Grandparents, other extended relatives still barred under travel ban after appeals court declines to weigh in

Grandparents, other extended relatives still barred under travel ban after appeals court declines to weigh in

Grandparents, other extended relatives still barred under travel ban after appeals court declines to weigh in

A panel of the Federal Court of Appeal refused to interfere at the end of the last dispute over the travel ban President Trump, which means that at least for now, grandparents and other extended members in the United States family can not be exempt Of the President’s order.

The decision of a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is another blow for those who challenged the enforcement of the ban following a Supreme Court decision that raised a gel earlier.

However, the judges of the appellate courts have not addressed the substance of the allegations of the rivals, but said that they were not competent to discuss the matter. Judges – Michael Daly Hawkins, Ronald M. Gould and Richard A.

Paez, all named by Clinton were the same ones who had previously ruled against Trump and maintained the freezing of its prohibition. Trump criticized his decision.

It is unclear what might happen next. Judges seem to suggest that, while they may not be involved, the state of Hawaii, which defies the ban, could return to a lower court judge. This Judge, Derrick K.

Watson rejected a similar request on Thursday, saying the issue should be taken with the Supreme Court.

In a statement, the Hawaii Attorney General Douglas S. Chin said the decision “establishes that Watson Justice has the ability to interpret and enforce the Supreme Court order, and to be able to urge against a violation by Of the order of the effective limitations of the Supreme Court on the scope of the injunction of the district court. ”

As for the extent to which the administration can keep the American people of the parents under the travel ban the president, which prohibits the issue of new visas to residents of six Muslim-majority countries.

The Supreme Court held, in the last month, the government could begin to apply the measure, but not to those who have “a credible claim of a good faith relationship” with a person or entity in the United States.

The court offers only limited guidance on the type of relationship that would qualify. Family relations “family” compriront, said the court, as well as links such as a job or a letter of acceptance from the school that were “formal, documented and formed in the normal course.”

The government has put the measure in force June 29 to suspend the refugee program and ban the issuance of new visas for residents of Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Syria without relations with the United States. Among family members, officials have drawn lines.

The administration said it would allow the six affected countries, parents, stepparents, siblings, spouses, children, sons and daughters, in-laws and parents – who are already present, to enter the United States. (Officials initially wanted to keep them engaged, but later they stopped.)

Hawaii was the first in Watson, asking him to specify that these people could not be blocked. Watson wrote that “no usurerait the prerogative of the Supreme Court,” and if those pursuing the ban want relief, they must take their claims there.

The state then asked the ninth Circuit to participate and to prevent the government from enforcing the measure as it was.

“These actions are clearly illegal and inflict ongoing and irreparable damage to people in the United States whose parents and partners are denied entry into the country every day,” state lawyers said in a statement Friday.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *