Source: https://www.conservativedailynews.com/2018/06/flores-v-loretta-lynch-the-9th-circuit-decision-that-created-the-illegal-alien-family-separation-mess/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:17:06+00:00

Document:
The finding had an unintended set of consequences. Either the government had to be able to process any immigration/asylum case within the 72-hour period or the children would need to be moved to a “licensed, non-secure facility” that “meets high standards”. The result is that any case where the alien adult’s case was unable to be adjudicated within 72 hours would result in the separation of the child from the adult detainee.
The Obama administration decided to release both the suspected criminal alien and the accompanied minors into the United States pending trial to satisfy the court decision although the action failed to enforce U.S. law. Less than 10% of those released bother to show up for their court dates.
Human traffickers use kidnapped and enslaved children to pose as accompanied alien minors and parents now drag their children on a dangerous journey as a method to skirt U.S. immigration law.
Where did the 20-day limit come from?
The 20-day reference thrown around by the media and administration does exist. It isn’t codified in law that we were able to discover, but instead a court order from August of 2015. In it, DHS is given an average of 20-days to handle asylum claims. The full text of that order is HERE.
What laws feed into the family separation mess?
Two laws play a part in illegal aliend family separations. The Homeland Security Act (HSA) from 2002 and the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) from 2008.
and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges.
Service custody, and remanded for further proceedings.
denying the government’s motion to amend the Settlement.
Sarah B. Fabian, Senior Litigation Counsel; William C.
Peachey, Director, District Court Section; Benjamin C.
Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C.; for DefendantsAppellants.
denial of the motion to modify.
court in part, reverse in part, and remand.
the INS rule against Flores’ facial Due Process challenge.
Flores, 507 U.S. at 315.
facility instead of a licensed program. Id. ¶ 21.
splitting up parents and children.” Bunikyte ex rel.
release of families problematic.” Id.
treatment facilities. Id. at *8.
Services. 6 U.S.C. § 279(a), (b)(1)(A), (g)(2).
Don T. Hutto Family Residential Center (“Hutto”).
the conditions at Hutto violated the Settlement. Id. at *1–2.
released with them, id. at *16. The suit settled before trial.
In re Hutto Family Det. Ctr., No. 1:07-cv-00164-SS, Dkt.
(principally codified in relevant part at 8 U.S.C. § 1232).
child,” subject to considerations of flight and danger).
Clause. R.I.L-R v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164, 170 (D.D.C.
JEB, Dkt. 32 (D.D.C. Feb. 20, 2015).
appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292.
discretion.” Asarco, 430 F.3d at 978.
are excluded from the Agreement.” See id. ¶ 4.
remedies sought and the classes the district court certified.
class for the detention conditions claims).
guardian fails to personally appear to take custody of them”).
custody of [him].” See Order re Class Certification at 2.
requirements of typicality and representativeness. See Fed.
Settlement unambiguously applies to accompanied minors.
See Asarco, 430 F.3d at 980.
releasing parents who were not flight or safety risks.
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.
the Settlement, rather than for other reasons.
flight.” In re Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37, 38 (BIA 2006).
while the usual standard is merely “a risk of flight.” Id.
in the context of a motion to enforce that agreement.
circumstance.” Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail, 502 U.S.
applicable to all migrants. See Rufo, 502 U.S. at 383.
include their . . . successors in office.”).
unaccompanied minors are inconsistent with the Settlement.

References: § 279
 § 1232
 v. 
 § 1292
 v.

 v.