Flores Settlement Agreement Document

The court upheld the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California`s application for a class of applicants to implement the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement, stating that the agreement had not been overturned by Congress and that the children of imprisoned immigrants would continue to be protected by it. The court found that two statutes passed by Congress since the government approved the Flores transaction – the Homeland Security Act and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act – have not terminated the obligation to hold a loan hearing under Section 24A of the agreement for unaccompanied non-civilian minors in deportation proceedings. (Flores v. Sessions, 5.7.17) The Women`s Refugee Commission gave a background to the Flores settlement and the separation of families at the border. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee found that the situation at the Shiloh Residential Treatment Center in Manvel, Texas was contrary to Flores regulations and ordered the Trump administration to remove all undocumented immigrant minors from prison for child abuse and overmedication. The applicants responded to the government`s request to expedite the timing of their appeal against Judge Dolly Gee`s August 2015 order that DHS must comply with the Flores Settlement Agreement until October 23, 2015. In their response, the applicants did not answer the question of whether the Tribunal should expedite the government`s appeal. However, the applicants rely on many of the factual assertions made in the government`s request. p> AILA issued a press release saying that these rules “must denounce the Flores Settlement Agreement, a decades-long judicial system set up to ensure the safety and proper care of children in immigration situations.” The applicants submitted a combined response in support of their request for the application of the Flores transaction and the designation of a particular monitor, and against the defendant`s request for investigation.

AILA and the American Immigration Council filed a letter from Amicus with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to support the complainants` request, arguing that the transaction does not allow the government to prevent the timely release of children accompanied by decisions concerning their parents.