Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al
Filing
42
MOTION to Certify Class by Ms. C., Ms. L.. (Attachments: #1 Memo of Points and Authorities Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Exhibits)(Gelernt, Lee) (aef).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Lee Gelernt*
Judy Rabinovitz*
Anand Balakrishnan*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
125 Broad St., 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
T: (212) 549-2660
F: (212) 549-2654
lgelernt@aclu.org
jrabinovitz@aclu.org
abalakrishnan@aclu.org
Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783)
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN
DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES
P.O. Box 87131
San Diego, CA 92138-7131
T: (619) 398-4485
F: (619) 232-0036
bvakili@aclusandiego.org
Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Additional counsel on next page
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
Ms. L. and Ms. C.,
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
Petitioners-Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
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; Adrian P. Macias, El Paso
Field Director, ICE; Frances M. Jackson, El Paso
Assistant Field Office Director, ICE; Kirstjen
Nielsen, Secretary of DHS; Jefferson Beauregard
Sessions III, Attorney General of the United
States; L. Francis Cissna, Director of USCIS;
Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of
CBP; Pete Flores, San Diego Field Director,
CBP; Hector A. Mancha Jr., El Paso Field
Director, CBP; Alex Azar, Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services;
Scott Lloyd, Director of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Respondents-Defendants.
Date Filed: March 9, 2018
MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
CLASS CERTIFICATION
CLASS ACTION
Hearing Date: April 27, 2018
Time: TBD
Courtroom: 13A
Judge: Hon. Dana Sabraw
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: (415) 343-1198
F: (415) 395-0950
samdur@aclu.org
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 3
Named Plaintiff: Ms. L.................................................................................... 3
Named Plaintiff: Ms. C. .................................................................................. 4
The Class ......................................................................................................... 5
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 6
I.
The Proposed Class Satisfies Rule 23(a)’s Requirements. ................... 7
A. The Proposed Easily Satisfies the Numerosity Requirement .......... 7
9
B. The Class Presents Common Questions of Law and Fact. .............. 9
10
C. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Typical of Class Members’
Claims. ........................................................................................... 13
11
12
13
D. Adequacy: Plaintiffs Will Adequately Protect the Interests of the
Proposed Class, and Plaintiffs’ Counsel Are More Than Qualified
to Litigate this Action. ................................................................... 14
14
E. The Class Is Sufficiently Ascertainable. ........................................ 16
15
16
II.
This Action Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). ................. 18
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................ 20
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
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
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Alfaro Garcia v. Johnson,
No. 14-cv-1775, 2014 WL 6657591 (N.D. Cal. 2014)………………………….15
Ali v. Ashcroft,
213 F.R.D. 390 (W.D. Wash. 2003)………………………………………………8
Ark. Educ. Ass’n v. Board Of Educ. of Portland, Ark. Sch. Dist.,
446 F.2d 763 (8th Cir. 1971)……………………………………………………...8
Armstrong v. Davis,
275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001)…………………………………………………….10
Arnott v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.,
290 F.R.D. 579 (C.D. Cal. 2012)…………………………………………..6, 7, 12
Baharona-Gomez v. Reno,
167 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1999)……………………………………………………..2
Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc.,
No. 11-cv-8557CAS-DTBX, 2012 WL 556309 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2012)………2
Cervantez v. Celestica Corp.,
253 F.R.D. 562 (C.D. Cal. 2008)…………………………………………………8
Cole v. City of Memphis,
839 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2016)…………………………………………………….16
Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011)…………………………………………………….12
Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell,
688 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2012)…………………………………………………...12
Franco-Gonzales v. Napolitano,
No. 10-cv-02211-DMG-DTBX, 2011 WL 11705815
(C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2011)…………………………………………………….7, 15
Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon,
457 U.S. 147 (1982)……………………………………………………………..11
Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. Reel Servs. Mgmt. LLC,
No. 13-cv-7172 PSG (ASX), 2014 WL 12561074 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2014)..16,17
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998)……………………………………………..9, 10,13
Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp.,
976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992)…………………………………………………13,14
Harris v. Palm Springs Alpine Estates, Inc.,
329 F. 2d 909 (9th Cir. 1964)……………………………………………………..7
Hawker v. Consovoy,
198 F.R.D. 619 (D.N.J. 2001)………………………………………………….....9
Hum v. Dericks,
162 F.R.D. 628 (D. Haw. 1995)…………………………………………………..8
In re Yahoo Mail Litig.,
308 F.R.D. 577 (N.D. Cal. 2015)………………………………………………..16
Johnson v. California,
543 U.S. 499 (2005)………………………………………………………………8
Jordan v. Los Angeles Cty.,
669 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1982)………………………………………………….....8
Khoury v. Asher,
3 F. Supp. 3d 877 (W.D. Wash. 2014)…………………………………………..15
LaDuke v. Nelson,
762 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir. 1985)…………………………………………………...14
Lamumba Corp. v. City of Oakland,
No. 05-cv-2712 MHP, 2007 WL 3245282 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2007)…………...17
ii
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
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
Lynch v. Rank,
604 F. Supp. 30 (N.D. Cal. 1984)……………………………………………….14
Lyon v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t,
308 F.R.D. 203 (N.D. Cal. 2015)………………………………………………..18
Marisol A. v. Giuliani,
126 F.3d 372, 378 (2d Cir. 1997) ………………………………………………14
Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012)…………………………………………………..9,10
Mendez Rojas, et al. v. Johnson,
No. 16-cv-1024-RSM (W.D. Wash. Jan. 10, 2017)………………………………7
Moreno v. Napolitano,
No. 11-cv-5452, 2014 WL 4911938 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2014)…………………17
Natl. Assn. of Radiation Survivors v. Walters,
111 F.R.D. 595 (N.D. Cal. 1986)………………………………………………....9
O’Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc.,
184 F.R.D. 311 (C.D. Cal. 1998)………………………………………………..17
Orantes-Hernandez v. Smith,
541 F. Supp. 351 (C.D. Cal. 1982)………………………………………………12
Parsons v.Ryan,
754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014)…………………………………………….....9,13,19
Perez-Funez v. Dist. Dir., I.N.S.,
611 F. Supp. 990 (C.D. Cal. 1984)………………………………………………..7
Perez-Olano v. Gonzalez,
248 F.R.D. 248 (C.D. Cal. 2008)………………………………………………..11
Preap v. Johnson,
303 F.R.D. 566 (N.D. Cal. 2014)……………………………………………..9, 15
RILR v. Johnson,
80 F. Supp. 3d 164 (D.D.C. 2015)………………………………………………15
Rivera v. Johnson,
307 F.R.D. 539 (W.D. Wa 2015)………………………………………………..15
Santillan v. Ashcroft,
No. 04-cv-2686MHP, 2004 WL 2297990 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2004)………...6, 10
Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
559 U.S. 393 (2010)………………………………………………………………6
Shelton v. Bledsoe,
775 F.3d 554 (3d Cir. 2015)……………………………………………………..16
Shook v. El Paso Cnty.,
386 F.3d 963 (10th Cir. 2004)…………………………………………………...16
Smith v. Heckler,
595 F. Supp. 1173 (E.D. Cal. 1984)………………………………………………8
Sueoka v. United States,
101 Fed. App’x 649 (9th Cir. 2004)………………………………………………7
Sweet v. Pfizer,
232 F.R.D. 360 (C.D. Cal. 2005)………………………………………………..11
Wagafe v. Trump,
No. 17-cv-0094-RAJ, 2017 WL 2671254 (W.D. Wash. June 21, 2017)…………6
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
564 U.S. 338 (2011)……………………………………………………..11, 12, 18
Walters v. Reno,
145 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 1998)………………………………………………passim
Yaffe v. Powers,
454 F.2d 1362 (1st Cir.1972)……………………………………………………16
Young v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,
693 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2012)…………………………………………………….18
28
iii
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
1
Rules
2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)……………………………………………………....1, 2, 6, 18
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)……………………………………………………………..7
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) …………………………………………………………….9
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4)……………………………………………………………14
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)………………………………………………………1, 2, 6, 18
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)……………………………………………………16, 18, 19
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
iv
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
1
2
INTRODUCTION
A class action lawsuit is appropriate to challenge Defendants’ nationwide
3
unlawful practice of separating parents and children absent any showing that the
4
5
parent presents a danger to the child. Plaintiffs seek to certify the following
6
nationwide class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2):
7
8
9
10
All adult parents nationwide who (1) are or will be detained in immigration
custody by the Department of Homeland Security, and (2) have a minor child
who is or will be separated from them by DHS and detained in ORR custody,
absent a demonstration in a hearing that the parent is unfit or presents a
danger to the child.
11
12
13
14
The proposed class readily satisfies the requirements of numerosity, commonality,
typicality, and adequacy in Rule 23(a) and is readily ascertainable.
The proposed class includes hundreds of individuals whose minor children
15
16
have already been taken from them, which is sufficient to satisfy numerosity. The
17
class raises numerous common legal questions that will generate common answers,
18
including whether Defendants’ challenged separation practice violates the Due
19
20
Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The class also raises
21
common factual issues because Plaintiffs and class members are subject to the same
22
practice of keeping parents in immigration facilities separated from their children
23
24
25
26
detained elsewhere. Plaintiffs’ Due Process Clause and APA claims are typical of
those whom they seek to represent—that is, other parents who have or will have
their children taken from them. Plaintiffs are also adequately represented by a team
27
28
of attorneys from the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project and the ACLU of San
1
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
1
Diego and Imperial Counties with significant experience in immigrants’ rights
2
issues and class action cases.
3
Plaintiffs’ proposed class likewise satisfies Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendants
4
5
have “acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that
6
final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting
7
8
the class as a whole.” Because the government has a practice of separating parents
9
from their children without a hearing or any showing of abuse or neglect, they are
10
11
operating in a manner that is common to all Plaintiffs. The class as a whole is
12
therefore entitled to an injunction ordering Defendants to reunite class members
13
with their minor children.
14
Accordingly, this Court should grant class certification under Rule 23(b)(2)
15
16
for purposes of entering Plaintiffs’ requested classwide preliminary and permanent
17
injunctions.1 See Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc., No. 11-cv-8557, 2012 WL
18
556309, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2012) (“courts routinely grant provisional class
19
20
certification for purposes of entering [preliminary] injunctive relief” under Rule
21
23(b)(2), where the plaintiff establishes that the four prerequisites in Rule 23(a) are
22
also met) (citing Baharona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228, 1233 (9th Cir. 1999)).
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiffs also request that they be appointed Class Representatives, and that
undersigned counsel be appointed Class Counsel.
2
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
1
2
BACKGROUND
Named Plaintiff: Ms. L.
3
After fleeing the Democratic Republic of Congo with her 7 year-old
4
5
daughter, Ms. L. presented herself to border guards at the San Ysidro Port of Entry
6
on November 1, 2017. After she expressed fear of returning to the Congo, Ms. L.
7
8
was given a credible fear interview, and the asylum officer determined that she had
9
a credible fear of persecution. Ms. L. was therefore placed into formal removal
10
11
12
proceedings, where she will pursue her asylum claim. See PI Mem., ECF No. 21-1,
at 2-3.2
13
14
When they initially arrived in the United States, Ms. L. and her daughter,
S.S., were detained together. Four days later, however, Ms. L.’s child was taken
15
16
from her. With no explanation, the government removed S.S. from the detention
17
center where Ms. L. was held and moved her 2,000 miles away to a facility in
18
Chicago, with the little girl frantically screaming that she did not want to leave her
19
20
mommy. The government has never alleged that S.S. would not be safe with her
21
mother, or that Ms. L. is not a fit parent. And yet Defendants has not allowed Ms.
22
L. and her child to see each other for four months now. Each time they have been
23
24
able to speak on the phone, S.S. has been crying and afraid. Ms. L. is likewise
25
frightened, depressed, and unable to eat or sleep. See PI Mem., ECF No. 21-2, at 3-
26
4.
27
28
2
Because Ms. L inadvertently waived her rights in her immigration proceeding, she
is currently in the process of requesting that the immigration judge reconsider and
reopen her case.
3
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
1
2
3
4
After Ms. L. filed this lawsuit and moved for a preliminary injunction,
Defendants released her from custody on March 6, 2018. They informed her that
she would be released mere hours in advance, with no arrangements for where she
5
would stay. They have not released her child, who remains in custody alone in
6
Chicago.
7
8
Named Plaintiff: Ms. C.
9
Ms. C. and her 14 year-old son, J., fled Brazil to seek asylum and came to the
10
United States in late August 2017. After she entered the United States a few feet, a
11
12
border guard approached her, and she explained that she wanted to apply for
13
asylum. Although she was seeking asylum, Ms. C. was nonetheless prosecuted for
14
entering the country illegally, a misdemeanor for which she spent approximately 25
15
16
days in jail. When Ms. C. was sent to jail for this misdemeanor conviction, her son
17
J. was taken away from her and sent to a facility in Chicago. When she was
18
released from jail, Ms. C. passed a credible fear interview, and was put in removal
19
20
proceedings, where she is applying for asylum. Ex. 12. 3
21
After serving her misdemeanor sentence, Ms. C. was transferred on
22
September 22, 2017, to the El Paso Processing Center in Texas, an immigration
23
24
facility. In early January she was transferred again to the West Texas Detention
25
Facility, which is also known as Sierra Blanca. Ms. C. was has not seen her son J.
26
since he was taken from her last year. Even after Ms. C. was released from jail and
27
28
3
The exhibits are numbered continuously from the beginning of the case.
4
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
1
sent to an immigration facility, Defendants did not reunite her with her son. The
2
government has never alleged that J. would not be safe with her mother, and it has
3
4
never made any demonstration that Ms. C. is not a fit parent.4
5
Ms. C. is desperate to be reunited with her son, who has been having a
6
difficult time emotionally since being separated from him mother. Ms. C. worries
7
8
about him constantly and does not know when she will be able to see him. They
9
have only spoken on the phone a handful of times since they were forcibly
10
11
12
separated by Defendants.
The Class.
13
14
Plaintiffs’ experiences are representative of Defendants’ practice of forcibly
separating parents from their children without a hearing and without any
15
16
demonstration that the parent is endangering the child. Lawyers and advocates who
17
represent detained migrant families and children report hundreds of such cases over
18
the past year. See Declaration of Michelle Brané, Ex. 14, ¶ 5 (noting more than 400
19
20
cases of parent-child separation); Declaration of Shalyn Fluharty, Ex. 15, ¶ 2.
21
(estimating hundreds of children who have been separated from a parent at the
22
border); Declaration of Mayra Jimenez, Director of the Children’s Program at
23
24
RAICES, Ex. 13, ¶ 4 (“We have seen over 100 situations of children separated from
25
their parents at the time of apprehension and continue to see more.”).
26
27
28
4
This case concerns only the time in which Ms. C. and other class members are
separated from their children while the parent is in immigration custody, and not
the period of separation while the parent is in jail for a criminal conviction.
5
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
1
2
3
4
ARGUMENT
A plaintiff whose suit meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 has a “categorical” right “to pursue his claim as a class action.”
5
Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393, 398
6
(2010). To meet these requirements, the “suit must satisfy the criteria set forth in
7
8
[Rule 23(a)] (i.e., numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
9
representation), and it also must fit into one of the three categories described in
10
11
subdivision (b).” Id.
12
Plaintiffs’ proposed class satisfies all four of the Rule 23(a) prerequisites, as
13
well as the judicially implied requirement of ascertainability. The proposed class
14
likewise meets the requirements for certification under Rule 23(b)(2).
15
16
This Court should certify the proposed class in keeping with the numerous
17
court decisions certifying classes in similar actions challenging the federal
18
government’s administration of immigration programs. See, e.g., Walters v. Reno,
19
20
145 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming certification of nationwide class of
21
individuals challenging adequacy of notice in document fraud cases); Arnott v. U.S.
22
Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 290 F.R.D. 579 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (certifying
23
24
nationwide class of immigrant investors challenging USCIS’ retroactive application
25
of new rules governing approval petitions to remove permanent residency
26
conditions); Santillan v. Ashcroft, No. 04-cv-2686, 2004 WL 2297990 (N.D. Cal.
27
28
Oct. 12, 2004) (certifying nationwide class of lawful permanent residents
6
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
1
challenging delays in receiving documentation of their status); Wagafe v. Trump,
2
No. 17-cv-0094, 2017 WL 2671254, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 21, 2017) (certifying
3
4
nationwide class of naturalization applicants challenging national security screening
5
procedures); Mendez Rojas, et al. v. Johnson, No. 16-cv-1024, 2017 WL 1397749
6
(W.D. Wash. Jan. 10, 2017) (certifying two nationwide classes of asylum seekers
7
8
challenging defective asylum application procedures).
9
I.
10
THE
PROPOSED
REQUIREMENTS.
CLASS
SATISFIES
RULE
23(a)’s
11
A. The Proposed Class Easily Satisfies the Numerosity Requirement.
12
Rule 23(a)(1) requires that a class be “so numerous that joinder of all
13
14
members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). “‘[I]mpracticability’ does not
15
mean ‘impossibility,’ but only the difficulty or inconvenience of joining all
16
members of the class.” Franco-Gonzales v. Napolitano, No. 10-cv-02211, 2011
17
18
WL 11705815, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2011) (quoting Harris v. Palm Springs
19
Alpine Estates, Inc., 329 F. 2d 909, 913-14 (9th Cir. 1964)). No fixed number of
20
class members is required. Perez-Funez v. Dist. Dir., I.N.S., 611 F. Supp. 990, 995
21
22
(C.D. Cal. 1984). Moreover, where a plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory
23
relief, the “requirement is relaxed and plaintiffs may rely on [] reasonable
24
inference[s] arising from plaintiffs’ other evidence that the number of unknown and
25
26
27
future members of [the] proposed subclass . . . is sufficient to make joinder
impracticable.” Arnott v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 290 F.R.D. 579,
28
7
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
1
586 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (quoting Sueoka v. United States, 101 Fed. App’x 649, 653
2
(9th Cir. 2004)).
3
Here, the number of class members far exceeds the requirement for
4
5
numerosity. Lawyers and advocates report that they are seeing hundreds of cases of
6
families separated after being apprehended together, with adults placed in ICE
7
8
custody and their children in ORR custody. See Brané Decl., Ex. 14, ¶ 5; Fluharty
9
Decl., Ex. 15, ¶ 2; Jimenez Decl., Ex. 13, ¶4.
10
11
The Court can thus reasonably conclude that the proposed class is
12
sufficiently numerous. See Cervantez v. Celestica Corp., 253 F.R.D. 562, 569
13
(C.D. Cal. 2008) (noting that “where the exact size of the class is unknown but
14
general knowledge and common sense indicate that it is large, the numerosity
15
16
requirement is satisfied”) (quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., Hum v. Dericks,
17
162 F.R.D. 628, 634 (D. Haw. 1995) (“Courts have certified classes with as few as
18
thirteen members.”); Ark. Educ. Ass’n v. Bd. of Educ., 446 F.2d 763, 765-66 (8th
19
20
Cir. 1971) (class of 20 sufficient); Jordan v. Los Angeles County, 669 F.2d 1311,
21
1319 (9th Cir. 1982) (class of 39 sufficient), vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S.
22
810.
23
24
Second, in addition to the number of individuals who have already been
25
separated from their children, the proposed class also includes individuals who will
26
have a child taken from them. Hundreds of additional parents are at risk of losing
27
28
their children. The presence of such future class members renders joinder
8
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
1
inherently impractical, thereby satisfying the purpose behind the numerosity
2
requirement. See, e.g, Ali v. Ashcroft, 213 F.R.D. 390, 408 (W.D. Wash. 2003),
3
4
aff’d, 346 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2003), vacated on other grounds, 421 F.3d 795 (9th
5
Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted) (“[W]here the class includes unnamed,
6
unknown future members, joinder of such unknown individuals is impracticable
7
8
and the numerosity requirement is therefore met, regardless of class size.”) (quoting
9
Nat’l Ass’n of Radiation Survivors v. Walters, 111 F.R.D. 595, 599 (N.D. Cal.
10
11
1986)); Smith v. Heckler, 595 F. Supp. 1173, 1186 (E.D. Cal. 1984) (in injunctive
12
relief cases, “[j]oinder in the class of persons who may be injured in the future has
13
been held impracticable without regard to the number of persons already injured”);
14
Hawker v. Consovoy, 198 F.R.D. 619, 625 (D.N.J. 2001) (“The joinder of potential
15
16
future class members who share a common characteristic, but whose identity cannot
17
be determined yet is considered impracticable.”).
18
B. The Class Presents Common Questions of Law and Fact.
19
20
To satisfy commonality, Plaintiffs must show that “there are questions of law
21
or fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). Rule 23(a)(2)’s
22
commonality requirement “has been construed permissively.” Preap v. Johnson,
23
24
303 F.R.D. 566, 585 (N.D. Cal. 2014), aff’d, 831 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2016)
25
(quoting Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998)) (quotation
26
marks omitted). A plaintiff “need not show . . . that every question in the case, or
27
28
even a preponderance of questions, is capable of class wide resolution.” Parsons v.
9
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
1
Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 675 (9th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). Rather, even
2
one shared legal issue can be sufficient. See, e.g., Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
3
4
Inc., 666 F.3d 581, 589 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that “commonality only requires a
5
single significant question of law or fact”); Walters, 145 F.3d at 1046 (“What
6
makes the plaintiffs’ claims suitable for a class action is the common allegation that
7
8
9
10
11
the INS’s procedures provide insufficient notice.”).
Moreover, “[i]ndividual variation among plaintiffs’ questions of law and fact
does not defeat underlying legal commonality, because ‘the existence of shared
12
legal issues with divergent factual predicates is sufficient’ to satisfy Rule 23.”
13
Santillan v. Ashcroft, 2004 WL 2297990, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2004) (quoting
14
Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1019). The commonality standard is even more liberal in a
15
16
civil rights suit like this one, in which “the lawsuit challenges a system-wide
17
practice or policy that affects all of the putative class members.” Armstrong v.
18
Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 868 (9th Cir. 2001) .
19
20
Plaintiffs’ lawsuit raises numerous legal questions common to the proposed
21
class. All class members assert the same due process right to family integrity.
22
Their constitutional claims present the same legal question of whether Defendants
23
24
may separate them from their minor children without any hearing and
25
demonstration that they are unfit parents. Their APA claims raise the common
26
legal issue of whether it is arbitrary and capricious for Defendants to separate a
27
28
parent and child without providing a reasoned explanation. And, should the
10
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
1
government later provide reasons to separate class members from their children,
2
their claims will raise the common legal question of whether the Due Process
3
4
5
6
7
Clause permits Defendants to take away their children without providing a fair predeprivation process.
Any one of these common issues, standing alone, is enough to satisfy Rule
8
23(a)(2)’s permissive standard. See Perez-Olano v. Gonzalez, 248 F.R.D. 248, 257
9
(C.D. Cal. 2008) (“Courts have found that a single common issue of law or fact is
10
11
sufficient.”) (citation omitted); Sweet v. Pfizer, 232 F.R.D. 360, 367 (C.D. Cal.
12
2005) (observing that “there must only be one single issue common to the proposed
13
class”) (quotation and citation omitted).
14
Plaintiffs and proposed class members also share a common core of facts: all
15
16
came to the United States with their children and were subsequently detained; all
17
have since been separated from their children without any allegation or showing
18
that they present a danger to their child; none have been given a fair process in
19
20
which to contest any allegations that they are an unfit parent. Plaintiffs and
21
proposed class members thus “have suffered the same injury”—separation from
22
their children. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011) (quoting
23
24
Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157 (1982)). And that common
25
injury is clearly “capable of classwide resolution.” Id. Should the Court agree that
26
Defendants’ policies or practices violate the Due Process Clause and/or the APA,
27
28
all who fall within the class will benefit from the requested relief: an injunction
11
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
1
preventing Defendants from separating a parent in DHS custody from their children
2
without a hearing or a clear showing that the parent presents a danger to the child.
3
4
Thus, a common answer as to the legality of the challenged policies and practices
5
will “drive the resolution of the litigation.” Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657
6
F.3d 970, 981 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350).
7
8
9
10
11
Significantly, moreover, courts have made clear that even “[w]here the
circumstances of each particular class member vary but retain a common core of
factual or legal issues with the rest of the class, commonality exists.” Evon v. Law
12
Offices of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1029 (9th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks
13
omitted); see also Walters, 145 F.3d at 1046 (“Differences among the class
14
members with respect to the merits of their actual document fraud cases, however,
15
16
are simply insufficient to defeat the propriety of class certification. What makes the
17
plaintiffs’ claims suitable for a class action is the common allegation that the INS’s
18
procedures provide insufficient notice.”); Arnott, 290 F.R.D. at 586-87 (factual
19
20
variations did not defeat certification where core legal issues were similar).
21
Moreover, any factual differences that may exist among Plaintiffs and proposed
22
class members are immaterial to their claims, which challenge Defendants’
23
24
common separation practice as violating the Due Process Clause, the asylum
25
statute, and the APA. See Orantes-Hernandez v. Smith, 541 F. Supp. 351, 370
26
(C.D. Cal. 1982) (granting certification in challenge to common agency practices in
27
28
12
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
1
asylum cases, even though the outcome of individual asylum cases would depend
2
on individual class members’ varying entitlement to asylum).
3
4
C. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Typical of Class Members’ Claims.
5
Rule 23(a)(3) requires that “the claims or defenses of the representative
6
parties [be] typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” The purpose of this
7
8
requirement is to “assure that the interest of the named representative aligns with
9
the interests of the class” as a whole. Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497,
10
508 (9th Cir. 1992). “Under the rule’s permissive standards, representative claims
11
12
are ‘typical’ if they are reasonably coextensive with those of the absent class
13
members.” Parsons, 754 F.3d at 685 (quoting Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020). “The
14
test of typicality is ‘whether other members have the same or similar injury,
15
16
whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs,
17
and whether other class members have been injured by the same course of
18
conduct.’” Id. (citation omitted).
19
20
Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the proposed class, for largely
21
the same reasons that the class presents common questions of law and fact. Each
22
proposed class member has suffered the same injury (separation from their
23
24
children), based on the same government practice (separating immigrant parents
25
and children), in violation of the same constitutional right (due process) and
26
statutory commands (asylum law and arbitrary and capricious review under the
27
28
13
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
1
APA). Plaintiffs’ claims are not only typical of proposed class members, they are
2
nearly identical.
3
4
Moreover, as with commonality, any factual differences between Plaintiffs
5
and proposed class members are not material enough to defeat typicality. See, e.g.,
6
Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020 (under “permissive” typicality standard, representative
7
8
claims need only be “reasonably co-extensive with those of absent class members;
9
they need not be substantially identical”); LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1332
10
(9th Cir. 1985) (“The minor differences in the manner in which the representative’s
11
12
Fourth Amendment rights were violated does not render their claims atypical of
13
those of the class.”); cf. Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372, 378 (2d Cir. 1997)
14
(certifying Rule 23(b)(2) class despite differences in the exact nature of the harm
15
16
17
18
19
20
suffered by class members).
D. Adequacy: Plaintiffs Will Adequately Protect the Interests of the
Proposed Class, and Plaintiffs’ Counsel Are Qualified to Litigate this
Action.
Rule 23(a)(4) requires that “[t]he representative parties will fairly and
21
adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Adequacy
22
depends on “the qualifications of counsel for the representatives, an absence of
23
24
antagonism, a sharing of interests between representatives and absentees, and the
25
unlikelihood that the suit is collusive.” Walters, 145 F.3d at 1046 (quotation marks
26
omitted).
27
28
14
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
1
2
3
4
Plaintiffs’ counsel are deemed qualified when they can establish their
experience in previous class actions and cases involving the same area of law.
Lynch v. Rank, 604 F. Supp. 30, 37 (N.D. Cal. 1984), aff’d 747 F.2d 528 (9th Cir.
5
1984), amended on reh’g, 763 F.2d 1098 (9th Cir. 1985). Here, putative Class
6
Counsel are attorneys from the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project and ACLU of
7
8
San Diego and Imperial Counties. See Declaration of Spencer Amdur (“Amdur
9
Decl.”), Ex. 16.
10
11
Collectively, putative Class Counsel have extensive and diverse experience
12
in complex immigration cases and class action litigation, and Class Counsel also
13
have sufficient resources to litigate this matter to completion. Id. Attorneys from
14
the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project and ACLU of San Diego and Imperial
15
16
Counties have been appointed class counsel and successfully litigated similar class
17
action lawsuits in this district and in courts across the country. Id.; see also, e.g.,
18
Alfaro Garcia v. Johnson, No. 14-cv-1775, 2014 WL 6657591, at *15 (N.D. Cal.
19
20
2014); Rivera v. Johnson, 307 F.R.D. 539 at 542-43 (W.D. Wash. 2015); Franco-
21
Gonzales, 2011 WL 11705815, at *1; Preap, 303 F.R.D. at 570; Khoury v. Asher, 3
22
F. Supp. 3d 877, 878 (W.D. Wash. 2014); RILR v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164,
23
24
25
26
27
28
181 (D.D.C. 2015).
Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed
class, and therefore are adequate class representatives. Plaintiffs do not seek any
unique or additional benefit from this litigation that may make their interests
15
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
1
different from or adverse to those of absent class members. Instead, Plaintiffs’ aim
2
is to secure injunctive relief that will protect themselves and the entire class from
3
4
the Defendants’ challenged practices and enjoin the Defendants from further
5
violations. Nor do Plaintiffs or Class Counsel seek financial gain at the cost of
6
absent class members’ rights. Accordingly, Plaintiffs lack any antagonism with the
7
8
class, their interests align squarely with the other proposed class members, and no
9
collusion is present.
10
11
12
E. The Class Is Sufficiently Ascertainable.
Although the Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on whether the judicially
13
implied ascertainability requirement applies to classes certified under Rule
14
23(b)(2), other circuits have found that it does not. See Shelton v. Bledsoe, 775
15
16
F.3d 554, 563 (3d Cir. 2015) (“The nature of Rule 23(b)(2) actions, the Advisory
17
Committee’s note on (b)(2) actions, and the practice of many [] other federal courts
18
all lead us to conclude that ascertainability is not a requirement for certification of a
19
20
(b)(2) class seeking only injunctive and declaratory relief . . . .”); Shook v. El Paso
21
Cty., 386 F.3d 963, 972 (10th Cir. 2004) (“[M]any courts have found Rule 23(b)(2)
22
well suited for cases where the composition of the class is not readily
23
24
ascertainable.”); Cole v. City of Memphis, 839 F.3d 530, 542 (6th Cir. 2016), cert.
25
denied, 137 S. Ct. 2220 (2017) (“[A]scertainability is not an additional requirement
26
for certification of a (b)(2) class seeking only injunctive and declaratory relief.”);
27
28
Yaffe v. Powers, 454 F.2d 1362, 1366 (1st Cir.1972) (no ascertainability
16
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
1
requirement for Rule 23(b)(2) classes); accord In re Yahoo Mail Litig., 308 F.R.D.
2
577, 597-98 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
3
4
In any event, the proposed class is sufficiently ascertainable because it is
5
“administratively feasible” to ascertain whether an individual is a member. Greater
6
Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. Reel Servs. Mgmt. LLC, No. 13-cv-7172,
7
8
2014 WL 12561074, at *5 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2014) (quotation marks omitted)
9
(finding ascertainable proposed class of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing
10
11
and require closed captioning). Here, membership in the class is defined by clear
12
and objective criteria: class members are in immigration detention, their children
13
have been taken from them without a hearing and showing of unfitness, and their
14
children are held elsewhere by ORR. See supra at 3. These parameters are
15
16
“‘precise, objective, and presently ascertainable.’” O’Connor v. Boeing N. Am.,
17
Inc., 184 F.R.D. 311, 319 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (observing that class definitions for
18
actions maintained under Rule 23(b)(2) involve less precision than actions for
19
20
damages requiring notice to the class); see also, e.g., Lamumba Corp. v. City of
21
Oakland, No. 05-cv-2712, 2007 WL 3245282, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2007)
22
(“Plaintiffs putative class is based on the objective factors of business ownership,
23
24
race, and indebtedness to the City, and therefore is sufficiently defined.”). And the
25
fact that some administrative process may be required to identify class members
26
does not undermine ascertainability. See, e.g., Moreno v. Napolitano, No. 11-cv-
27
28
5452, 2014 WL 4911938, at *6-7 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2014) (finding that the
17
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
1
necessity of manually reviewing tens of thousands of detainer forms to identify
2
class members did not undermine ascertainability) (citing Young v. Nationwide
3
4
5
6
7
Mut. Ins. Co., 693 F.3d 532, 539 (6th Cir. 2012)).
II.
This Action Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(2).
In addition to satisfying the four requirements of Rule 23(a), a class must
8
also come within one of the subsections of Rule 23(b). Certification of a class
9
under Rule 23(b)(2) requires that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused
10
to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or
11
12
corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.”
13
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]t is sufficient” to meet Rule
14
23(b)(2)’s requirements that “class members complain of a pattern or practice that
15
16
is generally applicable to the class as a whole.” Walters, 145 F.3d at 1047. Indeed,
17
Rule “23(b)(2) was adopted in order to permit the prosecution of civil rights
18
actions” like this one. Id. “‘The key to the (b)(2) class is the indivisible nature of
19
20
the injunctive or declaratory remedy warranted—the notion that the conduct is such
21
that it can be enjoined or declared unlawful only as to all of the class members or as
22
to none of them.’” Lyon v. ICE, 308 F.R.D. 203, 213 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting
23
24
25
26
27
28
Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2557).
Rule 23(b)(2)’s requirements are plainly met here. Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enjoin Defendants’ practice—common to all class members—of separating them
from their children without a hearing and showing that they are unfit or present a
18
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
1
danger to their children. If that practice violates due process or the APA, it does so
2
as to all proposed class members. A single injunction would protect both Plaintiffs
3
4
and the other class members from this same practice. See, e.g., Walters, 145 F.3d at
5
1047 (certifying Rule 23(b)(2) class based on Defendants’ practice of providing
6
deficient notice of deportation procedures).
7
8
9
10
11
This relief would benefit Plaintiffs as well as all members of the proposed
class in the same fashion. No individual class member would be entitled to a
different injunction or declaratory judgment. The requested relief would address
12
these policies or practices in a single stroke, and thus the proposed class plainly
13
warrants certification under Rule 23(b)(2). See Parsons, 754 F.3d at 689 (finding
14
declaratory and injunctive relief proper as to the whole class where “every
15
16
[member] in the proposed class is allegedly suffering the same (or at least a similar)
17
injury and that injury can be alleviated for every class member by uniform changes
18
in . . . policy and practice”).
19
20
Because Plaintiffs and proposed class members all have suffered or will
21
suffer the same constitutional and statutory violations as a result of the
22
government’s challenged practice, and because they seek singular injunctive and
23
24
corresponding declaratory relief that remedy those injuries, certification under Rule
25
23(b)(2) is proper.
26
27
28
19
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
1
2
3
4
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion and enter an
order certifying the proposed class under Rule 23(b)(2); appoint Plaintiffs as Class
5
Representatives; and appoint the Plaintiffs’ Counsel from the ACLU Immigrants’
6
Rights Project and the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties as Class
7
8
Counsel.
9
10
Dated: March 9, 2018
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783)
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN
DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES
P.O. Box 87131
San Diego, CA 92138-7131
T: (619) 398-4485
F: (619) 232-0036
bvakili@aclusandiego.org
Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 343-1198
F: (415) 395-0950
samdur@aclu.org
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/Lee Gelernt
Lee Gelernt*
Judy Rabinovitz*
Anand Balakrishnan*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
125 Broad St., 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
T: (212) 549-2616
F: (212) 549-2654
lgelernt@aclu.org
jrabinovitz@aclu.org
abalakrishnan@aclu.org
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
Ms. L. and Ms. C. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.
EXHIBITS TO MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXHIBIT
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
DOCUMENT
Declaration of Ms. C (Restricted)
Declaration of Mayra Jimenez
Declaration of Michelle Brane
Declaration of Shalyn Fluharty
Declaration of Spencer E. Amdur
PAGES
22-27
28-32
33-39
40-45
46-60
Page 21
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 12, Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Lee Gelernt*
Judy Rabinovitz*
Anand Balakrishnan*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
125 Broad St., 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
T: (212) 549-2660
F: (212) 549-2654
lgelernt@aclu.org
jrabinovitz@aclu.org
abalakrishnan@aclu.org
Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783)
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN
DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES
P.O. Box 87131
San Diego, CA 92138-7131
T: (619) 398-4485
F: (619) 232-0036
bvakili@aclusandiego.org
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
Additional counsel on next page
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ms. L. and Ms. C.,
v.
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
Petitioners-Plaintiffs,
Date Filed: March 9, 2018
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
RESTRICTED
Services (“USCIS”); U.S. Department of Health
DECLARATION OF MS. C.
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; Adrian P. Macias, El Paso
Field Director, ICE; Frances M. Jackson, El Paso
Assistant Field Office Director, ICE; Kirstjen
Nielsen, Secretary of DHS; Jefferson Beauregard
Sessions III, Attorney General of the United
States; L. Francis Cissna, Director of USCIS;
Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of
CBP; Pete Flores, San Diego Field Director,
CBP; Hector A. Mancha Jr., El Paso Field
Director, CBP; Alex Azar, Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services;
Scott Lloyd, Director of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement,
26
27
Respondents-Defendants.
28
Exhibit 12, Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 343-1198
F: (415) 395-0950
samdur@aclu.org
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 12, Page 24
Exhibit 12, Page 25
Exhibit 12, Page 26
Exhibit 12, Page 27
Exhibit 13
Exhibit 13, Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Lee Gelernt*
Judy Rabinovitz*
Anand Balakrishnan*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
125 Broad St., 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
T: (212) 549-2660
F: (212) 549-2654
lgelernt@aclu.org
jrabinovitz@aclu.org
abalakrishnan@aclu.org
Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783)
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN
DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES
P.O. Box 87131
San Diego, CA 92138-7131
T: (619) 398-4485
F: (619) 232-0036
bvakili@aclusandiego.org
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
Additional counsel on next page
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ms. L. and Ms. C.,
v.
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
Petitioners-Plaintiffs,
Date Filed: March 9, 2018
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
DECLARATION OF MAYRA
Services (“USCIS”); U.S. Department of Health JIMENEZ
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; Adrian P. Macias, El Paso
Field Director, ICE; Frances M. Jackson, El Paso
Assistant Field Office Director, ICE; Kirstjen
Nielsen, Secretary of DHS; Jefferson Beauregard
Sessions III, Attorney General of the United
States; L. Francis Cissna, Director of USCIS;
Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of
CBP; Pete Flores, San Diego Field Director,
CBP; Hector A. Mancha Jr., El Paso Field
Director, CBP; Alex Azar, Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services;
Scott Lloyd, Director of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement,
26
27
Respondents-Defendants.
28
Exhibit 13, Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 343-1198
F: (415) 395-0950
samdur@aclu.org
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 13, Page 30
Exhibit 13, Page 31
Exhibit 13, Page 32
Exhibit 14
Exhibit 14, Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Lee Gelernt*
Judy Rabinovitz*
Anand Balakrishnan*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
125 Broad St., 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
T: (212) 549-2660
F: (212) 549-2654
lgelernt@aclu.org
jrabinovitz@aclu.org
abalakrishnan@aclu.org
Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783)
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN
DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES
P.O. Box 87131
San Diego, CA 92138-7131
T: (619) 398-4485
F: (619) 232-0036
bvakili@aclusandiego.org
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
Additional counsel on next page
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
Ms. L. and Ms. C.,
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
Petitioners-Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
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; Adrian P. Macias, El Paso
Field Director, ICE; Frances M. Jackson, El Paso
Assistant Field Office Director, ICE; Kirstjen
Nielsen, Secretary of DHS; Jefferson Beauregard
Sessions III, Attorney General of the United
States; L. Francis Cissna, Director of USCIS;
Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of
CBP; Pete Flores, San Diego Field Director,
CBP; Hector A. Mancha Jr., El Paso Field
Director, CBP; Alex Azar, Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services;
Scott Lloyd, Director of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Date Filed: March 9, 2018
DECLARATION OF
MICHELLE BRANE
26
27
Respondents-Defendants.
28
Exhibit 14, Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 343-1198
F: (415) 395-0950
samdur@aclu.org
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 14, Page 35
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. L.,
Petitioner,
v.
CASE NO. 18-CV-00428-DMS-MDD
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(“DHS”); U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (“CBP”); U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (“USCIS”); U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”); Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of DHS;
Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, Attorney
General of the United States; Kevin K.
McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of CBP;
Thomas Homan, Acting Director of ICE; L.
Francis Cissna, Director of USCIS; Pete
Flores, San Diego Field Director, CBP; Greg
Archambeault, San Diego Field Office
Director, ICE; Fred Figueroa, Warden, Otay
Mesa Detention Center,
Respondents.
DECLARATION OF MICHELLE BRANÉ
I, Michelle Brané, make the following declaration based on my personal knowledge and declare
under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the following is true and correct:
1. I have been the Director of the Migrant Rights and Justice Program at the Women’s
Refugee Commission since 2006. I am a graduate of the Georgetown University Law
Center. The Women’s Refugee Commission conducts research, develops policy
recommendations and advocates on behalf of displaced and refugee women, children, and
1
Exhibit 14, Page 36
families. I have been studying the practices around the detention of families and family
separation due to immigration detention for over 10 years.
2. As the director of a program focused on advocating for the rights of migrants in the
United States I regularly monitor practices and policies of the United States Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) and supervise four additional staff. We conduct monitoring
visits of U.S. immigration detention facilities around the country; conduct research on
DHS and Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement (HHS, ORR)
practices with respect to border security and immigration policy and practice; work
closely with legal service providers and social service agencies that provide services to
immigrant men, women, and children; and interview migrants about their experiences in
crossing the border, accessing asylum procedures, and in immigration detention. We
publish reports and share our findings and recommendations with DHS, HHS, and
Congress. My staff and I have visited over 45 adult, children, and family detention
facilities.
3. Based on our research, my conversations with multiple people in my office and other
offices – including legal service providers and social service providers for adults and
children, and visits to the border and to detention centers, I understand that there is a
large number of non-citizen parents in ICE detention who have been separated from their
children, with the children being sent to separate facilities under the Office of Refugee
Resettlement.
4. All of these families were apprehended together before being separated. In all of the
cases, adults and parents have been separated and are held separately in detention. In
some cases, both the parent and child are placed into immigration proceedings, but the
2
Exhibit 14, Page 37
child is taken away from the parent. In others, families were initially separated because
the parent was prosecuted for criminal immigration violations although they announced a
fear of return and intended to seek asylum or other fear-based claims for relief. In these
cases, the parents were transferred to the custody of the Department of Justice Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) and their children were placed in ORR custody. After release from BOP
custody upon conclusion of their criminal case, the parents are returned to custody of ICE
but are not reunited with their children.
5. The total number of cases has been difficult to track because neither DHS nor HHS keep
trackable records of the separations, and the majority of immigration detainees do not
have attorneys who can document their case. However, we have been able to identify
separation of parents from children at the border in at least 429 cases collected from our
own experience, legal service providers, attorneys, and social service agencies around the
country.
6. While the Women’s Refugee Commission acknowledges that the separation of an
immigrant child from an adult with whom they are traveling may be appropriate in
certain cases where there is substantiated reason to suspect that the adult and child are not
in fact related, or reason to suspect that the child is in imminent physical danger from the
adult, this has not been shown in any way to be the case in the above referenced
identified cases.
7. The children in these cases range from toddlers to young teenagers.
8. I have no reason to believe the practice of separating parents and their children is ending
at any point in the future. In fact, I have been informed at various times off the record, by
government officials, that there are discussions and plans in place to expand the practice.
3
Exhibit 14, Page 38
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct, based on my personal knowledge.
Executed in Washington, DC on March 8,
2018.
______________________________
4
Exhibit 14, Page 39
Exhibit 15
Exhibit 15, Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Lee Gelernt*
Judy Rabinovitz*
Anand Balakrishnan*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
125 Broad St., 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
T: (212) 549-2660
F: (212) 549-2654
lgelernt@aclu.org
jrabinovitz@aclu.org
abalakrishnan@aclu.org
Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783)
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN
DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES
P.O. Box 87131
San Diego, CA 92138-7131
T: (619) 398-4485
F: (619) 232-0036
bvakili@aclusandiego.org
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
Additional counsel on next page
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ms. L. and Ms. C.,
v.
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
Petitioners-Plaintiffs,
Date Filed: March 9, 2018
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”); U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(“DHS”); U.S. Customs and Border Protection
DECLARATION OF SHALYN
(“CBP”); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (“USCIS”); U.S. Department of Health FLUHARTY
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; Adrian P. Macias, El Paso
Field Director, ICE; Frances M. Jackson, El Paso
Assistant Field Office Director, ICE; Kirstjen
Nielsen, Secretary of DHS; Jefferson Beauregard
Sessions III, Attorney General of the United
States; L. Francis Cissna, Director of USCIS;
Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of
CBP; Pete Flores, San Diego Field Director,
CBP; Hector A. Mancha Jr., El Paso Field
Director, CBP; Alex Azar, Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services;
Scott Lloyd, Director of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement,
26
27
Respondents-Defendants.
28
Exhibit 15, Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 343-1198
F: (415) 395-0950
samdur@aclu.org
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 15, Page 42
Exhibit 15, Page 43
Exhibit 15, Page 44
Exhibit 15, Page 45
Exhibit 16
Exhibit 16, Page 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Lee Gelernt*
Judy Rabinovitz*
Anand Balakrishnan*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
125 Broad St., 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
T: (212) 549-2660
F: (212) 549-2654
lgelernt@aclu.org
jrabinovitz@aclu.org
abalakrishnan@aclu.org
Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783)
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN
DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES
P.O. Box 87131
San Diego, CA 92138-7131
T: (619) 398-4485
F: (619) 232-0036
bvakili@aclusandiego.org
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
Additional counsel on next page
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ms. L. and Ms. C.,
v.
Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD
Petitioners-Plaintiffs,
Date Filed: March 9, 2018
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
DECLARATION OF
Services (“USCIS”); U.S. Department of Health SPENCER E. AMDUR
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; Adrian P. Macias, El Paso
Field Director, ICE; Frances M. Jackson, El Paso
Assistant Field Office Director, ICE; Kirstjen
Nielsen, Secretary of DHS; Jefferson Beauregard
Sessions III, Attorney General of the United
States; L. Francis Cissna, Director of USCIS;
Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of
CBP; Pete Flores, San Diego Field Director,
CBP; Hector A. Mancha Jr., El Paso Field
Director, CBP; Alex Azar, Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services;
Scott Lloyd, Director of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement,
26
27
28
Respondents-Defendants.
Exhibit 16, Page 47
18cv0428
1
2
3
4
5
Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 343-1198
F: (415) 395-0950
samdur@aclu.org
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Exhibit 16, Page 48
1
I, Spencer E. Amdur, make the following declaration based on my personal
2
knowledge and declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746
3
that the following is true and correct:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.
I am a Staff Attorney at the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project (IRP).
IRP is co-counsel for Plaintiffs in the above-captioned case. I submit this
declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification to address the
qualifications of Plaintiffs’ counsel to serve as Class Counsel in this proposed class
action.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Lee Gelernt
2.
Lee Gelernt has been an attorney with the American Civil Liberties
Union since 1992. He currently holds the positions of Deputy Director of the
ACLU’s national Immigrants’ Rights Project, and Director of the Project’s Program
on Access to the Courts.
3.
Mr. Gelernt is a 1988 graduate of Columbia Law School, where he
19
20
was a Notes and Comments Editor of the Law Review. After graduation, Mr.
21
Gelernt served as a law clerk to the late-Judge Frank M. Coffin of the First Circuit
22
U.S. Court of Appeals.
23
24
25
26
4.
Mr. Gelernt is admitted to practice in New York. He has specializes in
the area of immigration. He has argued dozens of notable civil rights cases at all
levels of the federal court system, including in the United States Supreme Court,
27
28
the Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth,
1
Exhibit 16, Page 49
1
Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, and in numerous district courts around the country.
2
He has been counsel in and argued many class action immigration cases, including
3
4
recently Hamama v. Adducci, __ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2017 WL 2953050 (E.D. Mich.
5
July 11, 2017); Devitri v. Cronen, No. CV 17-11842-PBS, 2017 WL 5707528 (D.
6
Mass. Nov. 27, 2017), Ibrahim v. Acosta, No. 17-CV-24574, 2018 WL 582520, at
7
8
9
10
*1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2018), and Nak Kim Chhoeun v. Marin, 2018 WL 571503, at
*1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2018). He has also testified as an expert before the United
States Senate on immigration issues.
11
12
5.
In addition to his work at the ACLU, Mr. Gelernt is adjunct professor
13
at Columbia Law School, and for many years taught at Yale Law School as an
14
adjunct.
15
16
6.
For his litigation work on immigration cases, Mr. Gelernt has received
17
several honors. In 2002 received the 13th Annual Public Interest Achievement
18
Award from Columbia University’s Public Interest Law Foundation. The
19
20
American Immigration Lawyers Association has also twice awarded him their
21
national prize for excellence in litigation for his civil rights work on behalf of the
22
immigrant community.
23
24
Judy Rabinovitz
25
7.
26
Judy Rabinovitz Judy Rabinovitz is Deputy Director and Director of
Detention and Federal Enforcement Programs of IRP. She is admitted to practice in
27
28
New York and has been admitted to practice before numerous federal courts,
2
Exhibit 16, Page 50
1
including the U.S. Supreme Court; the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First, Second,
2
Third, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits; and the U.S.
3
4
District Courts for the Central District of California, District of Colorado, Eastern
5
District of New York, and Southern District of New York. She graduated from
6
New York University Law School in 1985. She has worked at IRP since 1988. She
7
8
9
10
has also served as adjunct faculty at New York University Law School since 1997.
8.
Ms. Rabinovitz is one of the nation’s leading civil rights attorneys
working in the area of immigration detention. She was lead counsel and argued
11
12
before the U.S. Supreme Court in Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (challenge
13
to mandatory detention statute), and played key roles in the litigation culminating in
14
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (striking down indefinite detention of post-
15
16
final order deportees who could not be removed), and Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S.
17
371 (2005) (holding that Zadvydas limitation on indefinite detention applies to
18
noncitizens apprehended at the border).
19
20
9.
Ms. Rabinovitz has also served as lead counsel, co-counsel, or counsel
21
for amici curiae in numerous other detention cases in the federal courts of appeals,
22
including: Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011) (argued) (requiring
23
24
bond hearings for noncitizens detained six months or longer under post-final order
25
detention statute); Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011) (amicus counsel)
26
(requiring that the government justify continued prolonged immigration detention
27
28
by clear and convincing evidence); Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.
3
Exhibit 16, Page 51
1
2010) (certifying class of noncitizens detained for six months without adequate
2
bond hearings while their immigration cases are pending); Nadarajah v. Gonzales,
3
4
443 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that asylum seeker could not be subject to
5
prolonged and indefinite immigration detention as national security threat); Tijani
6
v. Willis, 430 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2005) (ordering bond hearing for mandatory
7
8
detainee where removal proceedings were not “expeditious”); Castaneda v. Souza,
9
810 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2015) (en banc) (affirming injunction that held that mandatory
10
detention statute applies only where the immigration authorities take custody of an
11
12
individual upon their release from relevant criminal custody) (amicus counsel and
13
counsel of record in companion case, Gordon v. Holder, 13-2509); Gayle v.
14
Warden, Monmouth Cty. Correctional Institution, 838 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2016)
15
16
(class action challenging the mandatory detention of individuals with substantial
17
challenges to removal in New Jersey); Leslie v. Attorney General, 678 F.3d 265 (3d
18
Cir. 2012) (argued as amicus counsel in pro se case) (holding that detainees cannot
19
20
be penalized for the time required to pursue bona fide challenges to removal in
21
assessing reasonableness of their prolonged detention); Diop v. ICE/Homeland
22
Security, 656 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2011) (argued as amicus counsel in pro se case)
23
24
(holding that mandatory detention statute only authorizes such detention for a
25
“reasonable” period of time); Alli v. Decker, 650 F.3d 1007 (3d Cir. 2011) (holding
26
that immigration detainees are not barred from challenging their detention in a class
27
28
action); Ly v. Hansen, 351 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 2003) (argued) (holding that
4
Exhibit 16, Page 52
1
mandatory detention statute only authorizes such detention for a “reasonable”
2
period of time); Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
3
4
5
6
7
8
(argued) (striking down indefinite detention of excludable noncitizens).
10.
Ms. Rabinovitz has also served as lead counsel or co-counsel in district
court litigation concerning the detention and due process rights of noncitizens
facing removal. See, e.g., Hamama v. Adducci, __ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2017 WL
9
2953050, at *12 (E.D. Mich. July 11, 2017) (granting classwide stay of removal of
10
Iraqi nationals facing severe persecution in Iraq); R.I.L.R. v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp.
11
12
3d 164 (D.D.C 2015) (granting classwide preliminary injunction prohibiting
13
government from detaining women and children seeking asylum based on desire to
14
deter others from migrating). She has also served as co-counsel or amicus counsel
15
16
in other district court matters related to immigration detention. See, e.g., Alli v.
17
Decker, No. 4:09-cv-00698 (M.D. Pa), 644 F. Supp. 2d 535 (M.D. Pa. 2009), 650
18
F.3d 1007 (3d Cir. 2011) (class action challenging prolonged mandatory detention
19
20
21
22
of immigrants held in Pennsylvania).
11.
Through these cases and others, Ms. Rabinovitz has come to have
distinctive knowledge and specialized skill in the area of immigrants’ rights
23
24
litigation in the federal courts and immigration detention in particular. In addition,
25
Ms. Rabinovitz serves as a resource for nonprofit, pro bono, and private attorneys
26
litigating immigration detention cases throughout the country. She has provided
27
28
advice and editorial assistance to dozens of attorneys during this time, and shared
5
Exhibit 16, Page 53
1
IRP’s briefing in these and other cases on many occasions. Ms. Rabinovitz has also
2
taught continuing legal education workshops on immigration detention litigation.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Bardis Vakili
12.
Bardis Vakili is a Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU of San Diego
& Imperial Counties (ACLU SDIC), licensed to practice before the courts of the
State of California, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and
United States District Courts for the Southern, Central, and Northern Districts of
California.
11
12
13.
Mr. Vakili has served as lead counsel or co-counsel in numerous cases
13
in the federal courts of appeals involving immigrants’ rights, including the rights of
14
detained asylum seekers. See Gomez-Sanchez v. Sessions, Case No. 14-72506 (9th
15
16
Cir.) (pending challenge to precedent decision by Board of Immigration Appeal
17
barring consideration of mental illness in eligibility for withholding of removal);
18
Vanegas Arrubla v. Holder, No. 07-72764 (9th Cir. 2011) (successful appeal of
19
20
denial of asylum to Colombian detainee), Kakla v. Holder, No. 08-72856 (9th Cir.
21
2008) (successful appeal of asylum case involving detained Iraqi ex-police officer).
22
23
24
25
26
14.
Mr. Vakili has also served as lead counsel or co-counsel in numerous
cases in federal district court involving immigrants’ rights, including class action
cases. See, e.g., Santander-Leyva v. Baker, No. 08 CV 01485 (S.D. Cal. 2008)
(habeas petition securing release of transgender immigrant detainee); Sanchez de
27
28
Gomez v. Baker, No. 10 CV 652 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (habeas petition securing release
6
Exhibit 16, Page 54
1
of mentally disabled immigrant detainee); Hamdi v USCIS Case No. 5:10 CV-
2
05995 (C.D. Cal 2011) (successful citizenship claim on behalf of Egyptian
3
4
national); Olivas v. Whitford, Case No. 17-CV-1434 (S.D. Cal 2014) (citizenship
5
claim against Border Patrol, appeal pending at the Ninth Circuit); Varela v. USCIS,
6
Case No. 17-CV-2490 (naturalization delay for deported U.S. veteran). Lopez-
7
8
9
10
Venegas v. Johnson, No. 13-cv-03972, ECF No. 104 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2015)
(order approving class settlement securing, inter alia, return to the United States of
immigrants removed through administrative voluntary departure); Cancino-
11
12
13
14
15
16
Castellar v. Nielsen, No. 17-CV-00491 (S.D. Cal 2017) (pending class action on
behalf of immigrants detained for extended periods without presentment).
15.
In addition, Mr. Vakili has extensive experience advocating for the
rights of immigrant detainees in removal proceedings. As an Immigrants’ Rights
17
Consultant for the ACLU of Southern California, he has provided technical and
18
legal assistance to hundreds of pro se immigrant detainees in removal proceedings
19
20
in the Los Angeles area. In about four years as Political Asylum Director for Casa
21
Cornelia Law Center in San Diego, he has represented more than 100 immigrant
22
detainees in removal proceedings and assesses dozens of intakes every week from
23
24
detained immigrants facing removal proceedings. In his current position, he
25
performs monthly legal rights trainings to pro se immigrant detainees in Imperial
26
County. In 2008, he was a co-awardee of the Daniel Levy Award from the National
27
28
Lawyers Guild’s National Immigration Project. And in 2017, he was named a
7
Exhibit 16, Page 55
1
California Lawyer Attorney of the Year for his work on behalf of deported United
2
States veterans, including co-authoring a detailed report on the topic entitled
3
4
Discharged, Then Discarded.
5
Anand Balakrishnan
6
16.
7
8
9
10
Anand Balakrishnan is a Staff Attorney at the ACLU’s Immigrants’
Rights Project. He graduated from the Yale Law School in 2009.
17.
Before joining the ACLU and between September of 2009 and
September of 2014, he practiced as an attorney in the Law Office of Sheehan and
11
12
Reeve in New Haven, CT, with a primary focus on criminal defense in the state and
13
federal systems and a secondary focus on civil rights and impact litigation. During
14
this time, his federal criminal docket included trial and appeal in felonies and
15
16
capital prosecutions. His state criminal docket included representation of clients
17
charged with capital felony, murder and serious felonies at trial, appeal, and post-
18
conviction review. Some criminal matters included: United States v. Syed Talha
19
20
Ahsan, 3:06CR194 (D.Conn.) (JCH) (material support prosecution of individual
21
extradited from U.K. alleging support of al-Qaeda; sentenced to time served);
22
Daniel Webb v. Warden, CV00003239, 2011 WL 724774 (Conn. Sup. Ct. 2011)
23
24
(collateral challenge to death sentence); Vernon Horn v. Warden, CV010456995,
25
2014 WL 3397826 (Conn. Sup. Ct. 2014) (collateral challenge to murder
26
conviction); In re Death Penalty Disparity Claims, CV05-4000632, 2013 WL
27
28
8
Exhibit 16, Page 56
1
5879422 (Conn. Sup. Ct. 2013) (challenge to racial and other disparities in
2
administration of death penalty).
3
4
18.
Experience (including class action experience) specific to federal court
5
challenges to immigration law includes: Hamama v. Adducci, __ F. Supp. 3d ___,
6
2017 WL 2953050 (E.D. Mich. July 11, 2017) (granting classwide stay of removal
7
8
of Iraqi nationals facing severe persecution in Iraq); Devitri v. Cronen, 2018 WL
9
661518 (D. Mass. Feb. 1, 2018); Gayle v. Warden, Monmouth Cnty Correctional
10
Institution, 838 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2016) (class action challenging the mandatory
11
12
detention of individuals with substantial challenges to removal in New Jersey);
13
R.I.L.R. v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164 (D.D.C. 2015) (granting classwide
14
preliminary injunction prohibiting government from detaining women and children
15
16
seeking asylum based on desire to deter others from migrating); Rivera v. Holder,
17
307 F.R.D. 539 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (class action challenging immigration bond
18
procedures).
19
20
Spencer Amdur
21
19.
22
I am a Staff Attorney at the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. I am
a member of the bars of California and Pennsylvania, and I am admitted to practice
23
24
in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Fifth Circuits, and the U.S. District
25
Courts for the Southern District of Ohio and Southern District of California. I
26
graduated from Yale Law School in 2013 and served as a Law Clerk to the
27
28
Honorable Judith W. Rogers of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
9
Exhibit 16, Page 57
1
Prior to my work at IRP, I was a Trial Attorney at the Federal Programs Branch of
2
the Civil Division within the U.S. Department of Justice. And before my clerkship,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I served as an Arthur Liman Public Interest Fellow at the Lawyers’ Committee for
Civil Rights in San Francisco.
20.
At IRP I litigate complex immigration-related cases at all levels of the
federal courts. See, e.g., Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080
(2017) (staying in part a preliminary injunction of an Executive Order barring
nationals of certain countries from entering the United States); City of El Cenizo v.
11
12
State of Texas, 264 F. Supp. 3d 744 (W.D. Tex. 2017) (enjoining parts of state
13
immigration law), stayed in part, 2017 WL 4250186 (5th Cir. Sept. 25, 2017); Roy
14
v. County of Los Angeles, No. 12-cv-9012, 2018 WL 914773 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7,
15
16
2018) (granting summary judgment as to certain subclasses in class action
17
challenge to federal and local immigration detention policies); Texas v. Travis Cty.,
18
272 F. Supp. 3d 973 (W.D. Tex. 2017) (dismissing lawsuit seeking declaration of
19
20
state immigration law’s constitutionality), appeal pending; P.K. v. Tillerson, 1:17-
21
cv-01533 (D.D.C. filed 2017) (challenge to State Department policy denying visas
22
to winners of the Diversity Visa Lottery); Al Mowafak v. Trump, No. 3:17-cv-557
23
24
(N.D. Cal. filed 2017) (challenge to restrictions on refugee admissions). I also
25
represent amici in a number of cases involving the federal government’s
26
administration of the immigration laws. See, e.g., State of Hawaii v. Trump, 871
27
28
F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2017) (challenge to policy barring certain close family members
10
Exhibit 16, Page 58
1
of U.S. persons from entering the United States); City of Chicago v. Sessions, 264
2
F. Supp. 3d 933 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (granting injunction against immigration-related
3
4
spending conditions); City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2017 WL
5
5489476 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2017) (same); County of Santa Clara v. Trump, No. 17-
6
17480 (9th Cir.) (reviewing injunction of immigration-enforcement Executive
7
8
9
10
11
12
Order).
21.
Outside the immigration context, I have served as counsel in a variety
of cases raising complex questions of administrative law. See, e.g., Bd. of Ed. of
the Highland Local Sch. Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of Ed., 208 F. Supp. 3d 850 (S.D. Ohio)
13
(argued) (preliminary injunction proceedings involving APA challenges to the
14
Department of Education’s Title IX guidance); South Carolina v. United States,
15
16
221 F. Supp. 3d 684 (D.S.C. 2016) (argued) (APA challenge to Department of
17
Energy’s administration of nuclear nonproliferation program); TEXO ABC/AGC v.
18
Perez, No. 3:16-cv-1998, 2016 WL 6947911 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2016) (denying
19
20
preliminary injunction in APA challenge to a new Department of Labor regulation);
21
McCrory v. United States, 5:16-cv-238 (E.D.N.C. filed 2016) (APA challenge to
22
Department of Education interpretive guidance); Privacy Matters v. Dep’t of Ed.,
23
24
25
26
0:16-cv-3015 (D. Minn. filed 2016) (same); Minnesota Children’s Hospital v. HHS,
0:16-cv-4064 (D. Minn. filed 2016) (APA challenge to Department of Health and
Human Services policy guidance).
27
28
11
Exhibit 16, Page 59
Exhibit 16, Page 60
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?