text:
Thelma Drake
Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration
Assuming office
TBD*
Peter Rogoff
from Virginia's 2nd district
Ed Schrock
Glenn Nye
Member of the Virginia House of Delegates
from the 87th district
January 10, 1996 – January 3, 2005
Howard Copeland
Paula Miller
Thelma Day
(1949-11-20) November 20, 1949 (age 70)
Elyria, Ohio, U.S.
Ted Drake
*Pending Senate confirmation
Thelma Day Drake (born November 20, 1949) is an American politician and former member of Congress for Virginia's 2nd Congressional District. A Republican, she represented Virginia's 2nd congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2005 to 2009. Prior to serving in Congress, Thelma Drake served nine years in the Virginia House of Delegates.
After leaving Congress, Drake was appointed to be Director of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation by Governor Robert McDonnell, and later became Assistant Director of Public Works - Transportation Division for the City of Norfolk. She also worked as a real estate agent in the Hampton Roads region. On February 13, 2017, Drake was nominated by President Donald Trump as the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration. She is still awaiting confirmation by the U.S. Senate.[1] [needs update]
2 Career in the House of Delegates
3 Career in the U.S. Congress
4 Federal Transit Administrator
Thelma Drake was born Thelma Mary Day in Elyria, Ohio where she attended both Elyria Catholic High and Elyria High School. She later attended Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. She is married to Ted Drake and lives in the East Ocean View area of Norfolk.
Career in the House of Delegates[edit]
In 1995 Drake became the second Republican to be elected to represent the City of Norfolk in the Virginia General Assembly - House of Delegates since Reconstruction. She served in the House of Delegates for nine years representing the 87th District. Drake served as chairman of the Virginia Housing Commission and as a member of the Chesapeake Bay Commission.
Career in the U.S. Congress[edit]
Drake was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2004. She entered the race after incumbent Republican congressman Ed Schrock decided not to continue to seek re-election. Drake defeated Democratic Party candidate, David Ashe, 55%–45% in the general election, becoming the third woman to represent Virginia in Congress after Leslie Byrne and Jo Ann Davis.
In 2006, Drake defeated Democratic Party candidate, Phillip Kellam, 51% to 49%. Kellam, a Democratic officeholder in Virginia Beach, Virginia, currently serves as its Commissioner of Revenue.
In 2008, Drake was defeated by Democratic nominee Glenn Nye.
Federal Transit Administrator[edit]
On February 13, 2017 Drake was nominated by President Donald Trump as the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration. Drake is awaiting confirmation by the U.S. Senate.
^ "PN48 - Nomination of Thelma Drake for Department of Transportation, 116th Congress (2019-2020)". www.congress.gov. March 12, 2019. Retrieved November 19, 2019.
Ed Schrock Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Virginia's 2nd congressional district
US Congress: D000605
WorldCat Identities (via VIAF): 7361154923716963780002
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thelma_Drake&oldid=927925217"
20th-century American women politicians
21st-century American women politicians
Members of the United States House of Representatives from Virginia
Members of the Virginia House of Delegates
Female members of the United States House of Representatives
Old Dominion University alumni
People from Elyria, Ohio
Politicians from Norfolk, Virginia
Republican Party members of the United States House of Representatives
Trump administration personnel
United Church of Christ members
United States Department of Transportation officials
Virginia Republicans
Women state legislators in Virginia
Wikipedia articles in need of updating from July 2019
All Wikipedia articles in need of updating
Wikipedia articles with USCongress identifiers


text:
Q: Googlebot crawls my site even though my robots.txt file tells it not to I've set up robots.txt to stop google crawling my site, since it's under development:
# robots.txt
User-agent: *
Disallow: /

But, the log indicates that Googlebot visits various and random parts of my site.  Just a single page at a time.  Why do they do this and how can I prevent them from doing it?
Log extract:

66.249.72.174 - - [07/May/2011:08:12:11 -0700] "GET /?page=2&atype=new&filter=h HTTP/1.1" 200 10156 - "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)"

I do want google to crawl my site, just not yet.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


First Bank of Nigeria Limited, a subsidiary of FBN Holdings Plc is to exercise its option to call the $300 million 8.25 per cent subordinated notes (Eurobond) raised from the international debt markets before the due date of August 2020.
In a filing to the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) signed by the Company Secretary of FBN Holdings, Mr. Seye Kosoko, the bank said it would call and pre-pay holders of the note at the next callable date of August 7, 2018.
Going by the bank's 2017 full year's financial statement, the Eurobond (notes I) bear interest rates at 8.25 per cent per annum up until the bank's call date of 7 August 2018. From the call date up to the maturity date, the notes will bear interest at a fixed rate of 6.875 per cent per annum plus the prevailing two-year mid swap rate for the United States dollar swap transactions reported at 2.812 per cent. This implies higher interest rate on the bond for the bank post the callable date.
Commenting on the development, analysts at CSL Stockbrokers said calling back the bond two years before maturity points to the strength of the bank's foreign currency liquidity position.
"We also expect the redemption to lower the bank's funding cost reported at 3.3 per cent as at first quarter (Q1) 2018. This should also reduce the bank's foreign-currency lending reported at 49 per cent of total loans in Q1 2018. On the flip side however, it suggests there is little room for profitable opportunities for USD lending and may mean loss of the spread, however marginal, that may be gained if availed for lending," they said.


text:
Kunt ist der Familienname folgender Personen:

 Burakcan Kunt (* 1992), deutsch-türkischer Fußballspieler
 Rikkat Kunt (1903–1986), türkische Illuminatorin und Kalligraphin

Siehe auch:
 Kundt
 Kunth
 Kund

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Whether you are looking for custom outdoor water features for your residential or commercial properties, Art of the Yard has the experience and creativity you are looking for. We design every project to bring the beauty of nature to your space.
Our skilled designers are involved in every phase of your project. Our services include new construction, design, and re-make exiting features, lighting plants and more. We use only the highest quality parts and upgraded filtration systems and mortar for superior performance.
With over 30 years of combined experience we take pride in offering the knowledge and experience needed to create and maintain healthy and beautiful custom outdoor water features. We know you will be 100% satisfied with our work. Call for a free estimate today and let us get started on your custom outdoor water features.


text:
212 F. 3d 1338 - Elian Gonzalez v. Janet Reno Attorney General of the United States
Federal Reporter, Third Series
212 F.3d
212 F3d 1338 Elian Gonzalez v. Janet Reno Attorney General of the United States
ELIAN GONZALEZ, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH LAZARO GONZALEZ, AS NEXT FRIEND, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, AS TEMPORARY LEGAL CUSTODIAN, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; DORIS MEISSNER, COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; ROBERT WALLIS, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; AND UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES,
JUAN MIGUEL GONZALEZ, INTERVENOR.
No. 00-11424
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of FloridaBefore Edmondson, Dubina and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Edmondson, Circuit Judge
This case, at first sight, seems to be about little more than a child and his father. But, for this Court, the case is mainly about the separation of powers under our constitutional system of government: a statute enacted by Congress, the permissible scope of executive discretion under that statute, and the limits on judicial review of the exercise of that executive discretion.
Elian Gonzalez ("Plaintiff"), a six-year-old Cuban child, arrived in the United States alone. His father in Cuba demanded that Plaintiff be returned to Cuba. Plaintiff, however, asked to stay in the United States; and asylum applications were submitted on his behalf. The Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") -- after, among other things, consulting with Plaintiff's father and considering Plaintiff's age -- decided that Plaintiff's asylum applications were legally void and refused to consider their merit.
Plaintiff then filed this suit in federal district court, seeking on several grounds to compel the INS to consider and to determine the merit of his asylum applications. The district court dismissed Plaintiff's suit. Gonzalez ex rel. Gonzalez v. Reno, 86 F. Supp.2d 1167, 1194 (S.D. Fla. 2000). Plaintiff appeals,1 and we affirm.
In December 1993, Plaintiff was born in Cuba to Juan Miguel Gonzalez and Elizabeth Gonzalez. When Plaintiff was about three years old, Juan Miguel and Elizabeth separated. Elizabeth retained custody of Plaintiff after the separation. Juan Miguel, however, continued to have regular and significant contact with his son. Plaintiff, in fact, attended school in the district where his father lived and often stayed at Juan Miguel's home.
In November 1999, Elizabeth decided to leave Cuba and to take her son to the United States. In the pre-dawn hours of 22 November, Plaintiff and Elizabeth, along with twelve other Cuban nationals, left Cuba aboard a small boat. The next day, the boat capsized in strong winds and rough seas off the coast of Florida. Eleven of the passengers, including Elizabeth, died. Plaintiff, clinging to an inner tube, endured and survived.
Two days later, Plaintiff was rescued at sea by Florida fishermen and was taken to a hospital in Miami for medical treatment. While Plaintiff was receiving medical treatment, the INS was contacted by Plaintiff's great-uncle: Miami resident Lazaro Gonzalez. INS officials decided, upon Plaintiff's release from the hospital, not to remove Plaintiff immediately to Cuba. Instead, the INS deferred Plaintiff's immigration inspection and paroled Plaintiff into Lazaro's custody and care.
Soon thereafter, Lazaro filed an application for asylum on Plaintiff's behalf with the INS. This application was followed shortly by a second application signed by Plaintiff himself. A third asylum application was filed by Lazaro on Plaintiff's behalf in January 2000, after a state court awarded temporary custody of Plaintiff to Lazaro.2 The applications were prepared by a Miami lawyer.
The three applications were substantially identical in content. The applications stated that Plaintiff "is afraid to return to Cuba." The applications claimed that Plaintiff had a well-founded fear of persecution because many members of Plaintiff's family had been persecuted by the Castro government in Cuba. In particular, according to the applications, Plaintiff's stepfather had been imprisoned for several months because of opposition to the Cuban government. Two of Plaintiff's great-uncles also had been imprisoned for their political acts. Plaintiff's mother had also been harassed and intimidated by communist authorities in Cuba. The applications also alleged that, if Plaintiff were returned to Cuba, he would be used as a propaganda tool for the Castro government and would be subjected to involuntary indoctrination in the tenets of communism.
Plaintiff's father, however, apparently did not agree that Plaintiff should remain in the United States. Soon after Plaintiff was rescued at sea, Juan Miguel sent to Cuban officials a letter, asking for Plaintiff's return to Cuba. The Cuban government forwarded this letter to the INS.
Because of the conflicting requests about whether Plaintiff should remain in the United States, INS officials interviewed both Juan Miguel and Lazaro. An INS official, on 13 December, met with Juan Miguel at his home in Cuba. At that meeting, Juan Miguel made this comment:
[Plaintiff], at the age of six, cannot make a decision on his own . . . . I'm very grateful that he received immediate medical assistance, but he should be returned to me and my family . . . . As for him to get asylum, I am not allowing him to stay or claim any type of petition; he should be returned immediately to me.
Juan Miguel denied that Lazaro was authorized to seek asylum for Plaintiff; Juan Miguel also refused to consent to any lawyer representing Plaintiff. Juan Miguel assured the INS official that his desire for Plaintiff's return to Cuba was genuine and was not coerced by the Cuban government.
One week later, INS officials in Miami met with Lazaro, Marisleysis Gonzalez (Plaintiff's cousin), and several lawyers representing Plaintiff. At that meeting, the parties discussed Juan Miguel's request. Lazaro contended that Juan Miguel's request for Plaintiff's return to Cuba was coerced by the Cuban government.3 INS officials also inquired about the legal basis for Plaintiff's asylum applications; Lazaro replied this way: "During the time he's been here, everything he has, if he goes back, it's all changed. His activities here are different from those that he would have over there." Plaintiff's lawyers told the INS again of the persecution of Plaintiff's relatives in Cuba because of their political opposition to the Castro government.
On 31 December, an INS official again met with Juan Miguel in Cuba to investigate further Lazaro's claim that Juan Miguel's request had been coerced.4 At that meeting, Juan Miguel repeated that he desired Plaintiff's return to Cuba. Juan Miguel also reasserted that he was under no undue influence from any individual or government. The INS official -- taking Juan Miguel's demeanor into account -- determined that Juan Miguel, in fact, genuinely desired his son's return to Cuba.
The INS Commissioner, on 5 January 2000, rejected Plaintiff's asylum applications as legally void. The Commissioner -- concluding that six-year-old children lack the capacity to file personally for asylum against the wishes of their parents -- determined that Plaintiff could not file his own asylum applications. Instead, according to the Commissioner, Plaintiff needed an adult representative to file for asylum on his behalf. The Commissioner -- citing the custom that parents generally speak for their children and finding that no circumstance in this case warranted a departure from that custom -- concluded that the asylum applications submitted by Plaintiff and Lazaro were legally void and required no further consideration. Plaintiff asked the Attorney General to overrule the Commissioner's decision; the Attorney General declined to do so.
Plaintiff then, by and through Lazaro as his next friend, filed a complaint in federal district court seeking to compel the INS to consider the merits of his asylum applications. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the refusal to consider his applications violated 8 U.S.C. § 1158 and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. The district court rejected both claims and dismissed Plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff appeals.5
On appeal, Plaintiff argues that the district court erred (1) by dismissing Plaintiff's claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1158, (2) by dismissing Plaintiff's due process claim, and (3) by failing to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent Plaintiff's interests.6 We have reviewed carefully the record and the briefs filed by all parties. We conclude that Plaintiff's due process claim lacks merit and does not warrant extended discussion. See Jean v. Nelson, 727 F.2d 957, 968 (11th Cir. 1984) (en banc) ("Aliens seeking admission to the United States . . . have no constitutional rights with regard to their applications . . . ."), aff'd on other grounds, 105 S. Ct. 2992 (1985). Plaintiff's guardian ad litem claim, because Plaintiff was ably represented in district court by his next friend, also lacks merit and similarly does not warrant extended discussion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) (providing for appointment of guardian ad litem in discretion of district court); see also Roberts v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 256 F.2d 35, 39 (5th Cir. 1958) (noting that guardian ad litem may be unnecessary where child already represented adequately by next friend). We, accordingly, affirm the district court's dismissal of the constitutional claim and the district court's refusal to appoint a guardian ad litem.7 We now turn, however, to a more difficult question: the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's statutory claim.
Plaintiff contends that the district court erred in rejecting his statutory claim based on 8 U.S.C. § 1158. Section 1158 provides that "[a]ny alien . . . may apply for asylum." 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1). Plaintiff says that, because he is "[a]ny alien," he may apply for asylum. Plaintiff insists that, by the applications signed and submitted by himself and Lazaro, he , in fact, did apply for asylum within the meaning of section 1158. In addition, Plaintiff argues that the summary rejection by the INS of his applications as invalid violated the intent of Congress as set out in the statute.
The INS responds that section 1158 is silent about the validity of asylum applications filed on behalf of a six-year-old child, by the child himself and a non-parental relative, against the wishes of the child's parent. The INS argues that, because the statute does not spell out how a young child files for asylum, the INS was free to adopt a policy requiring, in these circumstances, that any asylum claim on Plaintiff's behalf be filed by Plaintiff's father. As such, the INS urges that the rejection of Plaintiff's purported asylum applications as legally void was lawful. According to the INS, because the applications had no legal effect, Plaintiff never applied at all within the meaning of the statute.
Guided by well-established principles of statutory construction, judicial restraint, and deference to executive agencies, we accept that the rejection by the INS of Plaintiff's applications as invalid did not violate section 1158.
Our consideration of Plaintiff's statutory claim must begin with an examination of the scope of the statute itself. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 104 S. Ct. 2778, 2781 (1984); see also INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 119 S. Ct. 1439, 1445 (1999) (instructing that analysis set out in Chevron is applicable to immigration statutes); Jaramillo v. INS, 1 F.3d 1149, 1153 (11th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (same). In Chevron, the Supreme Court explained: "First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress." 104 S. Ct. at 2781. We turn, therefore, to the plain language of the statute.
Section 1158 provides, in pertinent part:
Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1) (emphasis added). Section 1158 is neither vague nor ambiguous. The statute means exactly what it says: "[a]ny alien . . . may apply for asylum." See Pennsylvania Dep't of Corrections v. Yeskey, 118 S. Ct. 1952, 1956 (1998) (observing that statute is not ambiguous just because it is broad and that statute may apply to circumstances not envisioned by Congress). That "[a]ny alien" includes Plaintiff seems apparent.8 See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3) (defining "alien" as "any person not a citizen or national of the United States"); see also Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1186 (11th Cir. 1997) (noting that word "any" has "an expansive meaning"). Section 1158, therefore, plainly would permit Plaintiff to apply for asylum.
When an alien does apply for asylum within the meaning of the statute, the INS -- according to the statute itself and INS regulations -- must consider the merits of the alien's asylum claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(1) ("The Attorney General shall establish a procedure for the consideration of asylum applications filed under subsection (a) of this section.") (emphasis added); 8 C.F.R. § 208.9(a) (requiring INS to "adjudicate the claim of each asylum applicant whose application is complete"). The important legal question in this case, therefore, is not whether Plaintiff may apply for asylum; that a six-year-old is eligible to apply for asylum is clear. The ultimate inquiry, instead, is whether a six-year-old child has applied for asylum within the meaning of the statute when he, or a non-parental relative on his behalf, signs and submits a purported application against the express wishes of the child's parent.
About this question, more important than what Congress said in section 1158 is what Congress left unsaid. In reading statutes, we consider not only the words Congress used, but the spaces between those words. Section 1158 is silent on the precise question at issue in this case. Although section 1158 gives "[a]ny alien" the right to "apply for asylum," the statute does not command how an alien applies for asylum. The statute includes no definition of the term "apply." The statute does not set out procedures for the proper filing of an asylum application. Furthermore, the statute does not identify the necessary contents of a valid asylum application. In short, although the statute requires the existence of some application procedure so that aliens may apply for asylum, section 1158 says nothing about the particulars of that procedure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158.
Because the statute is silent on the issue, Congress has left a gap in the statutory scheme.9 From that gap springs executive discretion.10 As a matter of law, it is not for the courts, but for the executive agency charged with enforcing the statute (here, the INS), to choose how to fill such gaps.11 See Chevron, 104 S. Ct. at 2793. Moreover, the authority of the executive branch to fill gaps is especially great in the context of immigration policy.12 See Aguirre-Aguirre, 119 S. Ct. at 1445. Our proper review of the exercise by the executive branch of its discretion to fill gaps, therefore, must be very limited. See Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc., 111 S. Ct. 2524, 2534 (1991).
That the courts owe some deference to executive policy does not mean that the executive branch has unbridled discretion in creating and in implementing policy. Executive agencies must comply with the procedural requirements imposed by statute. See Morton v. Ruiz, 94 S. Ct. 1055, 1073 (1974). Agencies must respect their own procedural rules and regulations. See id. at 1074; see also Hall v. Schweiker, 660 F.2d 116, 119 (5th Cir. 1981). And the policy selected by the agency must be a reasonable one in the light of the statutory scheme. Chevron, 104 S. Ct. at 2782. To this end, the courts retain the authority to check agency policymaking for procedural compliance and for arbitrariness. But the courts cannot properly re-examine the wisdom of an agency- promulgated policy.13 See SEC v. Chenery Corp., 67 S. Ct. 1575, 1582 (1947) ("The wisdom of the principle adopted is none of our concern.").
In this case, because the law -- particularly section 1158 -- is silent about the validity of Plaintiff's purported asylum applications, it fell to the INS to make a discretionary policy choice. The INS, exercising its gap-filling discretion, determined these things: (1) six-year-old children lack the capacity to sign and to submit personally an application for asylum; (2) instead, six-year-old children must be represented by an adult in immigration matters; (3) absent special circumstances, the only proper adult to represent a six-year-old child is the child's parent, even when the parent is not in this country; and, (4) that the parent lives in a communist-totalitarian state (such as Cuba),14 in and of itself, does not constitute a special circumstance requiring the selection of a non-parental representative. Our duty is to decide whether this policy might be a reasonable one in the light of the statutory scheme. See Chevron, 104 S. Ct. at 2782.
But we first address Plaintiff's contention that the "policy" relied on by the INS in this case is really no policy at all but is, in reality, just a litigating position. An after-the-fact rationalization of agency action -- an explanation developed for the sole purpose of defending in court the agency's acts -- is usually entitled to no deference from the courts. Bradberry v. Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, 117 F.3d 1361, 1366 (11th Cir. 1997). But we are unable to say that the position of the INS here is just an after-the-fact rationalization.
The INS policy toward Plaintiff's application was not created by INS lawyers during litigation, but instead was developed in the course of administrative proceedings before litigation commenced.15 Cf. IAL Aircraft Holding, Inc. v. FAA, 206 F.3d 1042, 1046 & n.5 (11th Cir. 2000). While the policy announced by the INS may not harmonize perfectly with earlier INS interpretative guidelines (which are not law),16 the parties have cited, and we have found, no statutory provision, no regulatory authority, and no prior agency adjudication that "flatly contradicts" the policy. Cf. General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, 97 S. Ct. 401, 411 (1976); see also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 103 S. Ct. 2856, 2866 (1983) (noting that agencies have latitude to "adapt their rules and policies to the demands of changing circumstances"). That the INS policy was developed in the course of an informal adjudication, rather than during formal rulemaking, may affect the degree of deference appropriate but does not render the policy altogether unworthy of deference. See Chenery, 67 S. Ct. at 1580; see also Cook v. Wiley, 208 F.3d 1314, 1319-20 (11th Cir. 2000) (explaining that executive policies not "subjected to the heightened scrutiny of [formal] rulemaking" are nonetheless entitled to "some deference"); Bigby v. INS, 21 F.3d 1059, 1063-64 (11th Cir. 1994) (finding Chevron deference appropriate even though agency policy had not been adopted as regulation); U.S. Mosaic Tile Co. v. NLRB, 935 F.2d 1249, 1255 n.6 (11th Cir. 1991) ("Although the agency action in Chevron involved a legislative regulation, the deference standards set forth in that case are now applied to most agency actions, including administrative adjudications . . . ."). And that the INS policy may not be a longstanding one likewise affects only the degree of deference required.17 See Chenery, 67 S. Ct. at 1580. The INS policy, therefore, is entitled to, at least, some deference under Chevron; and that deference, when we take account of the implications of the policy for foreign affairs, becomes considerable.
We accept that the INS policy at issue here comes within the range of reasonable choices. First, we cannot say that the foundation of the policy -- the INS determination that six-year-old children necessarily lack sufficient capacity to assert, on their own, an asylum claim -- is unreasonable.18 See Polovchak v. Meese, 774 F.2d 731, 736-37 (7th Cir. 1985) (presuming that twelve-year-old child was "near the lower end of an age range in which a minor may be mature enough to assert" an asylum claim against the wishes of his parents). Because six-year-old children must have some means of applying for asylum, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1), and because the INS has decided that the children cannot apply personally, the next element of the INS policy -- that a six-year- old child must be represented by some adult in applying for asylum -- necessarily is reasonable.
The INS determination that ordinarily a parent (even one outside of this country)19 -- and, more important, only a parent -- can act for his six-year-old child (who is in this country) in immigration matters also comes within the range of reasonable choices. In making that determination, INS officials seem to have taken account of the relevant, competing policy interests: the interest of a child in asserting a non-frivolous asylum claim; the interest of a parent in raising his child as he sees fit; and the interest of the public in the prompt but fair disposition of asylum claims. The INS policy -- by presuming that the parent is the sole, appropriate representative for a child -- gives paramount consideration to the primary role of parents in the upbringing of their children. But we cannot conclude that the policy's stress on the parent-child relationship is unreasonable.20 See Ginsberg v. New York, 88 S. Ct. 1274, 1280 (1968) ("[T]he parents' claim to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the structure of our society.").
Critically important, the INS policy does not neglect completely the independent and separate interest that a child may have, apart from his parents, in applying for asylum. See Polovochak, 774 F.2d at 736- 37. Instead, according to the INS policy, special circumstances may exist that render a parent an inappropriate representative for the child.21 Where such circumstances do exist, the INS policy appears to permit other persons, besides a parent, to speak for the child in immigration matters. So, to some extent, the policy does protect a child's own right to apply for asylum under section 1158 despite the contrary wishes of his parents.
We are not untroubled by the degree of obedience that the INS policy appears to give to the wishes of parents, especially parents who are outside this country's jurisdiction. Because Congress has decided that "[a]ny alien" (including six-year-old children) may apply for asylum, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1), Congress has charged the INS -- when it promulgates policy and fills gaps in the statutory scheme -- with facilitation, not hindrance, of that legislative goal. See Shoemaker v. Bowen, 853 F.2d 858, 861 (11th Cir. 1988) (noting that Chevron does not provide agency with license to "frustrate[] the underlying congressional policy"). We recognize that, in some instances, the INS policy of deferring to parents -- especially those residing outside of this country -- might hinder some six-year-olds with non-frivolous asylum claims and prevent them from invoking their statutory right to seek asylum. But, considering the well-established principles of judicial deference to executive agencies, we cannot disturb the INS policy in this case just because it might be imperfect. See Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Inst., 100 S. Ct. 2844, 2875 (1980) (Burger, C.J., concurring) (noting that agency policy may be valid although policy does not perfectly accomplish legislative goals). And we cannot invalidate the policy -- one with international-relations implications -- selected by the INS merely because we personally might have chosen another. See Chevron, 104 S. Ct. at 2793; see also Jaramillo, 1 F.3d at 1152-53. Because we cannot say that this element of the INS policy -- that, ordinarily, a parent, and only a parent, can act for a six-year-old child in immigration matters -- is unreasonable, we defer to the INS policy.
The final aspect of the INS policy also worries us some. According to the INS policy, that a parent lives in a communist-totalitarian state is no special circumstance, sufficient in and of itself, to justify the consideration of a six-year-old child's asylum claim (presented by a relative in this country) against the wishes of the non-resident parent. We acknowledge, as a widely-accepted truth, that Cuba does violate human rights and fundamental freedoms and does not guarantee the rule of law to people living in Cuba.22 See generally U.S. Dept. of State, 1999 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Cuba (2000) ("[The Cuban Government] continue[s] systematically to violate fundamental civil and political rights of its citizens."). Persons living in such a totalitarian state may be unable to assert freely their own legal rights, much less the legal rights of others. Moreover, some reasonable people might say that a child in the United States inherently has a substantial conflict of interest with a parent residing in a totalitarian state when that parent -- even when he is not coerced -- demands that the child leave this country to return to a country with little respect for human rights and basic freedoms.
Nonetheless, we cannot properly conclude that the INS policy is totally unreasonable in this respect. The INS policy does take some account of the possibility of government coercion: where special circumstances -- such as definite coercion directed at an individual parent -- exist, a non-parental representative may be necessary to speak for the child. In addition and more important, in no context is the executive branch entitled to more deference than in the context of foreign affairs. See generally United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 57 S. Ct. 216, 221 (1936). This aspect of the INS policy seems to implicate the conduct of foreign affairs more than any other. Something even close to a per se rule -- that, for immigration purposes, no parent living in a totalitarian state has sufficient liberty to represent and to serve the true, best interests of his own child in the United States -- likely would have significant consequences for the President's conduct of our Nation's international affairs: such a rule would focus not on the qualities of the particular parent, but on the qualities of the government of the parent's country. As we understand the legal precedents, they, in effect, direct that a court of law defer especially to this international-relations aspect of the INS policy.
We are obliged to accept that the INS policy, on its face, does not contradict and does not violate section 1158, although section 1158 does not require the approach that the INS has chosen to take.
We now examine the INS's application of its facially reasonable policy to Plaintiff in this case. Although based on a policy permissible under Chevron, if the ultimate decision of the INS -- to treat Plaintiff's asylum applications as invalid -- was "arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion," the decision is unlawful.23 See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); see also INS v. Yueh-Shaio-Yang, 117 S. Ct. 350, 353 (1996); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 91 S. Ct. 814, 822 (1971). But whatever we personally might think about the decisions made by the Government, we cannot properly conclude that the INS acted arbitrarily or abused its discretion here.
The application signed and submitted by Plaintiff himself, insofar as the INS has decided that six-year-old children cannot file for asylum themselves, necessarily was a nullity under the INS policy. As we have explained, the INS's per se rule -- prohibiting six-year-old children from personally filing asylum applications against their parents' wishes -- is entitled to deference under the law. The INS, therefore, did not act arbitrarily or abuse its discretion in rejecting Plaintiff's own purported asylum application as void.
Plaintiff contends that, even if the INS policy is facially reasonable under Chevron, the INS decision to reject the applications submitted by Lazaro was arbitrary. Plaintiff asserts that two special circumstances -- the alleged coercion of Juan Miguel by the Cuban government and the objective basis of Plaintiff's asylum claim -- bear negatively upon Juan Miguel's fitness to represent Plaintiff in immigration matters. The INS, according to Plaintiff, was therefore required to recognize some other adult representative -- namely, Lazaro -- to act on Plaintiff's behalf. We, however, conclude that the INS adequately considered these circumstances in reaching its ultimate decision.
The INS first determined that Juan Miguel, in fact, was not operating under coercion from the Cuban government or that, even if he was, his honest and sincere desires were aligned with those of the Cuban government. That determination was not clearly wrong and was no abuse of discretion. An INS official, on two occasions, interviewed Juan Miguel in person in Cuba. Aware of the possibility that Juan Miguel might be under some kind of coercion, the INS official took steps to ensure that Juan Miguel could express freely his genuine wishes about Plaintiff's asylum claim. The INS official, after meeting with Juan Miguel face-to-face, concluded -- based upon her observations of his demeanor -- that Juan Miguel's statement was not the result of duress or coercion. We, therefore, cannot say that the INS's rejection of Plaintiff's contention about coercion was arbitrary.
The INS also preliminarily assessed the objective basis of Plaintiff's asylum claim and concluded that his claim for asylum probably lacked merit.24 Again, we cannot conclude that the INS's determination was arbitrary or an abuse of discretion. In making this assessment, the INS considered the information contained in the asylum applications and information provided to the INS by Plaintiff's lawyers. In addition, the INS interviewed Lazaro and inquired about the basis for Plaintiff's asylum claim.25
The essence of Plaintiff's asylum claim was that, if he is returned to Cuba: (1) he will not enjoy the freedom that he has in the United States; (2) he might be forced to undergo "re-education" and indoctrination in communist theory; and (3) he might be used by the Cuban government for propaganda purposes. No one should doubt that, if Plaintiff returns to Cuba, he will be without the degree of liberty that people enjoy in the United States. Also, we admit that re-education, communist indoctrination, and political manipulation of Plaintiff for propaganda purposes, upon a return to Cuba, are not beyond the realm of possibility.
Nonetheless, we cannot say that the INS's assessment of Plaintiff's asylum claim -- that it probably lacked merit -- was arbitrary. To make a meritorious asylum claim, an asylum applicant must show that he has a "well-founded fear of persecution" in his native land. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). Congress largely has left the task of defining with precision the phrase "well-founded fear of persecution" to the INS. See Perlera-Escobar v. Executive Office for Immigration, 894 F.2d 1292, 1296 (11th Cir. 1990) (stating that, where statutory term is ambiguous, agency properly defined term through adjudications); see also Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that statutes do not define "persecution" or specify acts constituting "persecution").
Plaintiff points to no earlier INS adjudications or judicial decisions where a person, in circumstances similar to Plaintiff's, was found to have established a "well-founded fear of persecution." Political conditions "which affect the populace as a whole or in large part are generally insufficient to establish [persecution]." See Mitev v. INS, 67 F.3d 1325, 1330 (7th Cir. 1995) . We cannot say that the INS had to treat education and indoctrination as synonymous with "persecution." See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining that "persecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive"); see also Mikhailevitch v. INS, 146 F.3d 384, 390 (6th Cir. 1998) (stating that "persecution" "requires more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation, unaccompanied by any physical punishment, infliction of harm, or significant deprivation of liberty"); Bradvica v. INS, 128 F.3d 1009, 1012 (7th Cir. 1997) ("[M]ere harassment does not amount to persecution."); Ira J. Kurzban, Kurzban's Immigration Law Sourcebook, 254-61 (6th ed. 1998) (citing cases discussing meaning of "persecution"). Not all exceptional treatment is persecution. The INS's estimate of the purported applications -- as applications that were not strong on their merits -- is not clearly inaccurate.26
We have not the slightest illusion about the INS's choices: the choices -- about policy and about application of the policy -- that the INS made in this case are choices about which reasonable people can disagree. Still, the choices were not unreasonable, not capricious and not arbitrary, but were reasoned and reasonable. The INS's considerable discretion was not abused.
As policymakers, it is the duty of the Congress and of the executive branch to exercise political will. Although courts should not be unquestioning, we should respect the other branches' policymaking powers. The judicial power is a limited power. It is the duty of the judicial branch not to exercise political will, but only to render judicial judgment under the law.
When the INS was confronted with Plaintiff's purported asylum applications, the immigration law of the United States provided the INS with no clear answer. The INS accordingly developed a policy to deal with the extraordinary circumstances of asylum applications filed on behalf of a six-year-old child, by the child himself and a non-parental relative, against the express wishes of the child's parents (or sole parent). The INS then applied this new policy to Plaintiff's purported asylum applications and rejected them as nullities.
Because the pre-existing law compelled no particular policy, the INS was entitled to make a policy decision. The policy decision that the INS made was within the outside border of reasonable choices. And the INS did not abuse its discretion or act arbitrarily in applying the policy and rejecting Plaintiff's purported asylum applications. The Court neither approves nor disapproves the INS's decision to reject the asylum applications filed on Plaintiff's behalf, but the INS decision did not contradict 8 U.S.C. § 1158.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.27
Several defendant-appellees are involved in this appeal. All these defendants are part of the executive branch of our government. For the sake of simplicity, we refer to the defendants collectively as the "INS."
A Florida state court since has dismissed Lazaro's petition for custody of Plaintiff. See In re the Matter of Lazaro Gonzalez, No. 00- 00479-FC-28 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2000).
As proof of this contention, Lazaro told INS officials that, before Plaintiff was discovered at sea, Juan Miguel telephoned Lazaro and asked Lazaro to take care of Plaintiff if Plaintiff made it to the United States. Lazaro stated that, after Plaintiff's rescue, Juan Miguel's demeanor had changed noticeably and that, according to Juan Miguel's neighbors in Cuba, Juan Miguel was "[g]etting extra protection" from Cuban authorities.
To reduce third parties' opportunities to eavesdrop upon the meeting, this interview was held at the residence of a United Nations official near Havana. Also, some of the interview was conducted in writing to prevent eavesdropping.
During the pendency of this appeal, the INS revoked Plaintiff's parole and removed Plaintiff from Lazaro's custody. The INS then paroled Plaintiff into the custody of Juan Miguel, who had traveled to the United States to reclaim his son. After Juan Miguel came to the United States, we permitted Juan Miguel to intervene in this case. To ensure that Plaintiff would not be returned to Cuba, depriving Plaintiff of a day in court and depriving this Court of jurisdiction over Plaintiff's appeal, we enjoined Plaintiff's removal from the United States pending appeal. Considering that we affirm the judgment of the district court, the injunction will dissolve (without a further order) when the Court's mandate is issued.
The INS contended in district court that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's suit. The district court, however, rejected this argument and concluded that subject-matter jurisdiction did exist. The INS has not renewed its jurisdictional contention on appeal. We, however, are mindful of our own jurisdictional limits. So, we have considered our subject-matter jurisdiction over this appeal. We conclude that this Court does have subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's appeal.
Also before this Court is a recently filed motion of Intervenor, Juan Miguel Gonzalez, to remove Lazaro Gonzalez as Plaintiff's next friend and to substitute Plaintiff's father as next friend. Notwithstanding that much has happened since Lazaro brought this suit as Plaintiff's next friend, Lazaro (aided by a troop of seasoned lawyers) has completely and steadfastly pressed Plaintiff's claimed rights in the district court and in this Court. We see no powerful reason to make a change at this point. We, therefore, deny Intervenor's motion to remove Lazaro and to substitute Intervenor as next friend for the purposes of this litigation.
The INS concedes that Plaintiff is eligible to apply for asylum pursuant to section 1158.
That Congress left a gap in the statutory scheme does not mean that Congress has done something wrong. Whether Congress could or should legislate with sufficient detail to address every conceivable set of circumstances that might arise is highly debatable. See generally Loving v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 1737, 1744 (1996) ("To burden Congress with all federal rulemaking would divert that branch from more pressing issues, and defeat the Framers' design of a workable National Government."). Congress may properly commit something to the discretion of the other branches of government.
This case is about the discretion of the executive branch to make policy, not about ministerial enforcement of the "law" by executive officials. It has been suggested that the precise policy adopted by the INS in this case was required by "law." That characterization of this case, however, is inaccurate. As we have explained, when the INS made its pertinent policy, the pre-existing law said nothing about the validity of Plaintiff's asylum applications. Instead, Congress just provided that "[a]ny alien" may apply for asylum and left the details of the application process to the discretion of the INS. See Mesa Verde Constr. Co. v. Northern Cal. Dist. Council of Laborers, 861 F.2d 1124, 1140 (9th Cir. 1988) (en banc) (Hug, J., dissenting) (explaining that sometimes "Congress enacts quite general provisions, with the specifics to be filled in by the agency"). The INS, in its discretion, decided to require six-year-old children - who arrive unaccompanied in the United States from Cuba - to act in immigration matters only through (absent special circumstances) their parents in Cuba. The INS could have shaped its policy in a different fashion, perhaps allowing relatives (for example, those within the fourth degree of relationship) in the United States to act for such children. But it did not, and we cannot. That choice was the sole prerogative of the executive branch. According to the principles set out in Chevron, we can only disturb that choice if it is unreasonable. See Chevron, 104 S. Ct. at 2793; see also Mistretta v. United States, 109 S. Ct. 647, 678 (1989) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (explaining discretionary authority of executive branch in administering statutory scheme).
When a statute is ambiguous or silent on the pertinent issue, it ordinarily is for the judicial branch to construe the statute. See generally Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803) ("It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."). But the ordinary rule does not always apply: where Congress has indicated that gaps in the statutory scheme should be filled in by officers of the executive branch (a political branch accountable to the people and fit for making policy judgments), then the gaps should not be filled in by federal judges. Where Congress has committed the enforcement of a statute to a particular executive agency, Congress has sufficiently indicated its intent that statutory gaps be filled by the executive agency. And the Supreme Court has directed that, for such statutes, if "Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute . . . . Rather, if the statute is silent . . . the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute." Chevron, 104 S. Ct. at 2782.
The authority of the executive branch in immigration matters stems from the primacy of the President and other executive officials (such as the INS) in matters touching upon foreign affairs. See Aguirre-Aguirre, 119 S. Ct. at 1445. Respect for the authority of the executive branch in foreign affairs is a well-established theme in our law. See United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 57 S. Ct. 216, 221 (1936) (recognizing "the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations"). And the judicial respect for executive authority in matters touching upon foreign relations is even greater where the presidential power has been affirmed in an act of Congress. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 72 S. Ct. 863, 870 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) ("When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate."); see also United States v. Frade, 709 F.2d 1387, 1402 (11th Cir. 1983) (same).
The Supreme Court has instructed us with these words: [F]ederal judges - who have no constituency - have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do. The responsibilities for assessing the wisdom of such policy choices and resolving the struggle between competing views of the public interest are not judicial ones: "Our Constitution vests such responsibilities in the political branches." Chevron, 104 S. Ct. at 2793 (citation omitted).
See U.S. Dept. of State, 1999 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Cuba (2000) (noting that "Cuba is a totalitarian state," where Communist Party "exercises control over all aspects of Cuban life").
The INS policy on unaccompanied six-year-old children purporting to file for asylum against their parents' wishes was set out in these writings: (1) a memorandum, dated 3 January 2000, from the INS General Counsel to the INS Commissioner; (2) two letters, dated 5 January, from an INS district director to Plaintiff's lawyers and Lazaro, letters explaining the decision of the INS Commissioner; and (3) a letter, dated 12 January, from the Attorney General to Plaintiff's lawyers and Lazaro.
The INS Guidelines "do not have the force and effect of law." Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 953 F.2d 1498, 1511 (11th Cir. 1992).
The INS claims that the approach taken in Plaintiff's case is the INS's longstanding position on young, unaccompanied aliens. The INS, however, points to no evidence in the record showing that the INS, in the past, has taken this approach. But, even assuming that Plaintiff's case triggered the making of this policy to fit cases like Plaintiff's peculiar circumstances, deference to the INS policy would still be due if the policy is a reasonable one. See Chenery, 67 S. Ct. at 1580 ("[P]roblems may arise in a case which the administrative agency could not reasonably foresee, problems which must be solved despite the absence of a relevant general rule.").
In other words, we do not think that the INS, as a matter of law, must individually assess each child's mental capacity; we cannot say that looking at capacity instead of age for young children is required. Instead, we recognize that absolute line drawing - although necessarily sacrificing accuracy and flexibility for certainty and efficiency - is an acceptable approach. See Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 96 S. Ct. 2562, 2567-68 (1976). And, as long as the approach taken by the INS is a reasonable one, we need not decide what the best approach would be. We, however, do not mean to suggest that the course taken by the INS is the only permissible approach. Although the INS is not required to let six-year-old children speak for themselves about asylum, neither is the INS required to ignore the expressed statements of young children. Even young children can be capable of having an accurate impression of the facts about which they might speak. To obtain asylum, we doubt that it is essential for a child to be able to debate the merits of Marxism-Leninism against the merits of Western-style democracy. Some reasonable people could conclude that it should be sufficient for a child to be able to speak about his fears and to recount the facts that support his fears about returning to another country. Not infrequently, the law does permit six-year-old children (and even younger children) to speak and, in fact, does give their words great effect. See, e.g., Pocatello v. United States, 394 F.2d 115, 116-17 (9th Cir. 1968) (affirming district court's admission of five-year- old's testimony); Miller v. State, 391 So.2d 1102, 1106 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980) (affirming decision of trial court to permit four-year-old to testify); Baker v. State, 674 So.2d 199, 200 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996) (affirming trial court decision admitting testimony and statements of six- year-old victim).
We conclude that the approach taken by the INS about out-of- the-country representatives was a reasonable one. Other approaches might have been available. The INS might have selected a policy giving more weight to the fact that the parent of a child in the United States remained outside of this country's jurisdiction. For example, maybe the INS could have required that the adult representative -- purporting to act in immigration matters (either by applying for asylum on behalf of the child or in effect vetoing an application for asylum) for a child in this country -- be present in this country himself at the pertinent time. See, e.g., Cozine v. Bonnick, 245 S.W.2d 935, 937 (Ky. 1952) (requiring that next friend, purporting to represent child in court, be resident of state). But what else might have been done is not decisive for us.
We do not suggest that recognizing the parent-child relationship to the exclusion of other familial relationships is the only reasonable approach. The parent-child relationship is obviously an important one. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 92 S. Ct. 1526, 1541-42 (1972); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 45 S. Ct. 571, 573 (1925); see also In re Custody of Smith, 969 P.2d 21, 27-28 (Wash. 1998), cert. granted sub nom. Troxel v. Granville, 120 S. Ct. 11 (1999). Still, although the common practice in the courts of this country seems to be that a parent will be appointed to act as next friend for a child, a parent is not usually entitled to be the next friend of his child as a matter of absolute right. See Fong Sik Leung v. Dulles, 226 F.2d 74, 82 (9th Cir. 1955) ("[No] parent [] may claim to be a guardian ad litem of his minor child as a matter of right."). Especially because the best interests of a child and the best interests of even a loving parent can clash, parental authority over children - even where the parent is not generally "unfit" - is not without limits in this country. See, e.g., In the Matter of Sampson, 323 N.Y.S.2d 253, 255 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971) (affirming order requiring disfigured child to undergo risky cosmetic surgery against genuine wishes of child's only parent: the state contended surgery would have "a beneficial effect" upon child); Crommelin-Monnier v. Monnier, 638 So.2d 912, 916 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994) (requiring appointment of guardian ad litem where custodial parent sought to remove child to foreign country). In addition, the law in the United States frequently treats more distant familial relationships as important. See, e.g., Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-1541 (permitting any person related within the fourth degree to child to move to intervene in "child in need of care" proceedings); Ala. Code § 12-16-150(4) (allowing challenge for cause where potential juror is related within ninth degree to party); O.C.G.A. § 15-12-135(a) (disqualifying persons related within the sixth degree to interested parties from jury service).
Under the INS policy, a substantial conflict of interest between the parent and the child may require or allow another adult to speak for the child on immigration matters. In considering whether a substantial conflict of interest exists, the INS considers the potential merits of a child's asylum claim. If the child would have an exceedingly strong case for asylum, the parent's unwillingness to seek asylum on that child's behalf may indicate, under the INS policy, that the parent is not representing adequately the child's interests.
According to the United States Department of State, the human rights record of the Cuban government is "poor." Cuban citizens who oppose or criticize the government routinely are "harass[ed], threaten[ed], arbitrarily arrest[ed], detain[ed], imprison[ed], and defame[d]." Cuba regularly denies citizens "the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association," and restricts the free exercise of religion. The Cuban constitution provides that "legally recognized civil liberties can be denied to anyone who actively opposes the `decision of the Cuban people to build socialism.'" See U.S. Dept. of State, 1999 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Cuba (2000); see also UNHCHR Res. 2000/25, U.N. Comm. on Human Rights, 56th Sess., U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2000/L.11 (2000) (expressing concern about "the continued violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba").
The INS asks us to apply the "facially legitimate and bona fide reason" standard of review set out in Kleindienst v. Mandel, 92 S. Ct. 2576, 2585 (1972), instead of the more stringent "arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion" standard. We think that the Kleindienst standard is not the correct standard to apply in this case. But we do note that, even if the Kleindienst standard were applied, the result in this case would remain the same.
We do not decide, as the INS advocates, that this summary and preliminary assessment of the merits of Plaintiff's asylum claim was a "consideration" of Plaintiff's purported asylum application within the meaning of the statute. But we do accept that this rough look at the potential merits was a legitimate part of deciding whether Plaintiff's father had a substantial conflict of interest with Plaintiff about asylum that would disqualify the father from representing Plaintiff.
That the INS, in making a preliminary assessment of the strength of Plaintiff's asylum claim, never interviewed Plaintiff has worried us. But the INS did speak with persons representing Plaintiff -- Lazaro, Marisleysis, and Plaintiff's lawyers -- on more than one occasion about the nature of his asylum claim.
We do not know for certain that, if Plaintiff's asylum applications were accepted and fully adjudicated, Plaintiff necessarily would fail to establish his eligibility for asylum. Depending on how the record was developed, we expect that a reasonable adjudicator might find that Plaintiff's fears were "well-founded." We also think that some reasonable adjudicator might regard things like involuntary and forcible "re-education" as persecution. But these issues are not questions that we, in the first instance, are to answer. The ultimate merits of an asylum petition are not before this Court at all. Instead, they are matters that would be committed to the discretion of the INS. The INS (and the courts) never have suggested that an asylum applicant in like circumstances was eligible for asylum. We cannot say that the INS's assessment of the likelihood of success of the applications in this case was arbitrary.
NOTICE OF SHORTENED TIME: We order that, if petitions for rehearing or suggestions for rehearing en banc are to be filed, they must be filed within 14 days of this date. Expect no extensions.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Every month planning & Executing the Primary and Secondary Sales.
Improving the Primary Sales from the Distributor.
Verifying the Market complains rectify the Problems.
Daily collected the DSR Report from Outlets and to check the stock availabilities in outlets, if there is no stock we directly approach to put the stocks.
Handling Distributors in Pondicherry, Karaikal, and Mahe & Yanam.
Daily collected the DSR Report from TMR'S and to check the stock availabilities in outlets, if there is no stock we directly approach to put the stocks.
Chiller installation & Maintenance details.
Draught beer machine installation details.
Clearly articulating business issues and solutions.
Establishing priorities to meet goals and achieve results.
Can influence at senior management level.
Reputation for selling with integrity.
Quickly grasping new product data.
Communicating to a broad range of people.
Exceeding Regional Sales revenue targets.
Ability to read, write and speak English, Tamil.


text:
Q: Apache 2 - AH02311: Fatal error initialising mod_ssl I'm trying to set up a Godaddy SSL certificate on a DigitalOcean droplet running Ubuntu with Apache 2. After I've configured the certificates correctly (to the best I can see & according to the following articles:

*

*https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-create-a-self-signed-ssl-certificate-for-apache-in-ubuntu-16-04#step-2-configure-apache-to-use-ssl

*https://www.digicert.com/ssl-certificate-installation-ubuntu-server-with-apache2.htm

*https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-create-a-ssl-certificate-on-apache-for-ubuntu-14-04
I cannot run Apache and I'm getting the following error:
AH02311: Fatal error initialising mod_ssl
I've also seen this error:
SSL Library Error: error:0B080074:x509 certificate routine
both of these are in the error.log file.

A: Looks like private key is not matching certificate check on that (Not sure as i do not see full console logs). I hope the cert order is correct it should be
SSLCertificateFile /etc/apache2/ssl/certificate.crt
SSLCertificateKeyFile /etc/apache2/ssl/private.key
SSLCACertificateFile /etc/apache2/ssl/intermediate.crt

A: Usually this is an apache.conf configuration error or any other configuration file. do this:

*

*purge ApacheUninstall/Purge Apache

*reload modules

*reboot server

*do apachectl configtest

*sudo systemctl restart apache2.service

*sudo systemctl status apache2.service
That should fix the problem.

A: I was able to reproduce this exact error condition by simply enabling SSL under apache (by uncommenting the line in httpd.conf that loads mod_ssl and mod_socache_shmcb.so). The default httpd-ssl.conf file contains example lines of configuration with dummy values. Specifically there is a virtual host block at the bottom of this file that is provided as a template. It contains uncommented lines with dummy values. Apache won't accept these values as they are.
To test this, uncomment the above modules in httpd.conf open a console window, go to the apache\bin folder (the apache folder will have the appropriate version appended like apache2.37)
and type

httpd -t

And apache will validate your .conf files and report fatal errors. The first one you will see will report that it is unable to find server.crt. If you fill in the entire  section with the values for the website that you are trying to secure apache should stop throwing these errors.
for more detail when troubleshooting use

httpd -e warn

or

httpd -e debug

To set up a secure virtual host for a site example.com you need two  blocks.
One insecure block, and one insecure block. The insecure block uses port 80 or whatever port you choose if 80 is in use elsewhere. This is usually set up in the httpd-vhosts.conf file. The secure block is copy of the insecure block with the added commands for configuring SSL and uses port 443. This block is usually placed in httpd-ssl.conf Https-ssl.conf is automatically included in httpd.conf which is the master configuration file. It contains a conditional clause which detects the mod_ssl module and loads httpd-ssl.conf if the module is loaded. This is why the error occurs as soon as mod_ssl is enabled.

A: I was also having the same problem.
While checking, I found it was due to wrong passphrase in pass.out file.
It was solved after correcting that, so I suggest you to check that as well.


text:
bookrack
List of Cardinals .
Benedict XVI books .
Pope Benedict XVI .
Pope John Paul II .
Cardinals .
My Catholic Start Page .
Catholic Web Directory .
Discussion Forum .
Catholic Bookrack .
Smiles .
Cardinal Rigali
>Back to List of Cardinals
H.E. Justin Francis Card. RIGALI
Archbishop of Philadelphia
84 (Born Friday, April 19, 1935)
Cardinal since:
Cardinal Priest of St Prisca
Cardinal Rigali was born on 19 April 1935 in Los Angeles (USA), the youngest of seven children. One of his sisters is a nun, and one of his brothers is a Jesuit priest.
He studied in California before his ordination on 25 April 1961. He then undertook further studies in canon law at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and then attended the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy in Rome (the Church's elite school for diplomats).
He speaks English, French, Italian and Spanish.
He began service in the English-language section of the Secretariat of State in 1964 and then served in the nunciature in Madagascar. He returned to Rome in 1970 where he was made Director of the English-language section. He also became Pope Paul VI's English translator, accompanying him on voyages to Iran, Dhaka, the Philippines, Australia, Samoa, American Samoa, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka. He also accompanied Pope John Paul II on several international trips, including his trips to the United States in 1979 and 1987.
He was chaplain to the cloistered Carmelite nuns in Rome for several years.
He became a member of the Order of the Knights of Malta on 25 October 1984 and of the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre on 13 October 1986.
He was appointed President of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy on 8 June 1985 and consecrated Archbishop of the titular see of Bolsena on 14 September 1985 by Pope John Paul II. He became Secretary of the Congregation for Bishops on 21 December 1989 and Secretary of the College of Cardinals on 2 January 1990.
He was appointed Archbishop of St Louis (USA) on 25 January 1994, and then transferred be Archbishop of Philadelphia (USA) on 15 July 2003.
Pope John Paul II elevated him to the College of Cardinals on 21 October 2003, with the title of St Prisca.
Home | Donate! | FAQ | Feedback | About us
All original material, design and compilation ©1996-2007


text:
[email protected] | 022 2200 6342
About AIFTP
About Federation
An Appeal to Join the Family of Federation of Tax Practitioners
List of Useful Link
Proposed Amendments in search, assessment and reassessment provisions by the Finance Bill, 2017
Posted on April 28, 2018 by aiftponline
Union Finance Minister Shri Arun Jaitley, placed Union Budget for the year 2017-18 before Parliament on 1st February, 2017, instead of
28th February, 2017. No separate budget for Railways was placed by the Railway Minister and the Railway Budget stands merged with the General Budget, which have been claimed as an historic step. Classification of expenditure between plan and non-plan have been done away with. The Finance Bill, 2017 to give effect to the financial proposals of the Central Government for the Financial Year 2017-18 was introduced in Lok Sabha on 1st February, 2017. Though many amendments, insertions, and substitutions have been made in the existing Act, this article is restricted to the provisions relating to search, assessment and reassessment only.
2. Search Provisions
Existing section 132(1) of this Act requires the prescribed authority to record "reasons to believe" before issuing authorisation to the authorised officer to search and reasons in the situation detailed in clauses (a) or (b) or (c) of the said section. Recording of reasons is not an idle formality. There must be live link and rational and reasonable connection, between the information and the satisfaction. On challenge it is justiciable and in case there is no information on which a reasonable person well instructed in law could form the belef, action is liable to be quashed. Assessees used to apply for copy of authorisation, copy of reasons recorded with material and information in possession for recording such reasons. The Revenue used to deny the copy or the inspection on the plea it is an administrative act and informer/ information is in secrecy and cannot be disclosed.
2.1 In CIT v. Smt. Chitra Devi (2009) 313 I.T.R. 174 (Raj.), it was held that on challenge of invalidity of the search before the tax authorities or the Appellate Tribunal the Revenue is bound to produce the search authorisation and relevant record for perusal of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and on failure to do so, search could be held as bad and assessment proceedings quashed. SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court. In CIT v. Smt. Umesh Goel (2016) 387 I.T.R. 575 (Raj.) it was found that on challenge to validity of the search and reasons recorded, the CIT(A) called for Form No. 45, warrant. It was perused and found that there is no specific warrant of authorisation against the assessee and hence search being invalid proceedings for assessment are bad.
2.2 In order to avoid such challenge, it is proposed to insert an Explanation after the fourth proviso to the said sub-section (1) so as to provide that the "reason to believe" recorded by the prescribed authority shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal. This amendment will take effect retrospectively from the date of commencement of the Act i.e., 1st April, 1962. Now the assessee would not be able to call for copy of recorded reasons, nor to inspect or to require the assessing authority or appellate authority or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to call for the records, peruse the "reasons recorded", to entertain objection as to invalidity of the search so conducted and seizure effected. Challenge to the validity of the search and its consequence would not be entertained by the tax authorities and Appellate Tribunal.
2.3 In my view the challenge to the validity of the search, non-existence of "reason to believe", non-existence of material information to entertain, the belief, absence of conditions precedent which are sinequanon for issuance of authorisation for search and seizure can continue to be challenged under Articles 226 and 227 of our Constitution, by way of a suitable writ. On challenge and on
prima facie satisfaction, the writ court would be competent to direct the Revenue to produce the record and after production to peruse, to furnish copy, to provide copy to the petitioner and to consider issue of lack of jurisdiction and invalidity of the action. The forbidden authorities are appellate, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the person searched or any other person, other than the High Court or the Supreme Court in challenge under Article 32 of the Constitution. Right to challenge as on an action u/s. 148 of the Act by way of a writ remains open. All judicial precedents for the expression "reason to believe" for section 147 would be to the aid of the petitioner.
2.3.1 In New Kashmir and Oriental Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1973) 92 I.T.R. 334 (Allahabad), as early as on 7-9-1972, it was held that when a challenge is thrown to the validity of search in a writ petition, the petitioner is entitled to inspect the record of the proceedings and to obtain copies of the orders passed in those proceedings, as Rule 12 framed under section 132 (14) requires, the reasons shall be recorded. In
M. D. Overseas Ltd. v. DGIT (2011) 333 ITR 407 (Allahabad), it observed. "The Court, in an appropriate case, can order the Department to indicate the contents or nature of information/ material and reasons to believe authorising the search (without disclosing the source of information) to the aggrieved person. The question of relevancy of information/material and reasons to believe is to be judged after hearing the aggrieved person. The question of their relevancy is not to be decided without assistance of the aggrieved person. This is subject to any valid claim of privilege under sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act, 1872." It directed for disclosure of the information.
2.3.2 In Visa Comtrade Ltd. v. VOI (2011) 338 ITR 343 (Orissa) it was held "Before taking action under section 132 the competent authority must assure and reassure about the truthfulness and correctness of the information. A search under section 132 is a serious invasion into the privacy of the citizen. Therefore, section 132(1) has to be strictly construed and the information of the person or reason to believe by the authorising officer must be apparent from the note recorded by him". It also observed "Formation of opinion on the basis of reason to believe that a particular property/asset has not been disclosed or would not be disclosed so that the action under
section 132 would be taken, is not an empty formality."
2.3.3 Recently on 13-5-2015 in DGIT v. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. and Others (2015) 374 I.T.R. 595 (S.C.)
observed "The necessity of recording of reasons for issue of a warrant of authorization for search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, so as to ensure accountability and responsibility in the decision-making process acts as a cushion in the event of a legal challenge being made to the satisfaction reached. Reasons enable a proper judicial assessment of the decision taken by the Revenue. However, this, by itself, would not confer in the assessee a right of inspection of the documents or to communication of the reasons for the belief at the stage of issuing of the authorisation. Any such view would be counter-productive of the entire exercise contemplated by section 132 of the Act. It is only at the stage of commencement of the assessment proceedings after completion of the search and seizure, if any, that the requisite material may have to be disclosed to the assessee. While reasons in support of the "reasonable belief" contemplated by section 132 must be recorded, there is no provision requiring the reasons recorded prior to authorising the search to be disclosed or communicated to the person against whom the warrant of authorisation is issued."
2.4 The proposed Explanation is to do away with the claim of an assessee to challenge validity of the search on non-recording of valid reasons. However, as explained earlier the inherent right to challenge the validity and jurisdiction for issuance of the authorisation to search exists, could not be done away with and could not be closed. It would be open to an assessee to challenge the search and subsequent action by an appropriate writ, before the High Court. The Hon'ble Court would be entitled to call for the records, peruse and provide copy or permit inspection, as it may deem fit and proper.
2.5 Similar Explanation has been proposed to be inserted w.e.f. 1-10-1975, in the said sub-section (1A) of section 132 so as to declare that "reason to suspect" shall not be disclosed to any person or an authority or the Appellate Tribunal. However, as analysed herein before the right of the Courts and High Courts remain as hithertofore.
2.6 It has also been proposed to insert sections (9B), (9C), (9D) in existing section 132, to attach provisionally any property belonging to the assessee with the prior approval of Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director. This power is conferred for the purpose of protecting the interest of Revenue. Reasons shall have to be recorded and provisional attachment order shall have to be issued in writing with the prior approval of the specified authority. Such order would be operative for six months from the date of the order. Power has also been conferred on the authorised officer to refer valuation of a property to the valuation officer in the manner provided u/s. 142A of the Act. The valuation officer to provide the valuation report in six months. The proposed provisions are similar to existing section 281-B of the Act.
2.7 It has been further proposed to amend existing Explanation to section 132 so as to apply the provisions of existing section 153B, time limit for completion of assessment, with respect to "execution of an authorisation for search" for the purposes of the existing section (9A) and proposed new sections (9B — Provisional Attachment) and section (9D — Valuation). These amendments will take effect from 1-4-2017 i.e., are prospective.
2.8 On the same lines as under section 132 (1)and 132(1A) it has been proposed to insert an Explanation to the said sub-section, so as to declare that the reason to believe for making the requisition shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal. But it can be called for by the Court or the High Court as discussed hereinabove. This amendment has been proposed to be operative from 1-10-1975.
3. Return, assessment and reassessment
Existing sub-section (4C) of section 139 mandates filing of returns by certain entities which are exempt u/s. 10. It is proposed to provide that — (1) Fund established for the welfare of employees u/s. 10 (23AAA), Investor Protection Fund u/s. 10(23 EC or Clause 23 (ED); Core Settlement Guarantee Fund u/s. 10(23 EE) and Board or Authority u/s, 10(29A) shall also be mandatorily required to furnish the return of income.
3.1 Section 139(5) regarding filing of revised return is proposed to be amended whereby time for furnishing revised return shall be up to the end of the relevant assessment year or before completion of assessment whichever is earlier. Existing period of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year is reduced. Both these amendments would be from 1-4-2018 and shall apply to the Assessment Year 2018-19 and subsequent years
3.2 Section 234F has been proposed to be inserted whereby late fee of ₹ 5,000/- or ₹ 10,000/- as the case may be shall be payable if return for the Assessment Year 2018-19 and onwards is filed not on the due date but before 31st December or after 31st December, as the case may be. However whose total income does not exceed ₹ 5 lakh quantum of fee would be ₹ 1,000/-. It shall be payable along with tax and interest on self-assessment u/s. 140A of the Act. Such fee payable shall also be considered while processing of return u/s. 143(1) of the Act.
3.3 Section 143(1D) (as substituted by section 68 of the Finance Act, 2016) has been proposed to be substituted whereby it shall not be necessary to do processing u/s. 143(1), where a notice for scrutiny has been issued u/s. 143(2). It shall be for the Assessment Year 2017-18 and onwards.
3.4 Existing section 153 of the Act provides for time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation. Time limit proposed for regular assessment u/s. 143 or 144 is being reduced to 18 months from existing 21 months for the Assessment Year 2018-19 and 12 months for the Assessment Year 2019-20 and onwards.
3.5 Similarly for an assessment, reassessment or recomputation u/s. 147, if notice u/s. 148 is served on or after 1-4-2019, time limit for completion of assessment shall be 12 months from the end of the financial year in which notice was served.
3.6 Time limit for making fresh assessment pursuance to an order of the Tribunal u/s. 254 or revision u/s. 263 or 264 shall be 12 months from the end of the financial year in which order is received or passed.
3.7 From existing third proviso to Explanation 1 of section 153, the reference to section 153B has been proposed to be omitted. All these amendments will take effect from 1-4-2017.
3.8 It is proposed to amend existing sub-section (5) of section 153. Where an order u/s. 250 or 254 or 260 or 262 or 263 or 264 requires verification of any document or other person or granting on opportunity of being heard, the time limit relating to fresh assessment shall be as that in amended section 153(3).
3.9 Section 153(9) has been proposed to be amended to provide that where a notice under Section 142(1) or 143(2) or 148 has been issued prior to 1-6-2016 and assessment or reassessment has not been completed by the due date due to exclusion of time referred to in Explanation I, such act shall be completed in accordance with the provisions existing before the substitution of the said section by the Finance Act, 2016 meaning thereby under the old section. These amendments will take effect from 1-6-2016.
4. Special Agreement in search or requisition cases.
During the last five years there is thrust on searches and its expeditious assessments, to enable to collect additional revenue and to curb unaccounted for assets, transactions, black money and corruption, which is flagrantly prevalent in all the fields. Section 197(c) of the Finance Act, 2016, provided that where any income has accrued, arisen or received or any asset has been acquired out of such income prior to commencement of the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, and no declaration in respect of such evaded income is made, then such income shall be deemed of the year in which a notice under section 142(1) or 143(2) or 148 or 153 A or 153C of the Act is issued by the Assessing Officer and it shall be taxed in such year. It was noticed that such section is unconstitutional and action would be void. However, the Central Board of Direct Taxes clarified that the Finance Act, 2016, being later on point of time would prevail over the provisions of the Income-tax Act. It is not correct interpretation of law. Good sense have prevailed and the said section 197(c) stand omitted. We are happy it is better to correct the mistake rather then to harass the taxpayers with long drawn litigation. We have been told that some enlightened super active assessing authorities issued notices under the said provision. Such notices shall have to be withdrawn as a face saving. This amendment is w.e.f. 1st June, 2016.
4.1 Section 153A provides in case of search under section 132 and requisition under section 132A for issuance of notice to furnish the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made. Now it is proposed to extend the said six years up to ten assessment years relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made in the following circumstances:
(i) If the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other document or evidence which reveal, the escaped income is likely to be fifty lakhs or more in ten years;
(ii) Such escaped income is represented in the form of asset including immovable property being land or building or both, shares and securities, deposits in bank account loans and advances and it relates to the said ten years ;
(iii) Search is initiated or requisition is made on or after 1-4-2017. Consequent amendments have been proposed to the provisos of section 153A. It is also proposed to insert Explanation to define the expression "relevant assessment year", to mean an assessment year preceding the previous year of search or requisition which falls beyond six assessment years, but not later than ten assessment years, from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made. Explanation 2 explains the word "asset" as noted earlier. Applicability of this provision from 1-4-2017 shows the intention of the Government to give one more final chance to avail of "Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana, 2016", which is open up to 31-3-2017.
4.2 Section 153B is proposed to amend time limit for completion of six assessments under section 153A within 21 months from the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorisation for search or requisition was executed. Hence time limit for searches conducted up to 31-2-2017 shall remain as it exists earlier. However for the search and seizure cases conducted on or after 1-4-2017 the time limit for making an assessment shall be reduced from 21 months to 18 months. It is also proposed to reduce the time limit for completion of assessment in case of such searches from
1-4-2019 and onwards to 12 months
4.3 In case of third party assessment under section 153C the time limit for completion of assessment shall be same as that of the person searched or 12 months from the end of the financial year in which books of account or documents or assets seized or requisition are handed over to the said Assessing Officer, whichever is later.
4.4 It is also proposed to insert a proviso to the Explanation to the said section, that where a proceeding before the Settlement Commission abates under section 245HA, the period of limitation shall not be less than one year after exclusion of the period taken in the settlement proceedings under section 245HA(4) of the Act.
4.5 As a saving measure, in respect of a notice under section 153A or 153C, issued prior to 1-6-2016, and assessment is pending, such assessment shall be completed in accordance with the provision of this section as it stood before its substitution from 1-6-2016. Second proviso to section 153C has been proposed to be amended, so as to provide a reference to the relevant assessment year as referred in the Explanation to section 153 A (1) i.e., instead of six years — not to exceed ten years. All these amendments shall be operative from 1-6-2017.
The extension of period to 10 years in search cases as against six years in other cases cannot be said to be discriminatory or unconstitutional. Separate classification of person searched and found possessed with specified assets and without the specified assets, can be claimed to be reasonable classification and two identifiable categories. Reduction in period for completion of assessments and reassessments is welcome. If would expedite revenue collection and also expeditious end of lis with the Revenue. However, it is desirable to change mindset of assessing and appellate authorities so as to make assessment in accordance with law and not hanky-panky or on surmises or suspicions or conjectures. Let the taxpayers and the tax collectors have introspection and both to do their duty as a civilized citizen of this Great country of India.
Posted in February.
© 2020 AIFTP, all rights reserved. | Privacy Policy


We all notice that a ton of things going now in the best immediate society are really products of ideas that became new developments. We all know that these designs underwent a lot of development in get to you see, the point where they are right presently.
These prototypes then get subjected in the market to several diagnostic tests to clarify which suites need to be elevated on. After this, the main product earns polished, opted in specific patents medical practice and marketed to specific target valued clientele. The approach takes the particular long second to finish and requires a lot of web sites.
Find you see, the Patent Company building. Inventors must find most of the Patent Company in some sort of country where they want to put in a patent on your invention. About order with patent an invention, brains have of coordinate their efforts featuring the agency.
Coordinate and in addition liaise now with the Clair Office. After you pinpoint the Clair Office, everyone must distinguish if your entire invention will be convenient for virtually any lot of people. If it is ordinarily a a job of techniques or an important machine which experts claim is not solely going to finally be wonderfully useful, we might probably not be empowered to realize the steps. So creators must be sure his / her inventions does be practical.
Search over similar patents. To guarantee a unique patent, designers must originally determine there are perhaps similar patents for this special products. The search must include your two local not to mention foreign patents. There simply cannot be imitation of patents otherwise this tool would end up being a violation of a new patent rule.
Select an appropriate evident for the actual invention. Creators must following that select the most important appropriate obvious for their invention. They can make a choice to have now it accredited and copyright either as a utility, design or maybe a plant certain. Inventors might look to finally InventHelp to get assistance living in selecting the specific appropriate evident for the companies inventions.
Undergo patent processes and then revisions. Creators can be more required by using patent evaluators to are going to do necessary revisions. InventHelp has the capability to assist keen inventors – pursue the like avenues of improvement made by exposing every one of them to future benefactors as well financial backers who are likely to invest your own stake across your invention's future winner.
Pay each of our required rates and obtain the certifications. After our own evaluators happen to be satisfied and as a result approves my patent, all inventors will have to now be charged the issue and and after that have currently the order authored in one circulation of note when you need to inform other buyers of the innovation copyrighted.
InventHelp is likely to assist designers looking on patent their very own inventions each individual step regarding the much. They are going to provide entourage by boosting their computer savvy and crowdsourcing expertise but that creations get necessary exposure to manifest investments and other support mechanisms. Patenting inventions assumes a good number of time, money as well other resources to accomplish. However, as soon as it is always done, for you will accrue exclusive liberties to do as everyone wish depending on currently the length of most the evident accorded to be able to you.


Behold! Episode 12 of OMGWTFBIBLE with Elissa Goldstein is now available!!
This episode was recorded at 2A, which is an awesome place and also hosts the great Fiction Addiction series. You should go there if you're in town!
There are so many ways to listen to Episode 12!
This entry was posted in Announcements, Episodes, News and tagged atheism, bible, biblical marriage, birthright, christian, christianity, comedy, esau, esav, feminism, feminist, femnist, god, isaac, jacob, jew, jewish, judaism, laban, ladies, lavan, leah, live show, marriage, omg, omgwtfbible, podcast, rachel, rebecca, religion, rivka, ruchel, soup, torah, wedding, wtf, yaakov by omgwtfbible. Bookmark the permalink.


Belated birthday wishes Dennis, Those cakes look delicious.
Happy belated birthday! The cakes look delicious!
Happy Belated birthday! Sounds like it was great!
It sure sound like it… 🙂 I just had a birthday as well (the 2nd)… but it is something that I do not celebrate anymore..
Belated Happy Birthday, may you always be blessed 🙂 It was my birthday too last Tuesday, we are Scorpio people.


For a coin to be considered a coin, it must contain three distinct features: the name of the issuing nation, a denomination, and a date. Additionally, however, coins also contain a number of other features that distinguish them anatomically. Perhaps the most basic anatomical features to mention are devices and fields. Device denotes all of the design elements on a coin including portraits, pictures, and inscriptions; both the mint date and a leader's face on the surface of a coin are considered devices. The field, on the other hand, is the background onto which the devices are added; this can be highly polished to add greater contrast and beauty to a coin.
Devices can be further divided based on a number of variables. A device can either be impressed into a coin's surface, called incuse, or raised up relative to the field, known as relief. Devices that consist primarily of words and letters are known as inscriptions and include the pertinent information on the coin. The inscription that details the principal inscription on a coin is called the legend, while those that include inspirational phrases are known as mottos. For instance, U.S. Mint coins contain a legend that reads "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" and mottos bearing the phrases "E PLURIBUS UNUM," "LIBERTY," and "IN GOD WE TRUST." Other important inscriptions include the mintmark, which denotes the mint at which the coin was produced; the denomination, or face-value; and the mint date, which indicates the year the coin was produced. An area below a major device that contains an inscription is known as an exergue.
Coins generally have two sides, the front or "heads" side, known as the obverse, and the reverse, often called the back or "tails" side. A coin's obverse is usually distinguished by a portrait or depiction of an important individual, or in the case of some older U.S. coins, the image of a personified Liberty. One interesting feature of most coins is that they always remain rightside-up if flipped vertically; if flipped horizontally, however, the side you see will be upside-down.
The outer edge of a coin also has a uniquely defined anatomy consisting of the rim and the edge. The rim is the raised portion along the outside edge of a coin. Rims are often raised slightly above the highest portion of a coin's relief so as to protect the coin's devices from wear and to aid in stacking. The edge is the outer portion of a coin that you see when examining a coin from the side. Edges frequently have a design and may be reeded, lettered, or decorated. Reeded edges are the lined edges you see on dimes and quarters, and were originally used so that merchants could determine if people had been filing bits of precious metal off of the edges of their coins. Lettered and decorated edges usually include some kind of significant motto or motif and can also be seen as a form of security against counterfeiting as they are difficult to reproduce. One of the features of modern U.S. dimes, quarters, and half dollars is that they are cupro-nickel clad coins, but they were previously made using silver. Take a look at some quarters and dimes from the side. If you see the edge is a solid silver color that does not contain a band of copper, that coin is probably silver and can be worth much more than its clad counterparts depending on the price of silver at the time.
Size is another significant attribute of a coin. Coins of a particular type have very uniform sizes with very little variation. Weight is also important, especially for coins containing precious metals, as metallic elements such as gold and silver have specific weights that are not easily replicated. An aspect of size that is highly varied in today's coin market is shape. Many coins come in non-standard shapes such as cylinders, lockets, rectangles, triangles, scalloped "flower" patterns, and fan shapes. Remember, as long as these non-standard shaped items contain the name of an issuing nation, a denomination, and a date, they are legal tender coins. One excellent example of a non-standard shaped coin is the Perth Mint's 1 ounce silver map-shaped Australian dollar.
In addition to non-standard shapes, there is an increasing number of coins with non-standard design elements, such as lenticular holographic coins and colorized coins. There are also a variety of finishes such as proof, reverse proof, burnished, gilded, and antiqued that add to a coin's visual appeal by changing its luster. For instance, proof coins usually feature a mirrored field with contrasting frosted cameo devices; reverse proof coins are the exact opposite and feature mirrored devices on a frosted field.
As security and the risk of counterfeiting becomes more pronounced, many national mints are including security features such as laser-engraved marks and individual serial numbers on their coins. For instance, the Royal Canadian Mint's Gold Maple Leaf coin has a laser etched security mark on it that can be read and validated by a special laser scanner.