Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (7763)	6/20/2000 6:27:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

LOL, really. I can just imagine the neighbor peering over the fence. I wonder if a chicken barbecue qualifies as an animal sacrifice....

To: Lane3 who wrote (7763)	6/21/2000 4:11:00 PM
From: Rambi	Respond to of 9127

Published Wednesday, June 21, 2000, in the Miami Herald Feds ask court to reject appeal by Miami family BY JAY WEAVER jweaver@herald The federal government Tuesday asked a federal appeals court in Atlanta to reject the latest appeal by the Miami relatives of Eli n Gonz lez to let him seek political asylum, so the boy can return with his father to Cuba as soon as possible. U.S. immigration officials urged the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to file its ruling from earlier this month right away so its injunction barring the boy's removal from this country can be lifted. The 11th Circuit set no timetable for deciding whether to hear the Miami relatives' new challenge, which followed their loss to the government in the June 1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the same court. A majority of the court's 12 judges must decide whether to rehear the case, which seeks to force the Immigration and Naturalization Service to give Eli n an asylum hearing. It has been an elusive goal sought by the boy's relatives in Little Havana almost since last Thanksgiving Day, when the 6-year-old was rescued from an inner tube off the South Florida coast. If the 11th Circuit decides not to rehear the appeal, it is customary for the court to wait seven days before entering its final judgment. That would lift its injunction barring Eli n's removal from this country, unless the relatives obtain another one from the U.S. Supreme Court. But if the 11th Circuit chooses to rehear the appeal, oral arguments would likely be set for later this summer. The relatives' appeal pivots on two claims: immigration officials exceeded their authority in Eli n's case, and that under federal law the boy has a constitutional right to apply for asylum. The relatives' Miami legal team argues that the trio of appellate judges gave too much leeway to the government in reviewing Eli n's asylum claim and that a new Supreme Court decision on ``judicial deference'' should compel the full 11th Circuit to rehear their challenge. ``That contention is unsound,'' Justice Department lawyers wrote in their 10-page response filed Tuesday. They claim that immigration officials -- backed by Attorney General Janet Reno -- had the authority to decide against hearing Eli n's asylum petition made on his behalf by his great-uncle Laz ro Gonz lez. The agency acknowledged that the boy had a due-process right to apply for asylum, but considered him too young to file an application. In turn, the INS found that only his Cuban father, Juan Miguel Gonz lez, had the right to speak for him. Gonz lez, who is now staying with his son in Washington, D.C., immediately asked the agency to withdraw his son's application. OPTIONS In a four-page court response filed Tuesday, the father's attorney, Gregory Craig, said that Laz ro Gonz lez's persistence in the courts has taken its toll on Juan Miguel Gonz lez's family. ``The driving force behind Laz ro Gonz lez's petition for rehearing is to prolong Eli n Gonz lez's stay in this country as long as possible,'' Craig wrote. ``Every day, of course, is another day of interference with Juan Miguel's ability to raise his child as he sees fit.'' The relatives' legal team challenges the legal underpinning of the Atlanta panel's decision: Federal courts have only limited authority over executive branch agencies like the INS because of the principle of ``judicial deference.'' The lawyers say a Supreme Court decision last month determined that the courts could review the decisions of federal agencies if they were based only on informal policies, not formal regulations. In this instance, Harris County, Texas, wanted to require its deputy sheriffs to use up their accumulated compensatory time rather than save it. The U.S. Department of Labor joined forces with the sheriffs, after writing an opinion letter to the county supporting their position. But Justice Department lawyers countered that the Labor Department's role was of a supporting nature -- unlike the central parts played by the INS and Reno in Eli n's case. David Martin, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School and former INS general counsel, credited the Miami legal team with coming up with the Harris County case. But he said it was not analogous to Eli n's: the INS conducted research here and in Cuba while developing an official policy found to be reasonable by the federal courts in Miami and Atlanta.