Intl. Refugee Assistance v. Donald J. Trump

Filing 156

BRIEF by Appellees Arab American Association of New York, John Doe #4, John Doe #5, John Does #1 & 3, HIAS, Inc., International Refugee Assistance Project, Afsaneh Khazaeli, Mohamad Mashta, Muhammed Meteab, Middle East Studies Association of North America, Inc., Shapour Shirani, Yemeni-American Merchants Association and Fakhri Ziaolhagh in 17-2231, Appellants Grannaz Amirjamshidi and Jane Doe #2 in 17-2240 in electronic and paper format. Type of Brief: REPLY. Method of Filing Paper Copies: mail. Date Paper Copies Mailed, Dispatched, or Delivered to Court: 11/30/2017. [1000200283] [17-2231, 17-2232, 17-2233, 17-2240] Omar Jadwat [Entered: 11/29/2017 08:51 PM]

Nos. 17-2231(L), 17-2232, 17-2233, 17-2240 (Consolidated)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.

On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, Southern Division
(8:17-cv-00361-TDC)
REPLY CROSS-APPEAL BRIEF FOR IRAP APPELLEES
Karen C. Tumlin
Nicholas Espíritu
Melissa S. Keaney
Esther Sung
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW
CENTER
3435 Wilshire Boulevard,
Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Additional counsel on the next page

Omar C. Jadwat
Lee Gelernt
Hina Shamsi
Hugh Handeyside
Sarah L. Mehta
David Hausman
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Justin B. Cox
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW
CENTER
P.O. Box 170208
Atlanta, GA 30317
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Kathryn Claire Meyer
Mariko Hirose
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE
PROJECT
40 Rector Street, 9th Floor
New York, New York 10006
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
David Rocah
Deborah A. Jeon
Sonia Kumar
Nicholas Taichi Steiner
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF MARYLAND
3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 350
Baltimore, MD 21211
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Cecillia D. Wang
Cody H. Wofsy
Spencer E. Amdur
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
David Cole
Daniel Mach
Heather L. Weaver
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
915 15th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants IRAP, et al.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1
ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................3
I.

THE PROCLAMATION’S SYSTEM-WIDE IMPACT JUSTIFIES
AN INJUNCTION PROVIDING A SYSTEM-WIDE REMEDY. .......3

II.

THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED TO THE EXTENT IT
SUGGESTED THAT IRAP AND HIAS CLIENTS
CATEGORICALLY LACK BONA FIDE RELATIONSHIPS. .........11

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................14

i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) ..................................................10
Hawai‘i v. Trump, 871 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) ................................12
INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) .......................................................................10
International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump,
857 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2017) (en banc) ......................................................... 1, 2, 7
Lujan v. Natl. Wildlife Fedn., 497 U.S. 871 (1990)...................................................9
McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961) ...........................................................9
Natl. Min. Ass’n v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
145 F.3d 1399 (D.C. Cir. 1998)..............................................................................9
Santa Fe Independent Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)................................10
Trump v. Hawai‘i, --- S. Ct. ---, 2017 WL 4014838 (Sept. 12, 2017).....................12
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project,
137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017) (per curiam)............................................................. passim
Statutes
8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) .....................................................................................................5
Regulations and Guidance
8 C.F.R. § 235.1(f)(1). ...............................................................................................5
9 FAM 306.2-2(A)(a)(1) ............................................................................................5

ii

INTRODUCTION
The government’s primary argument on cross-appeal is an extension of the
same argument that it has made at every stage of this case and that has been
rejected at every level of the federal judiciary: that only particular, specifically
identified individuals associated with the plaintiffs should be protected from the
ban. Gov’t Reply 27. “A fortiori,” the government argues, the district court’s
preliminary injunction should not be expanded beyond its current limits, which
already exceed what the government views as the proper scope. Id. at 28. The
government’s foundational argument is wrong, see International Refugee
Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554, 604-05 (4th Cir. 2017) (en banc),
vacated as moot, 86 USLW 3175 (U.S. Oct. 10, 2017); J.A. 1081-83, and its “a
fortiori” extension of that argument necessarily fails as well.
As a fallback, the government suggests that the equitable balance here is no
more favorable to the plaintiffs than it was in June, when the Supreme Court
rejected the government’s request to stay the preliminary injunctions of EO-2
entirely and instead fashioned “interim equitable relief” pending appeal, Trump v.
International Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2087 (2017) (per
curiam), that protected persons who had bona fide relationships with individuals or
entities in the United States. Gov’t Reply 28.

1

That argument is also incorrect. The equities balance differently here. The
harms that the Proclamation imposes on the plaintiffs are significantly greater than
those that EO-2 imposed.

The Proclamation’s ban is indefinite, and so the

preliminary injunction here will likely be in place longer—perhaps much longer—
than the 90 days of EO-2’s “short pause.”

IRAP, 857 F.3d at 583 (internal

quotation marks omitted). And the uncontested record evidence before this Court
now clearly demonstrates that even the partial ban currently in effect still injures
the plaintiffs and others similarly situated.

Moreover, the interests on the

government’s side of the balance are weaker.
In addition, the procedural posture is now meaningfully different.

The

Supreme Court entered a stay pending its consideration of the merits. But here,
this Court will address the cross-appeal after considering the merits issues. If this
Court finds that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits, and that the
Proclamation’s ban is therefore likely unconstitutional, otherwise illegal, or both, it
is wholly appropriate to broaden the preliminary injunction to fully prohibit
enforcement of the ban.
At a minimum, the District Court’s preliminary injunction should be
modified or clarified to provide that relationships between entities in the United
States and their clients are protected by the preliminary injunction so long as they

2

are “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course.” IRAP, 137 S. Ct. at
2088.
ARGUMENT
I.

THE PROCLAMATION’S SYSTEM-WIDE IMPACT JUSTIFIES AN
INJUNCTION PROVIDING A SYSTEM-WIDE REMEDY.
1.

The government does not dispute plaintiffs’ showing that the district

court’s preliminary injunction fails to prevent all the harms that the Proclamation
imposes on plaintiffs. Those ongoing harms result from the exclusion of loved
ones who do not qualify as “close relatives,” and from the exclusion of others with
whom the plaintiffs have relationships that are genuine and meaningful, but not
sufficiently formal or documented to qualify for protection under the injunction.
Pfs. Br. 58-60. The government also does not contest that those injuries are as
irreparable as plaintiffs’ injuries based on “bona fide relationships.” Thus, the
uncontested facts establish that the partial preliminary injunction fails to “redress
plaintiffs’ own injuries.” Gov’t Reply 27.
For example, clients of plaintiff Arab American Association of New York
(“AAANY”), as well as members of the Yemeni American Merchants Association
(“YAMA”), have friends banned from the United States because of the
Proclamation. J.A. 567, 570, 611. The Proclamation’s exclusion of nonmember
scholars who would otherwise seek to attend MESA’s annual meeting will harm
3

MESA’s finances and its mission of fostering study and collaboration. J.A. 55960. The partial ban will likewise harm plaintiff Iranian Alliances Across Borders
(“IAAB”), who will have many fewer participants attending its international
conference, including participants who would attend but are not invited as
speakers. J.A. 1154.
The government mischaracterizes these injuries, suggesting that they rely on
the exclusion of those “with whom [the plaintiffs] lack any relationship at all.”
Gov’t Reply 27-28. But in fact many important relationships fall outside of the
injunction’s protection, including relationships with extended family members,
friends, and colleagues, and ties based on shared religious, cultural, and
educational affiliation. Indeed, it is common sense that a close friend may be as
important as a parent—and his indefinite exclusion from the United States may
thus be as devastating. A professor’s scholarship may be as impoverished by her
inability to exchange ideas with a researcher whom she does not yet know as it is
by the exclusion of a colleague with whom she has a formal relationship. The
district court’s injunction fails to account for such injuries, which accrue over time
and are far more severe in the context of an indefinite ban than a 90-day pause.
The Supreme Court’s decision on the inherently time-limited EO-2 stay did not
mandate that broader injunctive relief be denied for longer as this litigation
progresses.
4

2.

Defendants suggest that plaintiffs’ injuries under the partial ban, if

they can be considered at all, are outweighed by the government’s national security
and foreign policy interests, particularly in light of the “multi-agency review and
recommendation” that preceded the Proclamation.

Gov’t Reply 28.

But as

plaintiffs previously explained, that justification is exceedingly weak. Pfs. Br. 3940, 45, 50-51. Nothing in the government’s response remotely rebuts plaintiffs’
showing, and nothing supports the view that the government’s interests justify any
application of the ban.
The government again invokes only generalized “national-security and
foreign-policy interests” to justify banning those without qualifying relationships.
Gov’t Reply 28. But it still has not offered any evidence that the ban will avert any
security threat, or any reason to believe that such evidence exists. 1 And, as
plaintiffs explained, the government vastly overstates the significance of the
review and recommendation process.

Pfs. Br. 49-50.

The government has

disclosed only selected facts about that process, and would not even say whether
there were “material inconsistencies” between the DHS report, the DHS
recommendation, and the Proclamation as actually issued. J.A. 952-54; see id.
1

And, as always, where consular officers or border control officials entertain any
doubts about an individual’s admissibility, they have the authority to demand
further information or deny the visa or admission. 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g); 9 FAM
306.2-2(A)(a)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 235.1(f)(1).
5

(conceding that “it’s potentially possible that various government advisors disagree
among themselves”).
government’s

complaint

This selective disclosure and secrecy makes the
that

“any

material

difference”

between

the

recommendations and Proclamation is “unidentified” ring hollow. Gov’t Reply 22.
In any event, there are serious reasons to doubt the weight of the report and
justification. The government contests that the imposition of a new ban was preordained before the agency study had been conducted. Gov’t Reply 21-22. But as
plaintiffs already explained, the plain text of EO-2, along with the President’s
repeated calls for a “tougher” ban during the review process, amply support the
district court’s finding in this regard. Pfs. Br. 48. The government’s response—
that EO-2 “did not require” the outcome, Gov’t Reply 22—is not a fair reading of
EO-2’s command that the Secretary “shall” submit a list of countries to be subject
to a ban (as opposed to recommending other measures she might deem
appropriate). And it is the government that is “tellingly silent,” id., about the
public statements the President made indicating the outcome he preferred and
intended: not an elimination of EO-1 and EO-2’s sweeping country-based bans, but
an even “tougher” version. It is also telling that the government does not contest
that the White House placed an individual with extreme and notorious anti-Muslim
views at the head of the DHS taskforce charged with implementing EO-2’s

6

directives, including the report and recommendation process. Pfs. Br. 5-6, 49;
Gov’t Reply 21 n.2.
Moreover, the government’s own intelligence reports have concluded that
citizenship is an unreliable indicator of terrorist threat and that screening and
vetting are of limited value in preventing terrorism in the United States. IRAP, 857
F.3d at 575, 596. These reports, which were publicly available when the President
issued the Proclamation, contradict the premise of both the Proclamation and its
predecessor bans. See, e.g., Amicus Br. of the Cato Institute at 24-26. But the
Proclamation does nothing to address or refute their findings. Rather, additional
evidence points in the same direction: a sworn declaration by a bipartisan group of
49 former national security officials explains that the ban “does not further . . .
U.S. national security” because of the “rigorous system of security vetting” already
in place, and will instead “cause serious harm” to national security. J.A. 897-98,
901; see also Amicus Br. of T.A. at 21-29 (listing various tools that would still be
available to the government to address genuine national security concerns if a full
preliminary injunction were in place); Amicus Br. of the Cato Institute at 21-24
(same).
Indeed, the government’s interests are, if anything, weaker than when the
Supreme Court established the “bona fide relationship” standard. The government
no longer relies on the assertion, noted by the Supreme Court, that a ban was
7

needed to free up resources to conduct the review, and its decision to exempt more
categories of visa applicants from the ban further undermines the suggestion of
problems with existing visa vetting. Pfs. Br. 60. Moreover, even more time has
now elapsed since the President first sought to impose a broad nationality ban—
some ten months as of the date of this filing—and the government still has not
developed any evidence or allegation of actual urgency.
3.

A comprehensive injunction is also appropriate because this Court

will reach the cross-appeal issues only after it makes a decision on the plaintiffs’
likelihood of success on the merits.

Cf. IRAP, 137 S. Ct. at 2087-89 (not

addressing merits); see also Pfs. Br. 62-63. The government fails to address this
point. Instead, it conflates the scope of the preliminary injunction with the scope
of relief at the stay stage.

Gov’t Reply 27 (“the injunction against the

Proclamation should not be extended beyond foreign nationals with a credible
claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, under
the Supreme Court’s stay of the EO-2 injunctions”). But the difference in posture
is critical; indeed, the plaintiffs have not sought interim relief pending appeal with
respect to the district court’s limitation of the injunction. And they have explained
that, at a minimum, entering a full preliminary injunction would be appropriate
even if this Court were to then consider partially staying that injunction pending
further review. Pfs. Br. 62 n.24. That would leave the case in the same posture as
8

Hawai‘i, in which the preliminary injunction has no bona fide relationship
limitation, but the Ninth Circuit has stayed the injunction for the time being with
respect to noncitizens without qualifying relationships. Hawai‘i v. Trump, No. 1717168, Order (Doc. No. 39, 9th Cir. filed Nov. 13, 2017).
As the plaintiffs have explained, where an executive action is facially invalid
on the merits, a comprehensive injunction is the “ordinary result.” Natl. Min.
Ass’n v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 145 F.3d 1399, 1409 (D.C. Cir. 1998)
(citation and quotation marks omitted); Pfs. Br. 62. That follows where, as here,
the plaintiffs do not merely challenge the application of a policy “in an illegal
manner on a particular occasion,” but instead facially challenge the validity of a
policy “of broad applicability.” Id. (quoting Lujan v. Natl. Wildlife Fedn., 497
U.S. 871, 913 (1990) (Blackmun, J., dissenting, but not disagreeing with the
majority on this point)). Any other result would “merely . . . generate a flood of
duplicative litigation.” Id. Similarly, the typical remedy on the merits in an
Establishment Clause case is invalidation of the challenged government action as a
whole: The remedy for an unconstitutional religious display is not to cover it with
a curtain when plaintiffs walk by. See Santa Fe Independent Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530
U.S. 290, 316 (2000) (invalidating school prayer policy after facial challenge).
In protecting noncitizens with qualifying relationships on an interim basis
under the prior time-limited Executive Order, the Supreme Court did not suggest
9

that other ties and relationships could not give rise to sufficiently weighty injuries
on the merits.

And for Establishment Clause injuries arising through such

nonqualifying but nonetheless significant relationships, the fact that the
Proclamation is now indefinite only compounds the ban’s palpable effect,
reinforcing the message that the plaintiffs “are not welcome in this country.” J.A.
611; see, e.g., id. (every YAMA member knows of someone banned from coming
to the United States by President Trump’s Muslim bans).
The Proclamation’s violation of structural constitutional guarantees makes a
full preliminary injunction particularly vital. The Supreme Court has explained
that the Establishment Clause not only protects the free exercise of religion but
also prevents the “political tyranny and subversion of civil authority”
accompanying establishment of religion. McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420,
430 (1961). Recognizing that principle does not amount to “Establishment Clause
exceptionalism,” Gov’t Reply Br. 19—it simply acknowledges the role the
Establishment Clause plays in our constitutional scheme. And the separation of
powers is similarly fundamental to the constitutional structure: The Framers
ensured that “the legislative power of the Federal government [would] be exercised
in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure.”
INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 951 (1983). That procedure does not allow the
President to enact, amend, or repeal laws. Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S.
10

417, 438 (1998). The Proclamation should thus be preliminarily enjoined without
an exception for those lacking designated bona fide relationships.
II.

THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED TO THE EXTENT IT
SUGGESTED THAT IRAP AND HIAS CLIENTS CATEGORICALLY
LACK BONA FIDE RELATIONSHIPS.
The government does not appear to dispute that client relationships—like the

relationship between a legal service provider and its clients—qualify under the
Supreme Court’s “bona fide relationship” standard as long as they are “formal,
documented, and formed in the ordinary course.” IRAP, 137 S. Ct. at 2088; see
Gov’t Reply 28; see also Pfs. Br. 64 (government concession). But the district
court’s opinion stated that “clients of IRAP and HIAS, and those similarly situated,
are not covered by the injunction absent a separate bona fide relationship as
defined above,” J.A. 1080 (emphasis added), suggesting that clients of IRAP,
HIAS, and similar organizations are categorically prohibited from demonstrating
that their relationships with those organizations are “bona fide” relationships that
qualify them for protection under the preliminary injunction.
The government’s position seems to be that the district court’s injunction
can nevertheless be read to encompass such client relationships. If this Court
agrees, it should authoritatively construe the district court’s injunction accordingly;
if not, the Court should reverse. But in either case, if this Court leaves in place the
district court’s limitation of the injunction to individuals who can show a bona fide
11

relationship with a person or entity in the United States, it should make clear that
clients of organizational plaintiffs IRAP and HIAS do not categorically lack a bona
fide relationship. 2
Doing so will ensure that the district court’s injunction will not subject
clients of organizational plaintiffs IRAP and HIAS, and those similarly situated, to
a more stringent standard than the Supreme Court applied in its EO-2 stay—one
that would exclude even formal and documented client relationships. As plaintiffs
explained, the district court’s statement about IRAP and HIAS’s clients appears to
trace back to the Supreme Court’s September 2017 order providing that “refugees
covered by a formal assurance” were not protected from EO-2’s ban on the basis of
that assurance. Trump v. Hawai‘i, --- S. Ct. ---, 2017 WL 4014838 (Sept. 12,
2017). But the Court did not stay the previous injunction as to any other client
relationships of HIAS or IRAP.3 Indeed, everyone in the lower court proceedings
in Hawai‘i—the district court, the government, and the plaintiffs—was in
2

As Defendants note, Gov’t Reply 29, plaintiffs have requested permission to file
a motion asking that the District Court clarify or in the alternative modify its
October 17 Order to reflect this understanding, D. Ct. Doc. No. 226-1 (filed Oct.
20, 2017). As of the date of this filing, plaintiffs’ request to file this clarification
motion remains pending.
3
A formal assurance is a promise of resettlement assistance by a resettlement
agency contracted with the government. Hawai‘i v. Trump, 871 F.3d 646, 663 (9th
Cir. 2017) (per curiam). Although HIAS is a resettlement agency, it also provides
other client services, including legal services. IRAP is not a resettlement agency
and therefore does not provide formal assurances.
12

agreement that such relationships can and do qualify as long as they are formal,
documented, and formed in the ordinary course. Pfs. Br. 64-65.
Thus, to the extent the bona fide relationship standard remains in place,
plaintiffs seek clarification that individuals who have client relationships with
entities in the United States that are “formal, documented, and formed in the
ordinary course,” IRAP, 137 S. Ct. at 2088, qualify for the protection of the
preliminary injunction, and that clients of IRAP and HIAS, and others similarly
situated, are not categorically excluded from demonstrating that their relationships
with those organizations meet that standard.

13

CONCLUSION
The preliminary injunction should be affirmed, except as to its limitation to
persons with a bona fide relationship with an individual or entity in the United
States.
Dated: November 29, 2017

Karen C. Tumlin
Nicholas Espíritu
Melissa S. Keaney
Esther Sung
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW
CENTER
3435 Wilshire Boulevard,
Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Justin B. Cox
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW
CENTER
P.O. Box 170208
Atlanta, GA 30317
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Omar C. Jadwat
Omar C. Jadwat
Lee Gelernt
Hina Shamsi
Hugh Handeyside
Sarah L. Mehta
David Hausman
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Cecillia D. Wang
Cody H. Wofsy
Spencer E. Amdur
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
14

Kathryn Claire Meyer
Mariko Hirose
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE
ASSISTANCE PROJECT
40 Rector Street, 9th Floor
New York, New York 10006
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
David Rocah
Deborah A. Jeon
Sonia Kumar
Nicholas Taichi Steiner
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF MARYLAND
3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 350
Baltimore, MD 21211
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
David Cole
Daniel Mach
Heather L. Weaver
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
915 15th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants IRAP, et al.

15

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that this brief complies with the type-face requirements of
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.1(e)(2)(B)(ii) and the type-volume
limitations of Rule 28.1(e)(2)(C). The brief contains 2,926 words, excluding the
parts of the brief described in Rule 32(f).

/s/ Omar C. Jadwat
Omar. C. Jadwat

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 29, 2017, I electronically filed the
foregoing brief with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system. Participants in the
case are registered CM/ECF users, and service will be accomplished by the
appellate CM/ECF system, except for the following, who will be served by first
class mail on November 29, 2017:
Hashim M. Mooppan
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Appellate Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0000
/s/ Omar C. Jadwat
Omar C. Jadwat