38. RESIGNATION. Following the final approval of that agreement by the Tribunal after the hearing after receipt of the application and the half, the appeal shall be dismissed by prejudice, unless this concerns the issues expressly provided for in the provision on continued jurisdiction provided for in paragraph 33. The members of the class undertake, as members of a class, not to engage in a systemic challenge (1) of the bias against Salvadorans *811 or Guatemalans in the decision on their asylum applications (2) against any aspect of the judicial procedure in matters of asylum before 1 October 1990; or (3) the asylum procedure to which they are entitled under this Agreement, with the exception of an action for breach of this Agreement, as it applies to it. Where a unifying member lodges an appeal or joins a claim that brings claims in violation of the above sentence, the rights of the collection member in such a remedy are subject to termination, as excluded by the terms of this Agreement. Salvadorans and Guatemalans belonging to this class do not retain a spokesman for mendez v. Thornburgh, no. CV-88-04995 TJH (C.D.Cal.) with the exception of privacy and language interpretation rights in the asylum interview. Nothing in this Agreement limits the right of Class Members, if any, to retain matters relating to forensic audit in the appeal of a particular case pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a or to exercise, for Class Members, independent legal or regulatory rights they have under immigration and nationality law, without regard to this Agreement. 9.

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY AND NOTIFY. Failure to respond in a timely manner to the notification sent or notified in a personal capacity by post or the failure to lodge the application for asylum in good time, if no application has already been lodged, shall result in class members not being entitled to facilitation under this Settlement Agreement. Proof of dissemination is a rebuttable presumption that the class member has received a notification.  »A dispute settlement agreement is a treaty and its application is consistent with well-known principles of contract law.»  Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th cir.1990).   Contracts with the United States are governed by federal law.  United States v. Seckinger, 397 U.S.

203, 209 &n. 12, 90 p.Ct. 880, 25 L.Ed.2d 224 (1970). After five years, a settlement was finally reached between the applicants and, for the most part, the NSA. It probably cost a lot of money to conduct the trial over those five years and continuing a process would have been even more costly. The complainants had also collected a considerable amount of evidence and had an apparently very strong case against INS. [9] In the end, the applicants were able to obtain a de novo decision for many Guatemalan and Salvadoran migrants who, pending further interviews, were granted a stay of removal and work permits. However, those who did not respect the time of arrival or committed a serious offence were excluded from obtaining asylum and settlement benefits. 17. DETENTION OF CLASS MEMBERS ENTITLED TO DISCHARGE.

The INS may arrest only those members of the class who benefit from a demanding exemption in accordance with paragraph 2, who are otherwise detained under the legislation in force and who: (1) have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude for which the sentence actually imposed has exceeded six months` imprisonment; or (2) pose a national security risk; or (3) pose a threat to public safety. In the event of the detention of an authorized class member, whether the class member is actually detained, the accused may, at their option, inform the authorized class member and process the class member`s request to resume the decision in accordance with the provisions applicable to detained class members. The Government reserves the right, however, to impose a semi-annual reporting obligation on members of the class whose government finds that they are at risk of fleeing. . . .