Sarsour et al v. Trump et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against Director of National Intelligence, John F. Kelly, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Department of State (Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0422-5353656), filed by Alia Salem, John Doe No. 5, Dawud Walid, John Doe No. 10, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 6, Linda Sarsour, John Doe No. 2, Imran Siddiqi, John Doe No. 7, Karen Dabdoub, Corey Saylor, John Doe No. 9, Jane Doe No. 1, Jane Doe No. 2, Rashida Tlaib, Hussam Ayloush, Adam Soltani, Julia Shearson, Namira Islam, John Doe No. 4, Basim Elkarra, Zahra Billoo, John Doe No. 8, Hassan Shibly, John Doe No. 3, Nihad Awad. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit Executive Order, #2 Exhibit Exhibit EDVA TRO, #3 Exhibit Exhibit EDNY TRO, #4 Exhibit Exhibit WDWA TRO, #5 Exhibit Exhibit EDCA TRO, #6 Exhibit Exhibit EDMA TRO, #7 Civil Cover Sheet)(jlan)

Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 1-5 01/29/17 Page 1Page 1 of 4 PageID# 49
Case 2:17-cv-00702 Document 5 Filed Filed 01/30/17 of 4 Page ID #:51

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Ali Khoshbakhti Vayeghan,
Petitioner,

12
13
14
15
16

Kelly, et al.,

v.
Respondents.

)
) Case No. CV 17-0702
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17
18
19

On January 28, 2017, Petitioner Vayeghan filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

20

Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, an Order to Show Cause re

21

Preliminary Injunction, and an Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order

22

(“TRO”) staying his removal from the United States, and ordering his release from the

23

custody of the Department of Homeland Security. [Doc. ##1, 2.] Before the Court could

24

rule on the TRO, he was placed on a flight to Dubai to be removed to Iran. On January

25

29, 2017, he filed an Amended Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order

26

(“Amended TRO”), which is currently before the Court. [Doc. # 4.]

27
28

-1-

Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 1-5 01/29/17 Page 2Page 2 of 4 PageID# 50
Case 2:17-cv-00702 Document 5 Filed Filed 01/30/17 of 4 Page ID #:52

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs the issuance of TROs and preliminary

2

injunctions, and courts apply the same standard to both. See Credit Bureau Connection,

3

Inc. v. Pardini, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2010 WL 2737128, at *5 (E.D. Cal. July 12, 2010)

4

(citing Ne. Ohio Coal. for the Homeless & Serv. Employees Int’l Union, Local 1199 v.

5

Blackwell, 467 F.3d 999, 1009 (6th Cir. 2006)). The purpose of such injunctive relief is

6

to preserve the rights and relative positions of the parties, i.e., the status quo, until a final

7

judgment issues. See U.S. Philips Corp. v. KBC Bank N.V., 590 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th

8

Cir. 2010) (citing Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68

9

L.Ed.2d 175 (1981)).

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Having reviewed and considered Petitioner’s written submissions, the Court finds
that:
1. Petitioner has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success in establishing that
removal violates the Establishment Clause, the Immigration and Nationality Act,
and his rights to Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1152(a)(1)(A) (“[N]o person shall receive any preference or

18

priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of

19

the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”); Johnson

20

v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 506–508 (2005); Board of Educ. Of Kiryas Joel Vill.

21

Sch. Dist. V. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 696, 702–703 (1994); Vill. of Arlington

22

Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266–67 (1977).

23
24
25

2. There is a strong likelihood that Petitioner is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of interim injunctive relief.

26
27
28

-2-

Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 1-5 01/29/17 Page 3Page 3 of 4 PageID# 51
Case 2:17-cv-00702 Document 5 Filed Filed 01/30/17 of 4 Page ID #:53

1
2

3. The balance of equities weighs sharply in favor of Petitioner and granting interim
injunctive relief.

3
4

4. The Court must consider the public interest in upholding constitutional rights.

5

Preminger v. Pincipi, 422 F.3d 815, 826 (9th Cir. 2005). Given the constitutional

6

rights at issue in this case, interim injunctive relief is in the public interest.

7
8

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

1. Respondents are enjoined and restrained from barring Petitioner’s return to the
United States.
2. Respondents shall transport Petitioner back to the United States and admit him
under the terms of his previously approved visa.
3. Respondents shall communicate the terms of this Court’s order immediately to
officers in Dubai, and to authorities in the airport in Dubai holding Petitioner on
Respondents’ orders.

20
21
22

4. Respondents shall file their opposition to Petitioners’ Ex Parte Application by
February 3, 2017. Petitioner shall file her reply by February 7, 2017.

23
24

5. Respondents shall appear before the assigned judge on February 10, 2017 at 9:30

25

a.m. to show cause why the preliminary injunctive relief sought in the Ex Parte

26
27
28

-3-

Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 1-5 01/29/17 Page 4Page 4 of 4 PageID# 52
Case 2:17-cv-00702 Document 5 Filed Filed 01/30/17 of 4 Page ID #:54

1
2
3
4

6. Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re
Preliminary Injunction should not be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

DATED: January 29, 2017
DOLLY M. GEE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

DATED: January 29, 2017

17

DOLLY M. GEE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-