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)

Download PDF
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-

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?