right to release, or if so, the nature of that
right. Nor do we express an opinion whether the alleged no-release
policy would violate the Settlement. We hold only that the Settlement is
not the source of any affirmative right to release.
22. 22 FLORES V. LYNCH
The government first argues that the Settlement should
be modified because of the surge in family units crossing the
Southwest border. “Ordinarily, however, modification
should not be granted where a party relies upon events that
actually were anticipated at the time it entered into a decree.”
Id. at 385. The Settlement expressly anticipated an influx,
and provided that, if one occurred, the government would be
given more time to release minors or place them in licensed
programs. Settlement ¶ 12. And, even if the parties did not
anticipate an influx of this size, we cannot fathom how a
“suitably tailored” response to the change in circumstances
would be to exempt an entire category of migrants from the
Settlement, as opposed to, say, relaxing certain requirements
applicable to all migrants. See Rufo, 502 U.S. at 383.
The government also argues that the law has changed
substantially since the Settlement was approved. It cites
Congress’ authorization of expedited removal—but that
occurred in 1996, before the Settlement was approved. See
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104–208, § 302, 110 Stat. 3009-546,
579–85 (1996). The government also notes that the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 reassigned the immigration
functions of the former INS to DHS; but there is no reason
why that bureaucratic reorganization should prohibit the
government from adhering to the Settlement. See Settlement
¶ 1 (“As the term [party] applies to Defendants, it shall
include their . . . successors in office.”).
The government also argues that some provisions of the
TVPRA regarding the detention and release of
unaccompanied minors are inconsistent with the Settlement.
At most, that might support modification of the conflicting
provisions so that they no longer apply to the
unaccompanied minors covered by the TVPRA. But, the
23. FLORES V. LYNCH 23
creation of statutory rights for unaccompanied minors does
not make application of the Settlement to accompanied
minors “impermissible.” The district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion to amend on the record
before it.
CONCLUSION
We hold that the Settlement applies to accompanied
minors but does not require the release of accompanying
parents. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.5
Each party shall bear its own costs.
5
We note that a second motion to enforce is pending in the district
court.