• Home
  • Today
  • Advocacy
  • Forum
Donate
  • login
  • register
Home

They need you!

Forum links

  • Recent changes
  • Member list
  • Search
  • Register
Search Forums
 
Advanced Search
Go to Page...

Resources

  • Do I qualify?
  • In-state tuition
  • FAQ
  • Ways to legalize
  • Feedback
  • Contact us

Join our list

National calendar of events

«  

April

  »
S M T W T F S
 
 
 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
 
 
Sync with this calendar
DAP Forums > DREAM Act > The News Room

Judge wants Seattle 'dreamer' case to move forward on expedited schedule

  • View
  • Post new reply
  • Thread tools
#1
03-14-2017, 06:03 PM
Moderator
Joined in Mar 2006
6,464 posts
Swim19's Avatar
Swim19
190 AP
Quote:
SEATTLE -- A Seattle federal judge has recommended that the case of Daniel Ramirez Medina, the “dreamer” detained last month, be heard on an expedited schedule.

Judge James P. Donohue denied a DOJ motion to dismiss the case from U.S. District Court but also denied Ramirez’s attorneys’ request for conditional release.

Instead, he wants the merits phase of the case, or larger case, to move forward as quickly as possible, noting that Ramirez remains in custody and “because there are nearly 800,000 DACA beneficiaries who are interested in the outcome of these proceedings.”

Western Washington U.S. District Court Chief Judge Martinez will rule on Judge Donohue's report and recommendation, following any new filings by lawyers on either side
.

Quote:
In addition to release, his legal team is also seeking “declaratory relief,” to provide clarity on the due process rights of DACA recipients.
“
We’re saying to a federal judge: issue a statement that DACA provides certain protections for your liberties. That becomes a statement of a federal court and what the executive has to pay attention, so we don’t have to count on the good will of ICE agents,” said attorney Mark Rosenbaum.
http://www.king5.com/news/local/judg...dule/422538249

Surprised judge didn't allow condition release while this moves forward.
__________________
Initial Approval: 11/13/12
1st Renewal: 10-7-14
2nd Renewal: 10/12/16
3rd Renewal: 5/16/2018
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Swim19
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Swim19
Find all posts by Swim19
#2
03-14-2017, 06:22 PM
Moderator
Joined in Mar 2006
6,464 posts
Swim19's Avatar
Swim19
190 AP
More info:

Quote:
A federal magistrate judge weighed in for the second time Tuesday against immediately releasing Daniel Ramirez Medina, a Dreamer when he was arrested in Des Moines last month by immigration officers. Yet the judge also proposed an order that would keep jurisdiction over the case rather than send it to immigration court.

The decision by Chief Magistrate Judge James Donohue amounts to recommendations, not an order. As a magistrate judge, he must refer those recommendations to a federal judge appointed by the president, in this case Chief District Judge Ricardo Martinez.

Magistrate judges are chosen by presidentially appointed judges.

Immigration court normally handles deportation proceedings, including the issue of release on bond for someone who is detained. Donohue found that he could not yet conclude that Ramirez’s case was “extraordinary or involves special circumstances that would warrant conditional release at this time.”
Quote:
Attorneys for Ramirez and the government have until March 28 to file objections, and 14 days after any objection is filed to respond.
__________________
Initial Approval: 11/13/12
1st Renewal: 10-7-14
2nd Renewal: 10/12/16
3rd Renewal: 5/16/2018
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Swim19
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Swim19
Find all posts by Swim19
#3
03-14-2017, 08:09 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Aug 2009
3,161 posts
dtrt09
0 AP
This is interesting considering that another Daca beneficiary filed a lawsuit in District Court in NY asking the judge to rule whether the nationwide injuction for the expanded Daca and DAPA needs to be restricted to plaintiff states. Anyone have an update in that case? If this one has 800,000 parties have an interest at stake - protection from deportation and EADs - wouldn't 4-5M at stake be equally pressing for resolution to the lawsuit?
Last edited by dtrt09; 03-14-2017 at 08:13 PM..
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
dtrt09
View Public Profile
Find all posts by dtrt09


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Contact Us - DREAM Act Portal - Archive - Top
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.