Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al

Filing 1

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Greg Archambeault, Alex Azar, L. Francis Cissna, Fred Figueroa, Pete Flores, Joseph Greene, Thomas Homan, Scott Lloyd, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0974-10950244.), filed by Ms. L. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:18-cv-428-DMS-MDD. Judge Dana M. Sabraw and Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin are assigned to the case. (Vakili, Bardis)(tcf)(jrd)

Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 1 Filed 02/26/18 PageID.1 Page 1 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Lee Gelernt*
Judy Rabinovitz*
Anand Balakrishnan*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
125 Broad St., 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783)
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN
DIEGO &
IMPERIAL COUNTIES
P.O. Box 87131
San Diego, CA 92138-7131
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Petitioner-Plaintiff
Additional counsel on next page

*Application for admission pro hac
vice forthcoming

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

'18CV0428 DMS MDD
Case No. ________________

Ms. L.,
v.

Petitioner-Plaintiff,

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”); U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(“DHS”); U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(“CBP”); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (“USCIS”); U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (“HHS”); Office of
Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”); Thomas
Homan, Acting Director of ICE; Greg
Archambeault, San Diego Field Office Director,
ICE; Joseph Greene, San Diego Assistant Field
Office Director, ICE, Otay Detention Facility;
Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of DHS; Jefferson
Beauregard Sessions III, Attorney General of the
United States; Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting
Commissioner of CBP; L. Francis Cissna,
Director of USCIS; Pete Flores, San Diego Field
Director, CBP; Fred Figueroa, Warden, Otay
Mesa Detention Center; Alex Azar, Secretary of
the Department of Health and Human Services;
Scott Lloyd, Director of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement,

25
26

Respondents-Defendants.

27
28

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 1 Filed 02/26/18 PageID.2 Page 2 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]

Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 1 Filed 02/26/18 PageID.3 Page 3 of 12

1

INTRODUCTION

2
3

1.

This is an immigration case involving the United States government’s

forcible separation of plaintiff from her seven (7) year-old-daughter, S.S.

4

2.

Plaintiff, Ms. L., is S.S.’s mother and a native of the Democratic

5

Republic of Congo. Fearing near certain death in the Congo, Ms. L. escaped with

6

S.S.

7

3.

Upon arriving at a United States Port of Entry near San Diego on

8

November 1, 2017, they presented themselves to border agents. Although their

9

native language is Lingala, they were able to explain to the border guards, in the

10
11

little bit of Spanish they knew, that they sought asylum.
4.

Based on her expression of a fear of returning to Congo, Ms. L. was

12

given an initial screening interview before an asylum officer. The initial interview

13

requires the asylum officer to determine whether the applicant has a significant

14

possibility of ultimately receiving asylum. The officer determined that Ms. L. did

15

have a significant possibility of ultimately receiving asylum and therefore allowed

16

her to move on to the next stage of the long asylum process.

17

5.

Since their arrival on November 1, Ms. L. and S.S. have been detained.

18

6.

For the first 4 days upon arriving, Ms. L. and S.S. were detained

19
20

together, in what Ms. L. understood to be some sort of motel.
7.

Ms. L. was then sent to the Otay Mesa Detention Center in the San

21

Diego area, where she remains today, nearly four months later. But her daughter

22

S.S. was taken from her.

23
24
25
26

8.

Although S.S. is only 7 years old, she was sent half way across the

country to a facility in Chicago without her mother, or anyone else she knows.
9.

When the officers separated them, Ms. L. could hear her daughter in

the next room frantically screaming that she wanted to remain with her mother.

27
28
1

Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 1 Filed 02/26/18 PageID.4 Page 4 of 12

1

10.

No one explained to Ms. L. why they were taking her daughter away

2

from her or where her daughter was going or even when she would next see her

3

daughter.

4

11.

Ms. L. did not get to speak to her daughter until approximately four

5

days later, and then only on the phone. In the nearly four months they have been

6

separated, Ms. L. has only spoken to her daughter approximately 6 times, and then

7

only by phone, and never by video hookup where they can see each other.

8
9
10
11

12.

On the phone, S.S. cries and is fearful of what will happen to her and

her mother. She also worries constantly about how her mother is doing in “prison”
and whether she is eating and sleeping properly.
13.

Ms. L. tries to remain positive during these calls and comfort her

12

daughter, but feels hopeless under the circumstances, and does not herself fully

13

understand much of what is happening. It was only after Ms. L. was detained more

14

than 3 months that she finally obtained legal counsel in her immigration

15

proceeding.

16

14.

The reason why Ms. L. and S.S. were separated was not a finding (or

17

even any accusation) that Ms. L. was abusing or neglecting S.S., or that she is an

18

unfit parent.

19

15.

Ms. L. and her daughter have been separated now for nearly 4 months.

20

Seven-year-old S.S. sits all alone in a Chicago facility, frightened and traumatized,

21

crying for her mother and not knowing when she will see her again.

22

16.

Ms. L. brings this action to reunite with her daughter. There are

23

shelters that house African asylum-seekers and their children while they await the

24

final adjudication of their asylum cases. If, however, the government feels

25

compelled to continue detaining Ms. L. and S.S., it must at a minimum detain

26

them together in one of its immigration family detention centers.

27
28
2

Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 1 Filed 02/26/18 PageID.5 Page 5 of 12

1

17.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not permit the

2

government to forcibly take a 7-year-old child from her mother, without

3

justification or even a hearing.

4
5

JURISDICTION
18.

This case arises under the Fifth Amendment to the United States

6

Constitution, federal asylum statutes, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The

7

court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction); 28

8

U.S.C. § 2241 (habeas jurisdiction); and Art. I., § 9, Cl. 2 of the United States

9

Constitution (“Suspension Clause”). Plaintiff and her daughter are in custody for

10

purposes of habeas jurisdiction.

11
12

VENUE
19.

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Ms. L. is detained

13

within this District and a substantial portion of the relevant facts occurred within

14

this District.

15
16
17
18

PARTIES
20.

Petitioner Ms. L. is a 39-year-old citizen of the Democratic Republic

of the Congo (the “Congo” or “DRC”). She is the mother of S.S.
21.

Respondent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) is

19

the sub-agency of DHS that is responsible for carrying out removal orders and

20

operates and oversees the Otay Mesa detention facility.

21
22
23

22.

Respondent U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has

responsibility for enforcing the immigration laws of the United States.
23.

Respondent U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) is the sub-

24

agency of DHS that is responsible for the initial processing and detention of

25

noncitizens who are apprehended near the U.S. border.

26
27

24.

Respondent U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) is

the sub-agency of DHS that, through its Asylum Officers, conducts interviews of

28
3

Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 1 Filed 02/26/18 PageID.6 Page 6 of 12

1

certain individuals apprehended at the border to determine whether they have a

2

credible fear of persecution and should be permitted to apply for asylum.

3
4
5

25.

Respondent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is

a department of the executive branch of the U.S. government.
26.

Respondent Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”) is a component

6

of HHS which provides care of and placement for unaccompanied noncitizen

7

children.

8

27.

9
10
11
12

Respondent Thomas Homan is sued in his official capacity as the

Director of ICE, and is a legal custodian of Petitioner.
28.

Respondent Greg Archambeault is sued in his official capacity as the

ICE San Diego Field Office Director, and is a legal custodian of Petitioner.
29.

Respondent Joseph Greene is sued in his official capacity as the ICE

13

San Diego Assistant Field Office Director for the Otay Mesa Detention Center, and

14

is a legal custodian of Petitioner.

15

30.

Respondent Kirstjen Nielsen, is sued in her official capacity as the

16

Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. In this capacity, she directs

17

each of the component agencies within DHS: ICE, USCIS, and CBP. As a result,

18

Respondent Nielsen has responsibility for the administration of the immigration

19

laws pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1103, is empowered to grant asylum or other relief, and

20

is a legal custodian of the Petitioner.

21

31.

Respondent Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is sued in his official

22

capacity as the Attorney General of the United States. In this capacity, he has

23

responsibility for the administration of the immigration laws pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

24

1103, oversees the Executive Office of Immigration Review, is empowered to grant

25

asylum or other relief, and is a legal custodian of the Petitioner.

26
27

32.

Respondent L. Francis Cissna is sued in his official capacity as the

Director of USCIS.

28
4

Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 1 Filed 02/26/18 PageID.7 Page 7 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

33.

Respondent Kevin K. McAleenan is sued in his official capacity as the

Acting Commissioner of CBP.
34.

Respondent Pete Flores is sued in his official capacity as the San

Diego Field Director of CBP.
35.

Respondent Fred Figueroa is sued in his official capacity as the

Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Center, and is a legal custodian of Petitioner.
36.

Respondent Alex Azar is sued in his official capacity as the Secretary

of the Department of Health and Human Services.
37.

Respondent Scott Lloyd is sued in his official capacity as the Director

of the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

11

FACTS

12

38.

Ms. L. and her daughter S.S. are seeking asylum in the United States.

13

39.

Ms. L. is Catholic and sought shelter in a church until she was able to

14
15

escape the Congo with S.S.
40.

Upon reaching the United States, Ms. L. and S.S. presented themselves

16

at the San Ysidro, California Port of Entry on November 1, 2017. Although their

17

native language is Lingala, they were able to communicate to the border guards that

18

they sought asylum.

19

41.

Based on her expression of a fear of returning to the Congo, Ms. L.

20

was referred for an initial screening before an asylum officer, called a “credible fear

21

interview.” She passed the credible fear screening but has been detained for nearly

22

4 months in the Otay Mesa Detention Center in the San Diego area.

23

42.

On or about November 5, immigration officials separated 7-year-old

24

S.S. from her mother and sent S.S. to Chicago, to be housed in a facility under the

25

auspices of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).

26
27

43.

When S.S. was taken away from her mother, she was screaming and

crying, pleading with guards not to take her away from her mother.

28
5

Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 1 Filed 02/26/18 PageID.8 Page 8 of 12

1
2

44.

months. Seven-year-old S.S. is alone in a facility in Chicago.

3
4

Ms. L. and her daughter have been separated now for nearly four

45.

Ms. L. has spoken to her daughter approximately 6 times by phone and

is terrified she will never see her daughter again.

5

46.

S.S. is scared and misses her mother, and wants to be reunited with her

6

as soon as possible. Each time S.S. is able to speak with her mother on the phone,

7

she is crying. In December, S.S. turned 7 and spent her birthday without her

8

mother.

9

47.

There is overwhelming medical evidence that the separation of a

10

young child from her parent will have a devastating negative impact on the child’s

11

well-being, especially where there are other traumatic factors at work, and that this

12

damage can be permanent.

13

48.

The American Association of Pediatrics has recently denounced the

14

Administration’s practice of separating immigrant children from their parents,

15

noting that: “The psychological distress, anxiety, and depression associated with

16

separation from a parent would follow the children well after the immediate period

17

of separation—even after the eventual reunification with a parent or other family.”

18

49.

Every day that S.S. is separated from her mother causes her greater

19

emotional and psychological harm and could potentially lead to permanent

20

emotional trauma.

21

50.

Ms. L. is distraught and depressed because of the separation from her

22

daughter. She is not eating, has lost weight, is not sleeping due to worry and

23

nightmares.

24
25
26
27

51.

The government has no legitimate interest in separating Ms. L. and her

52.

There has been no evidence, or even accusation, that S.S. was abused

child.

or neglected by Ms. L.

28
6

Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 1 Filed 02/26/18 PageID.9 Page 9 of 12

1
2
3

53.

There is no evidence that Ms. L. is an unfit parent or that she is not

acting in the best interests of her child.
54.

Because she passed her credible fear interview, Ms. L. is eligible for

4

release from detention on parole, which would enable her to be reunited with her

5

daughter. However, the San Diego Field Office has a policy and practice of

6

refusing to grant parole to detained asylum seekers such as Ms. L., notwithstanding

7

an ICE Parole Directive that specifically favors their release.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

55.

Under current DHS practice, numerous other asylum-seeking parents

and their young children are being separated upon arrival in the United States.
56.

Prior Administrations detained families, but they did not have a

practice of forcibly separating fit parents from their young children.
57.

According to reports, the government may soon adopt a formal

national policy of separating parents from their children.
58.

If S.S. and her mother are both released from detention, there are non-

15

governmental shelters that specialize in housing and caring for African asylum

16

seekers.

17

59.

If the government refuses to release them, there are government-

18

operated family detention centers where S.S. and her mother can be housed

19

together.

20

CAUSES OF ACTION

21

COUNT I

22

(Violation of Due Process)

23
24
25
26
27
28

60.

All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as though

fully set forth herein.
61.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to all

“persons” on United States soil and thus applies to Ms. L. and her daughter.
62.

S.S. and her mother have a liberty interest under the Due Process

Clause in remaining together as a family.
7

Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 1 Filed 02/26/18 PageID.10 Page 10 of 12

1

63.

The separation of S.S. and her mother violates substantive due process

2

because it furthers no legitimate purpose, not to mention a compelling

3

governmental interest.

4
5

64.

The separation of S.S. and her mother also violates procedural due

process because it was undertaken without any hearing.

6

COUNT II

7

(Violation of Asylum Statute)

8
9
10

65.

All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as though

fully set forth herein.
66.

Under United States law, noncitizens with a well-founded fear of

11

persecution shall have the opportunity to obtain asylum in the United States. 8

12

U.S.C. § 1158.

13

67.

14

Defendants’ separation of Ms. L. from her daughter violates federal

asylum law because it impedes their ability to pursue their asylum claims.

15

COUNT III

16

(Administrative Procedure Act—Arbitrary and Capricious Practice)

17
18

68.

All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as though

fully set forth herein.

19

69.

The APA prohibits agency action that is arbitrary and capricious.

20

70.

Defendants’ separation of Ms. L. from her daughter without a

21

legitimate justification is arbitrary and capricious and accordingly violates the APA.

22

5 U.S.C. § 706.

23

COUNT IV
(Administrative Procedure Act—Failure to Follow
and Unlawful Rescission of the ICE Parole Directive)

24
25
26
27
28

71.

All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as though

fully set forth herein.
72.

Defendants have detained Ms. L. without considering her for release

on parole as required by ICE’s own Parole Directive
8

Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 1 Filed 02/26/18 PageID.11 Page 11 of 12

1

73.

The San Diego Field Office has de facto rescinded the Parole Directive

2

at the Otay Mesa Detention Facility without providing any reasoned justification—

3

or, indeed, any justification at all—for such rescission.

4

74.

If Ms. L. were paroled, her daughter could be released to her.

5

75.

Defendants’ actions, which have prevented Ms. L. from reuniting with

6

her daughter, are arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law, in violation of the

7

APA. 5 U.S.C. § 706.

8
9
10
11

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Petitioner-Plaintiff requests that the Court enter a judgment against
Defendants and award the following:

12

A. Declare the separation of Ms. L. and her daughter unlawful;

13

B. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from continuing to

14
15
16
17

separate Ms. L. and her daughter;
C. Order defendants either to release Ms. L. and her daughter, or to detain
them together;
D. Enjoin defendants from removing Ms. L. from the country until she is

18

reunited with her daughter, in the event that Ms. L. is not granted asylum and

19

permitted to remain in the United States;

20

E. Require defendants to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs;

21

F. Order all other relief that is just and proper.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9

Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 1 Filed 02/26/18 PageID.12 Page 12 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Dated: February 26, 2018
Lee Gelernt*
Judy Rabinovitz*
Anand Balakrishnan*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
125 Broad St., 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/Bardis Vakili
Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783)
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN
DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES
P.O. Box 87131
San Diego, CA 92138-7131
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]

Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10