Hassanpour v. Trump et al

Filing 1

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Shahin Hassanpour. In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the Judges Copy Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. (Filing fee $5; receipt number 0539-8167800) Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Sheet, # 2 Declaration(s) Certificate of Interested Persons) (Maldonado, Javier)

Case 3:17-cv-00270-K Document 1 Filed 01/29/17

Page 1 of 13 PageID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SHAHIN HASSANPOUR and
A Class of Similarly Situated Persons,

§
§
§
Petitioners,
§
§
v.
§
§
DONALD TRUMP, President of the
§
United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF §
HOMELAND SECURITY (“DHS”);
§
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER
§
PROTECTION (“CBP”); JOHN KELLY,§
Secretary of DHS; KEVIN K.
§
MCALEENAN, Acting Commissioner of §
CBP; and CLEATUS P. HUNT, JR.,
§
Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport §
Port Director, CBP,
§
§
Respondents.
§

No. 3:17-cv-270

CLASS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
This class habeas petition is filed by Petitioner Shahin Hassanpour and others similarly
situated immigrant and nonimmigrant visa holders who are detained by Respondents at the
Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport (“DFW”) pursuant to the President’s January 27, 2017
executive order and who were coerced into withdrawing their applications for admissions.
Although a federal court has enjoined Respondents from removing Petitioner and class members,
Petitioner is concerned that Respondents will disregard the nationwide stay on the ground that
Petitioner and class members involuntarily withdrew their applications for admission and waived
their statutory and constitutional rights. This class petition is filed to safeguard Petitioner’s and
class members’ constitutional and statutory rights.

1

Case 3:17-cv-00270-K Document 1 Filed 01/29/17

Page 2 of 13 PageID 2

Petitioner Shahin Hassanpour is a 70 year-old Iranian national who landed in the
Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport (“DFW”) on or about January 28, 2017.

In September

2016, the United States Department of State (DOS) approved Ms. Hassanpour's application for
an immigrant visa to come and live in the United States. Her United States citizen son had
petitioned for her to immigrate to the United States as a permanent resident. Prior to the issuance
of her visa, the DOS reviewed Ms. Hassanpour's criminal and immigration background and
found her eligible for an immigrant visa.
On or about January 28, 2017, Ms. Hassanpour and other similarly situated immigrant
and nonimmigrant visa holders landed in the United States at the DFW Airport and presented
themselves for inspection and admission. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) blocked
Ms. Hassanpour and class members from exiting DFW Airport even though they presented valid
entry documents. CBP continues to detain Ms. Hassanpour and class members and deny them
admission. CBP is holding Ms. Hassanpour and class members at DFW Airport solely pursuant
to an executive order issued by President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017.
Because the executive order is unlawful as applied to Ms. Hassanpour and class
members, their continued detention and the denial of admission based solely on the executive
order violates their Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive due process, violates the First
Amendment Establishment Clause, is ultra vires under the immigration statutes, and violates the
Administrative Procedure Act and Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Further, Ms.

Hassanpour's and class members continued unlawful detention is part of a widespread policy,
pattern and practice applied to many refugees and arriving noncitizens detained after the issuance
of the January 27, 2017 executive order. Therefore, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly
situated immigrant and nonimmigrant holders, Ms. Hassanpour respectfully applies to this Court

2

Case 3:17-cv-00270-K Document 1 Filed 01/29/17

Page 3 of 13 PageID 3

for a writ of habeas corpus to remedy their unlawful detention, and for declaratory and injunctive
relief to prevent such harms from recurring.
CUSTODY
1.

Ms. Hassanpour is in the physical custody of Respondent Cleatus P. Hunt, Jr., DFW

International Airport Port Director, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). At the time of the filing of this petition, Petitioner is detained at the
DFW Airport. Ms. Hassanpour is under the direct control of Respondents and their agents.
2.

Class members are immigrant and nonimmigrant holders who are from Iran, Iraq, Syria,

Yemen, Somalia, Sudan or Libya, who are detained at DFW Airport pursuant to the January 27,
2017 executive order, and who were coerced into withdrawing their applications for admission.
JURISDICTION
3.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361,

2241, 2243, and the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This court has
further remedial authority pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.
VENUE
4.

Venue lies in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the

judicial district in which Respondent Cleatus P. Hunt, Jr. resides and where Petitioner is
detained. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).
5.

No petition for habeas corpus has previously been filed in any court to review Petitioner's

case.
PARTIES
6.

Petitioner Shahin Hassanpour is a national and citizen of Iran who was granted an

immigrant visa so that she can come to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. She is

3

Case 3:17-cv-00270-K Document 1 Filed 01/29/17

Page 4 of 13 PageID 4

detained by Respondents pursuant to President Trump's January 27, 2017 executive order.
7.

Class members are immigrant and nonimmigrant holders who are from Iran, Iraq, Syria,

Yemen, Somalia, Sudan or Libya and who are detained at DFW Airport pursuant to the January
27, 2017 executive order and who were coerced into withdrawing their applications for
admission.
8.

Donald Trump is the President of the United States and is charged with enforcing the

immigration laws. He is sued in his official capacity.
9.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a cabinet department of the

United States federal government with the primary mission of securing the United States.
10.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) is an agency within DHS with the primary

mission of detecting and preventing the unlawful entry of persons and goods into the United
States.
11.

Respondent John Kelly is the Secretary of DHS. Secretary Kelly has immediate custody

of Petitioner. He is sued in his official capacity.
12.

Respondent Kevin K. McAleenan is the Acting Commissioner of CBP. Acting

Commissioner McAleenan has immediate custody of Petitioner. He is sued in his official
capacity.
13.

Respondent Cleatus P. Hunt, Jr. is the Port Director of the Dallas/Ft. Worth International

Airport. He has immediate custody of Ms. Hassanpour. He is sued in his official capacity.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order

4

Case 3:17-cv-00270-K Document 1 Filed 01/29/17

14.

Page 5 of 13 PageID 5

On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump was inaugurated as the forty-fifth President of the

United States. During his campaign, he stated that he would ban Muslims from entering the
United States.
15.

On January 27, one week after his inauguration, President Trump signed an executive

order entitled, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” which
is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is hereinafter referred to as the “EO.”
16.

In statements to the press in connection with his issuance of the EO, President Trump

stated that his order would help Christian refugees to enter the United States.
17.

Citing the threat of terrorism committed by foreign nationals, the EO directs a variety of

changes to the manner and extent to which noncitizens may seek and obtain entry to the United
States. Among other things, the EO imposes a 120-day moratorium on the refugee resettlement
program as a whole; proclaims that “that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental
to the interests of the United States”; and therefore singles out Syrian refugees for an indefinite
“suspension” on their admission to the country.
18.

Most relevant to the instant action is Section 3(c) of the EO, in which President Trump

proclaims “that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from
countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be
detrimental to the interests of the United States,” and that he is therefore “suspend[ing] entry into
the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date
of this order,” with narrow exceptions not relevant here.
19.

There are seven countries that fit the criteria in 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12): Iraq, Iran, Libya,

Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. According to the terms of the EO, therefore, the “entry into

5

Case 3:17-cv-00270-K Document 1 Filed 01/29/17

Page 6 of 13 PageID 6

the United States” of noncitizens from those countries is “suspended” from 90 days from the date
of the EO.
Petitioner Hassanpour
20.

Petitioner Shahin Hassanpour is a 70 year-old Iranian national who is Muslim.

21.

Ms. Hassanpour has a United States citizen son who petitioned for Ms. Hassanpour to

immigrate to the United States as a lawful permanent resident.
22.

In September 2016, the State Department interviewed Ms. Hassanpour in connection with

her application for an immigrant visa. After reviewing her application and investigating her
criminal background, the State Department determined that Ms. Hassanpour qualified for an
immigrant visa. In issuing Ms. Hassanpour an immigrant visa, the State Department determined
that Ms. Hassanpour was not a threat to this country's national security but rather that she was
worthy of residing here permanently.
23.

On or about January 27, 2017, Ms. Hassanpour departed from Esfahan on Emirates

Airlines.
24.

On or about January 28, 2017, Ms. Hassanpour landed at DFW Airport.

25.

Pursuant to the January 27, 2017 executive order, Respondents are not allowing Ms.

Hassanpour to exit DFW Airport.
26.

Respondents are not permitting Ms. Hassanpour to meet with her attorneys who are in

Dallas. Her United States citizen son was at the DFW Airport ready to meet her.
27.

Ms. Hassanpour is an elderly woman who must take cancer and heart medication on a

regular basis. The long flight, the stress of detention, and the lack of her medication present
unnecessary health risks to Ms. Hassanpour.

6

Case 3:17-cv-00270-K Document 1 Filed 01/29/17

28.

Page 7 of 13 PageID 7

Upon information and belief, Respondents coerced Ms. Hassanpour to withdraw her

application for admission. Respondents told Ms. Hassanpour that she would be permanently
banned from the United States if she did not sign the form withdrawing her admission.
Respondents did not translate or interpret the waiver form. Ms. Hassanpour, however, does not
speak English, has no knowledge of United States laws, and was denied the opportunity to
communicate with her attorneys.
29.

Ms. Hassanpour has valid documents to enter the United States. She was previously

interviewed and investigated by the State Department. The State Department and the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services previously determined that Ms. Hassanpour was not a
national security risk. Respondents are detaining Ms. Hassanpour solely because of her national
origin and her religion as required by the January 27, 2017 executive order.
30.

Upon information and belief, Respondents intend to remove class members

notwithstanding the nationwide stay issued in Darweesh and Alshawi v. Trump et. al., Cause No.
17 Civ. 480 (AMD) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on January
28, 2017, relying upon the illegal waivers obtained from class members.
31.

Respondents’ decisions to detain Ms. Hassanpour are not unlawfuland are capricious and

arbitrary. There is no better time for the Court to consider the merits of Ms. Hassanpour’s
request for release.
Class
32.

Class members are immigrant and nonimmigrant visa holders currently detained by

Respondents at the DFW Airport.
33.

Class members are in the possession of entry documents that were lawfully issued by the

State Department and/or the Department of Homeland Security.

7

Case 3:17-cv-00270-K Document 1 Filed 01/29/17

34.

Page 8 of 13 PageID 8

Prior to issuing entry documents to class members, the State Department and/or the

Department of Homeland Security interviewed and investigated class members.

The State

Department and/or the Department of Homeland Security determined that class members were
admissible and were not a threat to the national security.
35.

Upon landing at DFW Airport, Respondents detained class members pursuant to the

President’s January 27, 2017 executive order. Upon information and belief, Respondents denied
class members an opportunity to speak with their lawyers.
36.

Upon information and belief, Respondents then proceeded to coerce class members to

withdraw their applications for admission.
37.

Class members do not speak English fluently, are not lawyers, and are not familiar with

United States laws.
38.

Upon information and belief, Respondents intend to remove class members

notwithstanding the nationwide stay issued in Darweesh and Alshawi v. Trump et. al., Cause No.
17 Civ. 480 (AMD) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on January
28, 2017, relying upon the illegal waivers obtained from class members.
39.

Respondents’ decisions to detain class members are not legally justifiable and are

capricious and arbitrary. There is no better time for the Court to consider the merits of the class
members’ request for release.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT ONE
CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM--DUE PROCESS
40.

Petitioner alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 39 above.

41.

Petitioner’s and the class members’ detention violates her right to substantive and

procedural due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

8

Case 3:17-cv-00270-K Document 1 Filed 01/29/17

Page 9 of 13 PageID 9

COUNT TWO
FIRST AMENDMENT--ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
42.

Petitioner alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 39 above.

43.

The EO exhibits hostility to a specific religious faith, Islam, and gives preference to other

religious faiths, principally Christianity. The EO therefore violates the Establishment Clause of
the First Amendment by not pursuing a course of neutrality with regard to different religious
faiths.
COUNT THREE
FIFTH AMENDMENT--EQUAL PROTECTION
44.

Petitioner alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 39 above.

45.

The EO discriminates against Petitioner and the class on the basis of their country of

origin and religion, without sufficient justification, and therefore violates the equal protection
component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
46.

Additionally, the EO was substantially motivated by animus toward—and has a disparate

effect on—Muslims, which also violates the equal protection component of the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
47.

Respondents have demonstrated an intent to discriminate against Petitioner and the class

members on the basis of religion through repeated public statements that make clear the EO was
designed to prohibit the entry of Muslims to the United States. See Michael D. Shear & Helene
Cooper, Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries, N.Y. Times (Jan. 27, 2017),
(“[President Trump] ordered that Christians and others from minority religions be granted
priority over Muslims.”); Carol Morello, Trump Signs Order Temporarily Halting Admission of
Refugees, Promises Priority for Christians, Wash. Post (Jan. 27, 2017).

9

Case 3:17-cv-00270-K Document 1 Filed 01/29/17

48.

Page 10 of 13 PageID 10

Applying a general law in a fashion that discriminates on the basis of religion in this way

violates Petitioner's and class members’ right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment
Due Process Clause. Petitioner and the class satisfy the Supreme Court’s test to determine
whether a facially neutral law – in the case, the EO and federal immigration law – has been
applied in a discriminatory fashion. Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429
U.S. 252, 266-7 (1977).
49.

Here, President Donald Trump and senior staff have made clear that EO will be applied

to primarily exclude individuals on the basis of their national origin and being Muslim. See, e.g.,
Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Statement On Preventing Muslim Immigration, (Dec. 7,
2015),

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-

muslim-immigration (“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims
entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”);
Abby Phillip and Abigail Hauslohner, Trump on the Future of Proposed Muslim Ban, Registry:
‘You know my plans’, Wash. Post (Dec. 22, 2016). Further, the President has promised that
preferential treatment will be given to Christians, unequivocally demonstrating the special
preferences and discriminatory impact that the EO has upon Petitioner. See supra.
50.

Thus, Respondents have applied the EO with forbidden animus and discriminatory intent

in violation of the equal protection of the Fifth Amendment and violated Petitioner’s and the
class members’ equal protection rights.
COUNT FOUR
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
51.

Petitioner alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 27 above.

52.

Respondents detained and mistreated Petitioner and class members solely pursuant to an

executive order issued on January 27, 2017, which expressly discriminates against Petitioner and

10

Case 3:17-cv-00270-K Document 1 Filed 01/29/17

Page 11 of 13 PageID 11

the class on the basis of her country of origin and was substantially motivated by animus toward
Muslims.
53.

The EO exhibits hostility to a specific religious faith, Islam, and gives preference to other

religious faiths, principally Christianity.
54.

The INA forbids discrimination in issuance of visas based on a person’s race, nationality,

place of birth, or place of residence. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A).
55.

Respondents’ actions in detaining and mistreating Petitioner and class members were

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, in violation
of APA § 706(2)(A); contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity, in violation
of APA § 706(2)(B); in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of
statutory right, in violation of APA § 706(2)(C); and without observance of procedure required
by law, in violation of § 706(2)(D).
COUNT FIVE
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT
56.

Petitioner alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 27 above.

57.

The EO will have the effect of imposing a special disability on the basis of religious

views or religious status, by withdrawing an important immigration benefit principally from
Muslims on account of their religion. In doing so, the EO places a substantial burden on
Petitioner’s and class members’ exercise of religion in a way that is not the least restrictive
means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that this Court grant the following relief:
1. Assume jurisdiction over this matter;
2. Issue an order directing Respondents to show cause why the writ should not be

11

Case 3:17-cv-00270-K Document 1 Filed 01/29/17

Page 12 of 13 PageID 12

granted;
3. Issue an order certifying a class of immigrant and nonimmigrant visa holders detained
at DFW Airport pursuant to the President’s January 27, 2017 executive order and who
were coerced into withdrawing their applications for admission and other rights;
4. Issue an injunction ordering Respondents not to detain Petitioner on the basis of the
EO;
5. Issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering Respondents to release Ms. Hassanpour;
6. Award Petitioner reasonable costs and attorney’s fees; and,
7. Grant any other relief which this Court deems just and proper.

12

Case 3:17-cv-00270-K Document 1 Filed 01/29/17

Page 13 of 13 PageID 13

Respectfully submitted,
JAVIER N. MALDONADO
LAW OFFICE OF JAVIER N. MALDONADO, PC
8918 Tesoro Dr., Ste. 575
San Antonio, Texas 78217
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
SEJAL R. ZOTA
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE
NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
14 Beacon Street, Suite 602
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
DONALD E. ULOTH
18208 Preston Rd. Suite D-9 # 261
Dallas, TX 75252
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONERS
By:

/s/ Javier N. Maldonado
Javier N. Maldonado
Texas State Bar No. 00794216

By:

/s/ Seja R. Zota
Sejal R. Zota
North Carolina State Bar No. 36535

By:

/s/ Donald E. Uloth
Donald E. Uloth
Texas State Bar No. 20374200

13