State of Washington et al v. United States of America et al
Filing
27
DECLARATION of Megan D. Lin filed by Plaintiff State of Washington re #15 MOTION to Expedite Discovery and Regular Staus Conferences (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Q-DD, #2 Exhibit EE-NN)(Glasgow, Rebecca)
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27 Filed 07/13/18 Page 1 of 6
1
The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,
NO. 2:18-cv-00939-MJP
9
Plaintiffs,
10
v.
11
12
13
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as
President of the United States of America,
et al.,
14
DECLARATION OF
MEGAN D. LIN IN
SUPPORT OF STATES’ REPLY
RE: MOTION FOR EXPEDITED
DISCOVERY AND REGULAR
STATUS CONFERENCES
Defendants.
15
I, Megan D. Lin, declare as follows:
16
1.
I am over the age of 18 and have personal knowledge of all the facts stated herein.
2.
I am an Attorney Fellow with the Washington Solicitor General’s Office and
17
18
counsel of record for the State of Washington in this matter.
19
3.
Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of the June 26, 2018
20
Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Classwide Preliminary Injunction entered in Ms. L., et al.
21
v. ICE, et al., Case No. 18cv-0428 DMS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. 83.
22
4.
Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a true and correct copy of a July 10, 2018 Daily
23
Beast article, Government Told Immigrant Parents to Pay for DNA Tests to Get Kids Back,
24
DECLARATION OF
MEGAN D. LIN
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
1
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27 Filed 07/13/18 Page 2 of 6
1
Advocate Days, authored by Justin Glawe and Adam Rawnsley.
2
5.
Attached hereto as Exhibit S is a true and correct copy of the July 9, 2018 Order
3
Denying Defendants’ “Ex Parte Application for Limited Relief from Settlement Agreement” in
4
Flores, et al. v. Sessions, et al., Case No. CV 85-4544-DMG (AGRx) (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. 455.
5
6
6.
Attached hereto as Exhibit T is a true and correct copy of the July 10, 2018 tweet
of @CNNSitRoom.
7
7.
Attached hereto as Exhibit U is a true and correct copy of the July 10, 2018
8
Politico article, Trump’s solution for reunifying migrant families: ‘Don’t come to our country
9
illegally’, authored by Louis Nelson.
10
8.
Attached hereto as Exhibit V is a true and correct copy of the July 10, 2018
11
11:00 a.m. hearing transcript for the Status Conference in Ms. L., et al. v. ICE, et al., Case No.
12
18cv-0428 DMS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.).
13
9.
Attached hereto as Exhibit W is a true and correct copy of the U.S. Immigration
14
and Customs Enforcement – Enforcement and Removal Operations Separated Parent’s Removal
15
Form.
16
10.
Attached hereto as Exhibit X is a true and correct copy of the July 10, 2018 Joint
17
Status Report Regarding Reunification entered in Ms. L., et al. v. ICE, et al., Case No.
18
18cv-0428 DMS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. 99.
19
11.
Attached hereto as Exhibit Y is a true and correct copy of the U.S. Department
20
of Homeland Security’s Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification
21
release issued June 23, 2018.
22
23
12.
Attached hereto as Exhibit Z is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of
Jonathan White filed on July 5, 2018 with Respondents’ Notice Regarding Compliance and
24
DECLARATION OF
MEGAN D. LIN
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
2
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27 Filed 07/13/18 Page 3 of 6
1
Request for Clarification and/or Relief in Ms. L., et al. v. ICE, et al., Case No. 18cv-0428 DMS
2
(MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. 86-1.
3
13.
Attached as Exhibit AA is a true and correct copy of the July 9, 2018 Order
4
Following Status Conference entered in Ms. L., et al. v. ICE, et al., Case No. 18cv-0428 DMS
5
(MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. 95.
6
14.
Attached hereto as Exhibit BB is a true and correct copy of the July 6, 2018 Order
7
Setting Further Status Conference entered in Ms. L., et al. v. ICE, et al., Case No. 18cv-0428
8
DMS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. 91.
9
15.
Attached hereto as Exhibit CC is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of
10
Francisco Serrano in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Discovery. Mr. Serrano’s
11
declaration was previously filed on July 2, 2018 as Exhibit 36 (Dkt. 15-4 at 12-63) to the States’
12
Motion for Expedited Discovery and Regular Status Conferences (Dkt. 15), but did not contain
13
the Certification of Translation at page 6 of that Declaration. Exhibit CC merely corrects that
14
oversight; Mr. Serrano’s declaration is otherwise the same as previously filed.
15
16.
Attached hereto as Exhibit DD is a true and correct copy of the July 6, 2018 letter
16
from Governors Jay Inslee, Andrew Cuomo, Daniel Malloy, Phil Murphy, Tom Wolfe and
17
Kate Brown directed to the Secretaries of the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services
18
and Homeland Security.
19
20
21
22
17.
Attached hereto as Exhibit EE is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of
Jennifer Florian-Vega.
18.
Attached hereto as Exhibit FF is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of
Ibis Guzman Colindres.
23
24
DECLARATION OF
MEGAN D. LIN
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
3
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27 Filed 07/13/18 Page 4 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
19.
Attached hereto as Exhibit GG is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of
Dunia Garcia Ramirez.
20.
Attached hereto as Exhibit HH is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of
Sindy Rosales-Coreas.
21.
Attached hereto as Exhibit II is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of
Lesley Martinez Soriano.
22.
Attached hereto as Exhibit JJ is true and correct copy of the July 1, 2018 New
8
York Times Article, Sponsors of Migrant Children Face Steep Transport Fees and Red Tape,
9
authored by Miriam Jordan.
10
23.
Attached hereto as Exhibit KK is a true and correct copy of the July 12, 2018
11
Joint Status Report Regarding Reunification entered in Ms. L., et al. v. ICE, et al., Case No.
12
18cv-0428 DMS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. 104.
13
24.
Attached hereto as Exhibit LL is a true and correct copy of the July 10, 2018
14
Slate article, Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is Budgeting for a Surge in Child
15
Separations, authored by Mark Joseph Stern.
16
25.
Attached hereto as Exhibit MM is a true and correct copy of the Second
17
Amended Complaint filed July 3, 2018 in Ms. L., et al. v. ICE, et al., Case No. 18cv-0428 DMS
18
(MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. 85.
19
26.
Attached hereto as Exhibit NN is a true and correct copy of the Joint Motion
20
Regarding Scope of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction in Ms. L., et al. v. ICE, et al., Case No.
21
18cv-0428 DMS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. 105.
22
23
24
DECLARATION OF
MEGAN D. LIN
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27 Filed 07/13/18 Page 5 of 6
1
2
3
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United
States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED this 13th day of July, 2018, at Olympia, Washington.
4
/s/ Megan D. Lin
Megan D. Lin
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DECLARATION OF
MEGAN D. LIN
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
5
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27 Filed 07/13/18 Page 6 of 6
1
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
2
I hereby certify that on July 13, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing document with
3
the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will serve a copy of this document upon
4
all counsel of record.
5
DATED this 13th day of July, 2018, at Olympia, Washington.
6
/s/ Rebecca Glasgow
REBECCA GLASGOW
Deputy Solicitor General
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DECLARATION OF
MEGAN D. LIN
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
6
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 1 of 189
Exhibit Q
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 2 of 189 1 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1724 Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
Ms. L.; et al.,
Case No.: 18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Petitioners-Plaintiffs,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLASSWIDE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
U.S Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”); et al.,
15
16
Respondents-Defendants.
17
18
Eleven weeks ago, Plaintiffs leveled the serious accusation that our Government was
19
engaged in a widespread practice of separating migrant families, and placing minor
20
children who were separated from their parents in government facilities for
21
“unaccompanied minors.”
22
indiscriminately, and separated even those families with small children and infants—many
23
of whom were seeking asylum. Plaintiffs noted reports that the practice would become
24
national policy. Recent events confirm these allegations. Extraordinary relief is requested,
25
and is warranted under the circumstances.
According to Plaintiffs, the practice was applied
26
On May 7, 2018, the Attorney General of the United States announced a “zero
27
tolerance policy,” under which all adults entering the United States illegally would be
28
subject to criminal prosecution, and if accompanied by a minor child, the child would be
1
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 3 of 189 2 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1725 Page
1
separated from the parent.1 Over the ensuing weeks, hundreds of migrant children were
2
separated from their parents, sparking international condemnation of the practice. Six days
3
ago on June 20, 2018, the President of the United States signed an Executive Order (“EO”)
4
to address the situation and to require preservation of the “family unit” by keeping migrant
5
families together during criminal and immigration proceedings to the extent permitted by
6
law, while also maintaining “rigorous[]” enforcement of immigration laws. See Executive
7
Order, Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation § 1, 2018 WL
8
3046068 (June 20, 2018). The EO did not address reunification of the burgeoning
9
population of over 2,000 children separated from their parents. Public outrage remained
10
at a fever pitch. Three days ago on Saturday, June 23, 2018, the Department of Homeland
11
Security (“DHS”) issued a “Fact Sheet” outlining the government’s efforts to “ensure that
12
those adults who are subject to removal are reunited with their children for the purposes of
13
removal.”2
14
Plaintiffs assert the EO does not eliminate the need for the requested injunction, and
15
the Fact Sheet does not address the circumstances of this case. Defendants disagree with
16
those assertions, but there is no genuine dispute that the Government was not prepared to
17
accommodate the mass influx of separated children. Measures were not in place to provide
18
for communication between governmental agencies responsible for detaining parents and
19
those responsible for housing children, or to provide for ready communication between
20
separated parents and children. There was no reunification plan in place, and families have
21
been separated for months. Some parents were deported at separate times and from
22
23
1
24
25
26
27
28
See U.S. Att’y. Gen., Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the
Immigration Enforcement Actions of the Trump Administration (May 7, 2018),
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-remarksdiscussing-immigration-enforcement-actions.
2
See U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Fact Sheet: Federal Regulations Protecting the
Confidentiality
of
Asylum
Applicants
(June
23,
2018),
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/06/23/fact-sheet-zero-tolerance-prosecution-and-familyreunification.
2
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 4 of 189 3 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1726 Page
1
different locations than their children. Migrant families that lawfully entered the United
2
States at a port of entry seeking asylum were separated. And families that were separated
3
due to entering the United States illegally between ports of entry have not been reunited
4
following the parent’s completion of criminal proceedings and return to immigration
5
detention.
6
This Court previously entered an order finding Plaintiffs had stated a legally
7
cognizable claim for violation of their substantive due process rights to family integrity
8
under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution based on their allegations the
9
Government had separated Plaintiffs from their minor children while Plaintiffs were held
10
in immigration detention and without a showing that they were unfit parents or otherwise
11
presented a danger to their children. See Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 302
12
F. Supp. 3d 1149, 2018 WL 2725736, at *7-12 (S.D. Cal. June 6, 2018). A class action
13
has been certified to include similarly situated migrant parents. Plaintiffs now request
14
classwide injunctive relief to prohibit separation of class members from their children in
15
the future absent a finding the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child, and to require
16
reunification of these families once the parent is returned to immigration custody unless
17
the parent is determined to be unfit or presents a danger to the child.
18
Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm,
19
and that the balance of equities and the public interest weigh in their favor, thus warranting
20
issuance of a preliminary injunction. This Order does not implicate the Government’s
21
discretionary authority to enforce immigration or other criminal laws, including its
22
decisions to release or detain class members. Rather, the Order addresses only the
23
circumstances under which the Government may separate class members from their
24
children, as well as the reunification of class members who are returned to immigration
25
custody upon completion of any criminal proceedings.
26
///
27
///
28
///
3
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 5 of 189 4 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1727 Page
1
I.
2
BACKGROUND
3
This case started with the filing of a Complaint by Ms. L., a Catholic citizen of the
4
Democratic Republic of the Congo fleeing persecution from her home country because of
5
her religious beliefs. The specific facts of Ms. L.’s case are set out in the Complaint and
6
this Court’s June 6, 2018 Order on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Ms. L., 2018 WL
7
2725736, at *1-3. In brief, Ms. L. and her then-six-year-old daughter S.S., lawfully
8
presented themselves at the San Ysidro Port of Entry seeking asylum based on religious
9
persecution. They were initially detained together, but after a few days S.S. was “forcibly
10
separated” from her mother. When S.S. was taken away from her mother, “she was
11
screaming and crying, pleading with guards not to take her away from her mother.” (Am.
12
Compl. ¶ 43.) Immigration officials claimed they had concerns whether Ms. L. was S.S.’s
13
mother, despite Ms. L.’s protestations to the contrary and S.S.’s behavior. So Ms. L. was
14
placed in immigration custody and scheduled for expedited removal, thus rendering S.S.
15
an “unaccompanied minor” under the Trafficking Victims Protection and Reauthorization
16
Act (“TVPRA”), Pub. L. No. 110-457 (Dec. 23, 2008), and subjecting her to the “care and
17
custody” of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”).3 S.S. was placed in a facility in
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The TVPRA provides that “the care and custody of all unaccompanied alien children,
including responsibility for their detention, where appropriate, shall be the responsibility
of” HHS and its sub-agency, ORR. 8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(1). An “unaccompanied alien
child” (“UAC”) is a child under 18 years of age with no lawful immigration status in the
United States who has neither a parent nor legal guardian in the United States nor a parent
nor legal guardian in the United States “available” to care for them. 6 U.S.C § 279(g)(2).
According to the TVPRA, a UAC “may not be placed with a person or entity unless the
Secretary of Health and Human Services makes a determination that the proposed
custodian is capable of providing for the child’s physical and mental well-being. Such
determination shall, at a minimum, include verification of the custodian’s identity and
relationship to the child, if any, as well as an independent finding that the individual has
not engaged in any activity that would indicate a potential risk to the child.” 8 U.S.C. §
1232(c)(3)(A).
3
4
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 6 of 189 5 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1728 Page
1
Chicago over a thousand miles away from her mother.
2
determined Ms. L. had a credible fear of persecution and placed her in removal
3
proceedings, where she could pursue her asylum claim. During this period, Ms. L. was
4
able to speak with her daughter only “approximately 6 times by phone, never by video.”
5
(Am. Compl. ¶ 45.) Each time they spoke, S.S. “was crying and scared.” (Id. ¶ 43.) Ms.
6
L. was “terrified that she would never see her daughter again.” (Id. ¶ 45.) After the present
7
lawsuit was filed, Ms. L. was released from ICE detention into the community. The Court
8
ordered the Government to take a DNA saliva sample (or swab), which confirmed that Ms.
9
L. was the mother of S.S. Four days later, Ms. L. and S.S. were reunited after being
10
Immigration officials later
separated for nearly five months.
11
In an Amended Complaint filed on March 9, 2018, this case was expanded to include
12
another Plaintiff, Ms. C. She is a citizen of Brazil, and unlike Ms. L., she did not present
13
at a port of entry. Instead, she and her 14-year-old son J. crossed into the United States
14
“between ports of entry,” after which they were apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol. Ms.
15
C. explained to the agent that she and her son were seeking asylum, but the Government,
16
as was its right under federal law, charged Ms. C. with entering the country illegally and
17
placed her in criminal custody. This rendered J. an “unaccompanied minor” and he, like
18
S.S., was transferred to the custody of ORR, where he, too, was housed in a facility in
19
Chicago several hundred miles away from his mother. Ms. C. was thereafter convicted of
20
misdemeanor illegal entry and served 25 days in criminal custody. After completing that
21
sentence, Ms. C. was transferred to immigration detention for removal proceedings and
22
consideration of her asylum claim, as she too had passed a credible fear screening. Despite
23
being returned to immigration custody, Ms. C. was not reunited with J. During the five
24
months she was detained, Ms. C. did not see her son, and they spoke on the phone only “a
25
handful of times[.]” (Id. ¶ 58.) Ms. C. was “desperate” to be reunited with her son, worried
26
about him constantly and did not know when she would be able to see him. (Id.) J. had a
27
difficult time emotionally during the period of separation from his mother. (Id. ¶ 59.) Ms.
28
C. was eventually released from immigration detention on bond, and only recently reunited
5
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 7 of 189 6 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1729 Page
1
with J. Their separation lasted more than eight months despite the lack of any allegations
2
or evidence that Ms. C. was unfit or otherwise presented a danger to her son.4
3
Ms. L. and Ms. C. are not the only migrant parents who have been separated from
4
their children at the border. Hundreds of others, who have both lawfully presented at ports
5
of entry (like Ms. L.) and unlawfully crossed into the country (like Ms. C.), have also been
6
separated. Because this practice is affecting large numbers of people, Plaintiffs sought
7
certification of a class consisting of similarly situated individuals. The Court certified that
8
class with minor modifications,5 and now turns to the important question of whether
9
Plaintiffs are entitled to a classwide preliminary injunction that (1) halts the separation of
10
class members from their children absent a determination that the parent is unfit or presents
11
a danger to the child, and (2) reunites class members who are returned to immigration
12
custody upon completion of any criminal proceedings absent a determination that the
13
parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child.
14
Since the present motion was filed, several important developments occurred, as
15
previously noted. First, on May 7, 2018, the Government announced its zero tolerance
16
policy for all adult persons crossing the border illegally, which resulted in the separation
17
of hundreds of children who had crossed with their parents. This is what happened with
18
Ms. C., though she crossed prior to the public announcement of the zero tolerance policy.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
As stated in the Court’s Order on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs do not
challenge Ms. C.’s initial separation from J. as a result of the criminal charge filed against
her. Plaintiffs’ only complaint with regard to Ms. C. concerns the Government’s failure to
reunite her with J. after she was returned to immigration custody.
5
The class is defined to include: “All adult parents who enter the United States at or
between designated ports of entry who (1) have been, are, or will be detained in
immigration custody by the [DHS], and (2) have a minor child who is or will be separated
from them by DHS and detained in ORR custody, ORR foster care, or DHS custody absent
a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child.” (See Order
Granting in Part Mot. for Class Cert. at 17.) The class does not include parents with
criminal history or communicable disease, or those apprehended in the interior of the
country or subject to the EO. (See id. at 4 n.5.)
4
6
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 8 of 189 7 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1730 Page
1
She is not alone. There are hundreds of similarly situated parents, and there are more than
2
2,000 children that have now been separated from their parents.
3
When a parent is charged with a criminal offense, the law ordinarily requires
4
separation of the family. This separation generally occurs regardless of whether the parent
5
is charged with a state or federal offense. The repercussions on the children, however, can
6
vary greatly depending on status. For citizens, there is an established system of social
7
service agencies ready to provide for the care and well-being of the children, if necessary,
8
including child protective services and the foster care system. This is in addition to any
9
family members that may be available to provide shelter for these minor children.
10
Grandparents and siblings are frequently called upon. Non-citizens may not have this kind
11
of support system, such as other family members who can provide shelter for their children
12
in the event the parent is detained at the border. This results in immigrant children going
13
into the custody of the federal government, which is presently not well equipped to handle
14
that important task.
15
For children placed in federal custody, there are two options. One of those options
16
is ORR, but it was established to address a different problem, namely minor children who
17
were apprehended at the border without their parents, i.e., true “unaccompanied alien
18
children.” It was not initially designed to address the problem of migrant children detained
19
with their parents at the border and who were thereafter separated from their parents. The
20
second option is family detention facilities, but the options there are limited. Indeed, at the
21
time of oral argument on this motion, Government counsel represented to the Court that
22
the “total capacity in [family] residential centers” was “less than 2,700.” (Rep. Tr. at 9,
23
May 9, 2018, ECF No. 70.) For male heads of households, i.e., fathers traveling with their
24
children, there was only one facility with “86 beds.” (Id. at 43.)
25
The recently issued EO confirms the government is inundated by the influx of
26
children essentially orphaned as a result of family separation. The EO now directs “[h]eads
27
of executive departments and agencies” to make available “any facilities … appropriate”
28
for the housing and care of alien families. EO § 3(d). The EO also calls upon the military
7
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 9 of 189 8 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1731 Page
1
by directing the Secretary of Defense to make available “any existing” facility and to
2
“construct such facilities[,]” if necessary, id. § 3(c), which is an extraordinary measure.
3
Meanwhile, “tent cities” and other make-shift facilities are springing up. That was the
4
situation into which Plaintiffs, and hundreds of other families that were separated at the
5
border in the past several months, were placed.
6
This situation has reached a crisis level. The news media is saturated with stories of
7
immigrant families being separated at the border. People are protesting. Elected officials
8
are weighing in. Congress is threatening action. Seventeen states have now filed a
9
complaint against the Federal Government challenging the family separation practice. See
10
State of Washington v. United States, Case No. 18cv0939, United States District Court for
11
the Western District of Washington. And the President has taken action.
12
Specifically, on June 20, 2018, the President signed the EO referenced above. The
13
EO states it is the Administration’s policy “to maintain family unity, including by detaining
14
alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources.”
15
Id. § 1.6 In furtherance of that policy, the EO indicates that parents and children who are
16
apprehended together at the border will be detained together “during the pendency of any
17
criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings” to the extent permitted by law. Id. §
18
3. The language of the EO is not absolute, however, as it states that family unity shall be
19
maintained “where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources[,]” id. § 1,
20
and “to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations[.]” Id.
21
§ 3. The EO also indicates rigorous enforcement of illegal border crossers will continue.
22
Id. § 1 (“It is the policy of this Administration to rigorously enforce our immigration
23
laws.”). And finally, although the Order speaks to a policy of “maintain[ing] family unity,”
24
25
26
27
28
The Order defines “alien family” as “any person not a citizen or national of the United
States who has not been admitted into, or is not authorized to enter or remain in, the United
States, who entered this country with an alien child or alien children at or between
designated ports of entry and who was detained[.]” Id. § 2(a)(i).
6
8
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 8327-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 10 ofPage 9 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1732 189
1
it is silent on the issue of reuniting families that have already been separated or will be
2
separated in the future.” Id.
3
In light of these recent developments, and in particular the EO, the Court held a
4
telephonic status conference with counsel on June 22, 2018. During that conference, the
5
Court inquired about communication between ORR and DHS, and ORR and the
6
Department of Justice (“DOJ”), including the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), as it relates to
7
these separated families.
8
whether there was any affirmative reunification procedure for parents and children after
9
parents were returned to immigration detention following completion of criminal
10
proceedings. Government counsel explained the communication procedures that were in
11
place, and represented, consistent with her earlier representation to the Court, that there
12
was no procedure in place for the reunification of these families.7
Reunification procedures were also discussed, specifically
13
The day after the status conference, Saturday, June 23, DHS issued the Fact Sheet
14
referenced above. This document focuses on several issues addressed during the status
15
conference, e.g., processes for enhanced communication between separated parents and
16
children, but only “for the purposes of removal.” It also addresses coordination between
17
and among three agencies, CBP, ICE, and HHS agency ORR, but again for the purpose of
18
removal. The Fact Sheet does not address reunification for other purposes, such as
19
immigration or asylum proceedings, which can take months. It also does not mention other
20
vital agencies frequently involved during criminal proceedings: DOJ and BOP.
21
At the conclusion of the recent status conference, the Court requested supplemental
22
briefing from the parties. Those briefs have now been submitted. After thoroughly
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Court: “Is there currently any affirmative reunification process that the government
has in place once parent and child are separated? Government counsel: I would say …
when a parent is released from criminal custody and taken into ICE custody is the practice
to reunite them in family detention[?] And at that [previous hearing] I said no, that that
was not the practice. I think my answer on that narrow question would be the same.” (Rep.
Tr. at 29-30, June 22, 2018, ECF No. 77.)
7
9
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 11 of 189 10 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1733 Page
1
considering all of the parties’ briefs and the record in this case, and after hearing argument
2
from counsel on these important issues, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for a classwide
3
preliminary injunction.
4
II.
5
DISCUSSION
6
Plaintiffs seek classwide preliminary relief that (1) enjoins Defendants’ practice of
7
separating class members from their children absent a determination that the parent is unfit
8
or presents a danger to their child, and (2) orders the government to reunite class members
9
with their children when the parent is returned to immigration custody after their criminal
10
proceedings conclude, absent a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger
11
to the child. Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon
12
a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def.
13
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). To meet that showing, Plaintiffs must demonstrate
14
“‘[they are] likely to succeed on the merits, that [they are] likely to suffer irreparable harm
15
in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in [their] favor, and
16
that an injunction is in the public interest.’” Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. City of Los Angeles,
17
559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20).8
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
The Ninth Circuit applies separate standards for injunctions depending on whether they
are prohibitory, i.e., whether they prevent future conduct, or mandatory, i.e., “they go
beyond ‘maintaining the status quo[.]’” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 997 (9th
Cir. 2017). The standard set out above applies to prohibitory injunctions, which is what
Plaintiffs seek here. To the extent Plaintiffs are also requesting mandatory relief, that
request is “subject to a higher standard than prohibitory injunctions,” namely that relief
will issue only “when ‘extreme or very serious damage will result’ that is not capable of
compensation in damages,’ and the merits of the case are not ‘doubtful.’” Id. at 999
(quoting Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879
(9th Cir. 2009)). The Ninth Circuit recognizes that application of these different standards
“is controversial[,]” and that other Circuits have questioned this approach. Id. at 997-98.
This Court need not, and does not, address that discrepancy here. Suffice it to say that to
the extent some portion of Plaintiffs’ requested relief is subject to a standard higher than
10
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 12 of 189 11 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1734 Page
1
Before turning to these factors, the Court addresses directly Defendants’ argument
2
that an injunction is not necessary here in light of the EO and the recently released Fact
3
Sheet. Although these documents reflect some attempts by the Government to address
4
some of the issues in this case, neither obviates the need for injunctive relief here. As
5
indicated throughout this Order, the EO is subject to various qualifications. For instance,
6
Plaintiffs correctly assert the EO allows the government to separate a migrant parent from
7
his or her child “where there is a concern that detention of an alien child with the child’s
8
alien parent would pose a risk to the child’s welfare.” EO § 3(b) (emphasis added).
9
Objective standards are necessary, not subjective ones, particularly in light of the history
10
of this case. Furthermore, the Fact Sheet focuses on reunification “at time of removal[,]”
11
U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., supra, note 2, stating that the parent slated for removal will
12
be matched up with their child at a location in Texas and then removed. It says nothing
13
about reunification during the intervening time between return from criminal proceedings
14
to ICE detention or the time in ICE detention prior to actual removal, which can take
15
months. Indeed, it is undisputed “ICE has no plans or procedures in place to reunify the
16
parent with the child other than arranging for them to be deported together after the parent’s
17
immigration case is concluded.” (Pls.’ Supp. Mem. in Supp. of Classwide Prelim. Inj., Ex.
18
31 ¶ 11.) Thus, neither of these directives eliminates the need for an injunction in this case.
19
With this finding, the Court now turns to the Winter factors.
20
A.
Likelihood of Success
21
“The first factor under Winter is the most important—likely success on the merits.”
22
Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015). While Plaintiffs carry the burden
23
of demonstrating likelihood of success, they are not required to prove their case in full at
24
the preliminary injunction stage but only such portions that enable them to obtain the
25
injunctive relief they seek. See Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981).
26
27
28
the traditional standard for injunctive relief, Plaintiffs have met their burden for the reasons
set out below.
11
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 13 of 189 12 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1735 Page
1
Here, the only claim currently at issue is Plaintiffs’ due process claim.9 Specifically,
2
Plaintiffs contend the Government’s practice of separating class members from their
3
children, and failing to reunite those parents who have been separated, without a
4
determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child violates the parents’
5
substantive due process rights to family integrity under the Fifth Amendment to the United
6
States Constitution. To prevail on this claim, Plaintiffs must show that the Government
7
practice “shocks the conscience.” In the Order on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court
8
found Plaintiffs had set forth sufficient facts to support that claim. Ms. L., 2018 WL
9
2725736, at *7-12. The evidence submitted since that time supports that finding, and
10
demonstrates Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on this claim.
11
As explained in the Court’s Order on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the “shocks the
12
conscience” standard is not subject to a rigid list of established elements. See County of
13
Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 850 (1998) (stating “[r]ules of due process are not …
14
subject to mechanical application in unfamiliar territory.”)
15
investigation into substantive due process involves an appraisal of the totality of the
16
circumstances rather than a formalistic examination of fixed elements[.]” Armstrong v.
17
Squadrito, 152 F.3d 564, 570 (7th Cir. 1998).
On the contrary, “an
18
Here, each Plaintiff presents different circumstances, but both were subjected to the
19
same government practice of family separation without a determination that the parent was
20
unfit or presented a danger to the child. Ms. L. was separated from her child without a
21
determination she was unfit or presented a danger to her child, and Ms. C. was not reunited
22
with her child despite the absence of any finding that she was unfit or presented a danger
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
In their supplemental brief, Defendants assert Plaintiffs are raising new claims based on
events that transpired after the Complaints were filed, e.g., the announcement of the zero
tolerance policy and the EO. The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs’ claims are not based on these
events, but are based on the practice of separating class members from their children. The
subsequent events are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim, but they have not changed the claim
itself, which remains focused on the practice of separation.
12
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 14 of 189 13 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1736 Page
1
to her child. Outside of the context of this case, namely an international border, Plaintiffs
2
would have a high likelihood of success on a claim premised on such a practice. See D.B.
3
v. Cardall, 826 F.3d 721, 741 (4th Cir. 2016) (citing cases finding due process violation
4
where state action interfered with rights of fit parents); Heartland Academy Community
5
Church v. Waddle, 595 F.3d 798, 808-811 (8th Cir. 2010) (finding removal of children
6
from religious school absent evidence the students were “at immediate risk of child abuse
7
or neglect” was violation of clearly established constitutional right); Brokaw v. Mercer
8
County, 235 F.3d 1000, 1019 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing Croft v. Westmoreland County
9
Children and Youth Services, 103 F.3d 1123, 1126 (3d Cir. 1997) (“courts have recognized
10
that a state has no interest in protecting children from their parents unless it has some
11
definite and articulable evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that a child has been
12
abused or is in imminent danger of abuse.”)
13
The context of this case is different. The Executive Branch, which is tasked with
14
enforcement of the country’s criminal and immigration laws, is acting within its powers to
15
detain individuals lawfully entering the United States and to apprehend individuals illegally
16
entering the country. However, as the Court explained in its Order on Defendants’ motion
17
to dismiss, the right to family integrity still applies here. The context of the family
18
separation practice at issue here, namely an international border, does not render the
19
practice constitutional, nor does it shield the practice from judicial review.
20
On the contrary, the context and circumstances in which this practice of family
21
separation were being implemented support a finding that Plaintiffs have a likelihood of
22
success on their due process claim. First, although parents and children may lawfully be
23
separated when the parent is placed in criminal custody, the same general rule does not
24
apply when a parent and child present together lawfully at a port of entry seeking asylum.
25
In that situation, the parent has committed no crime, and absent a finding the parent is unfit
26
or presents a danger to the child, it is unclear why separation of Ms. L. or similarly situated
27
class members would be necessary. Here, many of the family separations have been the
28
result of the Executive Branch’s zero tolerance policy, but the record also reflects that the
13
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 15 of 189 14 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1737 Page
1
practice of family separation was occurring before the zero tolerance policy was
2
announced, and that practice has resulted in the casual, if not deliberate, separation of
3
families that lawfully present at the port of entry, not just those who cross into the country
4
illegally. Ms. L. is an example of this family separation practice expanding beyond its
5
lawful reach, and she is not alone. (See, e.g., Pls.’ Reply Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Class
6
Cert., Exs. 22-23, 25-26) (declarations from parents attesting to separation at border after
7
lawfully presenting at port of entry and requesting asylum); Pls.’ Supp. Mem. in Supp. of
8
Classwide Prelim. Inj., Ex. 32 ¶¶ 9, 10b, 11a (listing parents who were separated from
9
children after presenting at ports of entry)).
10
As set out in the Court’s prior Order, asylum seekers like Ms. L. and many other
11
class members may be fleeing persecution and are entitled to careful consideration by
12
government officials. Particularly so if they have a credible fear of persecution. We are a
13
country of laws, and of compassion. We have plainly stated our intent to treat refugees
14
with an ordered process, and benevolence, by codifying principles of asylum. See, e.g.,
15
The Refugee Act, PL 96-212, 94 Stat. 102 (1980). The Government’s treatment of Ms. L.
16
and other similarly situated class members does not meet this standard, and it is unlikely
17
to pass constitutional muster.
18
Second, the practice of separating these families was implemented without any
19
effective system or procedure for (1) tracking the children after they were separated from
20
their parents, (2) enabling communication between the parents and their children after
21
separation, and (3) reuniting the parents and children after the parents are returned to
22
immigration custody following completion of their criminal sentence. This is a startling
23
reality. The government readily keeps track of personal property of detainees in criminal
24
and immigration proceedings. Money, important documents, and automobiles, to name a
25
few, are routinely catalogued, stored, tracked and produced upon a detainees’ release, at
26
all levels—state and federal, citizen and alien. Yet, the government has no system in place
27
to keep track of, provide effective communication with, and promptly produce alien
28
children. The unfortunate reality is that under the present system migrant children are not
14
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 16 of 189 15 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1738 Page
1
accounted for with the same efficiency and accuracy as property. Certainly, that cannot
2
satisfy the requirements of due process. See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-59
3
(1982) (quoting Lassiter v. Dept. of Soc. Services of Durham County, N.C., 452 U.S. 18,
4
(1981)) (stating it is “‘plain beyond the need for multiple citation’ that a natural parent’s
5
‘desire for and right to the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her
6
children’ is an interest far more precious than any property right.”) (internal quotation
7
marks omitted).
8
The lack of effective methods for communication between parents and children who
9
have been separated has also had a profoundly negative effect on the parents’ criminal and
10
immigration proceedings, as well as the childrens’ immigration proceedings. See United
11
States v. Dominguez-Portillo, No:EP-17-MJ-4409-MAT, 2018 WL 315759, at *1-2 (W.D.
12
Tex. Jan. 5, 2018) (explaining that criminally charged defendants “had not received any
13
paperwork or information concerning the whereabouts or well-being of” their children). In
14
effect, these parents have been left “in a vacuum, without knowledge of the well-being and
15
location of their children, to say nothing of the immigration proceedings in which those
16
minor children find themselves.” Id. at *14. This situation may result in a number of
17
different scenarios, all of which are negative – some profoundly so. For example, “[i]f
18
parent and child are asserting or intending to assert an asylum claim, that child may be
19
navigating those legal waters without the benefit of communication with and assistance
20
from her parent; that defendant, too, must make a decision on his criminal case with total
21
uncertainty about this issue.” Id. Furthermore, “ a defendant facing certain deportation
22
would be unlikely to know whether he might be deported before, simultaneous to, or after
23
their child, or whether they would have the opportunity to even discuss their
24
deportations[.]” Id. Indeed, some parents have already been deported without their
25
children, who remain in government facilities in the United States.10
26
27
See, e.g., Pls.’ Supp. Mem. in Supp. of Classwide Prelim. Inj., Ex. 32 ¶ 16k, Ex. 36 ¶ 7a;
Nelson Renteria, El Salvador demands U.S. return child taken from deported father,
10
28
15
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 17 of 189 16 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1739 Page
1
The absence of established procedures for dealing with families that have been
2
separated at the border, and the effects of that void on the families involved, is borne out
3
in the cases of Plaintiffs here. Ms. L. was separated from her child when immigration
4
officials claimed they could not verify she was S.S.’s mother, and detained her for
5
expedited removal proceedings. That rendered S.S. “unaccompanied” under the TVPRA
6
and subject to immediate transfer to ORR, which accepted responsibility for S.S. There
7
was no further communication between the agencies, ICE and ORR. The filing of the
8
present lawsuit prompted release and reunification of Ms. L. and her daughter, a process
9
that took close to five months and court involvement. Ms. C. completed her criminal
10
sentence in 25 days, but it took nearly eight months to be reunited with her son. She, too,
11
had to file suit to regain custody of her son from ORR.
12
These situations confirm what the Government has already stated: it is not
13
affirmatively reuniting parents like Plaintiffs and their fellow class members for purposes
14
other than removal. Outside of deportation, the onus is on the parents, who, for the most
15
part, are themselves in either criminal or immigration proceedings, to contact ORR or
16
otherwise search for their children and make application for reunification under the
17
TVPRA. However, this reunification procedure was not designed to deal with the present
18
circumstances. (See Pls.’ Supp. Mem. in Supp. of Classwide Prelim. Inj., Ex. 33 ¶¶ 6-9.)
19
Rather, “ORR’s reunification process was designed to address the situation of children who
20
come to the border or are apprehended outside the company of a parent or legal guardian.”
21
(Id. ¶ 6.) Placing the burden on the parents to find and request reunification with their
22
children under the circumstances presented here is backwards.
When children are
23
24
25
26
27
28
REUTERS (June 21, 2018, 4:03 PM), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigrationel-salvador/el-salvador-demands-us-return-child-taken-from-deported-fatheridUSKBN1JH3ER; Miriam Jordan, ‘I Can’t Go Without My Son’: A Deported Mother’s
Plea, N.Y. TIMES (June 17, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/us/immigrationdeported-parents.html.
16
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 18 of 189 17 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1740 Page
1
separated from their parents under these circumstances, the Government has an affirmative
2
obligation to track and promptly reunify these family members.
3
This practice of separating class members from their minor children, and failing to
4
reunify class members with those children, without any showing the parent is unfit or
5
presents a danger to the child is sufficient to find Plaintiffs have a likelihood of success on
6
their due process claim. When combined with the manner in which that practice is being
7
implemented, e.g., the lack of any effective procedures or protocols for notifying the
8
parents about their childrens’ whereabouts or ensuring communication between the parents
9
and children, and the use of the children as tools in the parents’ criminal and immigration
10
proceedings, (see Pls.’ Supp. Mem. in Supp. of Classwide Prelim. Inj., Ex. 29 ¶¶ 8, 14), a
11
finding of likelihood of success is assured. A practice of this sort implemented in this way
12
is likely to be “so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the
13
contemporary conscience,” Lewis, 523 U.S. at 847 n.8, interferes with rights “‘implicit in
14
the concept of ordered liberty[,]’” Rochin v. Cal., 342 U.S. 165, 169 (1952) (quoting Palko
15
v. State of Conn., 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937)), and is so “‘brutal’ and ‘offensive’ that it
16
[does] not comport with traditional ideas of fair play and decency.” Breithaupt v. Abram,
17
352 U.S. 432, 435 (1957).
For all of these reasons, the Court finds there is a likelihood of success on Plaintiffs’
18
19
due process claim.
20
B.
Irreparable Injury
21
Turning to the next factor, Plaintiffs must show they are “‘likely to suffer irreparable
22
harm in the absence of preliminary relief.’” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 994 (9th
23
Cir. 2017) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). “‘It is well established that the deprivation of
24
constitutional rights unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’”
25
Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks
26
omitted). As explained, Plaintiffs have demonstrated the likelihood of a deprivation of
27
their constitutional rights, and thus they have satisfied this factor.
Id. (quoting
28
17
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 19 of 189 18 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1741 Page
1
The injury in this case, however, deserves special mention. That injury is the
2
separation of a parent from his or her child, which the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly found
3
constitutes irreparable harm. See Leiva–Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 969–70 (9th Cir.
4
2011); Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1169 (9th Cir. 2017) (identifying “separated
5
families” as an irreparable harm).
6
Furthermore, the record in this case reflects that the separations at issue have been
7
agonizing for the parents who have endured them. One of those parents, Mr. U., an asylum
8
seeker from Kyrgyzstan, submitted a declaration in this case in which he stated that after
9
he was told he was going to be separated from his son he “felt as though [he] was having
10
a heart attack.” (Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Class Cert., Ex. 21 ¶ 4.) Another asylum-
11
seeking parent from El Salvador who was separated from her two sons writes,
12
13
14
15
The separation from my sons has been incredibly hard, because I have never
been away from them before. I do not want my children to think that I
abandoned them. [My children] are so attached to me. [One of my children]
used to sleep in bed with me every night while [my other child] slept in his
own bed in the same room.… It hurts me to think how anxious and distressed
they must be without me.
16
17
(Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Class Cert., Ex. 24 ¶ 9.) And another asylum-seeking parent
18
from Honduras described having to place her crying 18-month old son in a car seat in a
19
government vehicle, not being able to comfort him, and her crying as the officers “took
20
[her] son away.” (Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Class Cert., Ex. 25 ¶ 7.) There has even been
21
a report that one father committed suicide in custody after being separated from his wife
22
and three-year-old child.
23
Separated From Family is Found Dead in Texas Jail in an Apparent Suicide, L.A. TIMES
24
(June 9, 2018, 5:35 PM), http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-patrol-suicide-
25
20180609-story.html.
26
27
See Molly Hennessy-Fiske, Honduran Migrant Who Was
The parents, however, are not the only ones suffering from the separations. One of
the amici in this case, Children’s Defense Fund, states,
28
18
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 20 of 189 19 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1742 Page
1
2
3
4
5
there is ample evidence that separating children from their mothers or fathers
leads to serious, negative consequences to children’s health and development.
Forced separation disrupts the parent-child relationship and puts children at
increased risk for both physical and mental illness.... And the psychological
distress, anxiety, and depression associated with separation from a parent
would follow the children well after the immediate period of separation—
even after eventual reunification with a parent or other family.
6
7
(ECF No. 17-11 at 3.) Other evidence before the Court reflects that “separating children
8
from parents is a highly destabilizing, traumatic experience that has long term
9
consequences on child well-being, safety, and development.” (ECF No. 17-13 at 2.) That
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
evidence reflects:
Separation from family leaves children more vulnerable to exploitation and
abuse, no matter what the care setting. In addition, traumatic separation from
parents creates toxic stress in children and adolescents that can profoundly
impact their development. Strong scientific evidence shows that toxic stress
disrupts the development of brain architecture and other organ systems, and
increases the risk for stress-related disease and cognitive impairment well into
adult years. Studies have shown that children who experience such traumatic
events can suffer from symptoms of anxiety and post-traumatic stress
disorder, have poorer behavioral and educational outcomes, and experience
higher rates of poverty and food insecurity.
18
19
(ECF No. 17-13 at 2.) And Martin Guggenheim, the Fiorello LaGuardia Professor of
20
Clinical Law at New York University School of Law and Founding Member of the Center
21
for Family Representation, states:
22
23
24
25
Children are at risk of suffering great emotional harm when they are removed
from their loved ones. And children who have traveled from afar and made
their way to this country to seek asylum are especially at risk of suffering
irreversible psychological harm when wrested from the custody of the parent
or caregiver with whom they traveled to the United States.
26
(Mem. in Supp. of Classwide Prelim. Inj., Ex. 17 ¶ 16.) All of this evidence, combined
27
with the constitutional violation alleged here, conclusively shows that Plaintiffs and the
28
19
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 21 of 189 20 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1743 Page
1
class members are likely to suffer irreparable injury if a preliminary injunction does not
2
issue.
3
C.
Balance of Equities
4
Turning to the next factor, “[t]o obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must also
5
demonstrate that ‘the balance of equities tips in his favor.’” Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 995
6
(quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). As with irreparable injury, when a plaintiff establishes
7
“a likelihood that Defendants’ policy violates the U.S. Constitution, Plaintiffs have also
8
established that both the public interest and the balance of the equities favor a preliminary
9
injunction.” Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1069 (9th Cir. 2014).
10
Plaintiffs here assert the balance of equities weighs in favor of an injunction in this
11
case. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue Defendants would not suffer any hardship if the
12
preliminary injunction is issued because the Government “cannot suffer harm from an
13
injunction that merely ends an unlawful practice[.]” Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127,
14
1145 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Arizona Dream Act Coalition, 757 F.3d at 1069 (quoting
15
Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012)) (stating balance of equities favors
16
“‘prevent[ing] the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.’”). When the absence of harm
17
to the Government is weighed against the harms to Plaintiffs set out above, Plaintiffs argue
18
this factor weighs in their favor. The Court agrees.
19
The primary harm Defendants assert here is the possibility that an injunction would
20
have a negative impact on their ability to enforce the criminal and immigration laws.
21
However, the injunction here—preventing the separation of parents from their children and
22
ordering the reunification of parents and children that have been separated—would do
23
nothing of the sort. The Government would remain free to enforce its criminal and
24
immigration laws, and to exercise its discretion in matters of release and detention
25
consistent with law. See EO §§ 1, 3(a) & (e) (discussing Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544);
26
see also Comm. of Cent. Am. Refugees v. I.N.S., 795 F.2d 1434, 1439-40 (9th Cir. 1986)
27
(stating “prudential considerations preclude[] interference with the Attorney General’s
28
[exercise of] discretion” in selecting the detention facilities where aliens are to be
20
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 22 of 189 21 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1744 Page
1
detained). It would just have to do so in a way that preserves the class members’
2
constitutional rights to family association and integrity. See Rodriguez, 715 F.3d at 1146
3
(“While ICE is entitled to carry out its duty to enforce the mandates of Congress, it must
4
do so in a manner consistent with our constitutional values.”) Thus, this factor also weighs
5
in favor of issuing the injunction.
6
D.
Public Interest
7
The final factor for consideration is the public interest. See Hernandez, 872 F.3d at
8
996 (quoting Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1139 (9th Cir. 2009)) (“When, as
9
here, ‘the impact of an injunction reaches beyond the parties, carrying with it a potential
10
for public consequences, the public interest will be relevant to whether the district court
11
grants the preliminary injunction.’”) To obtain the requested relief, “Plaintiffs must
12
demonstrate that the public interest favors granting the injunction ‘in light of [its] likely
13
consequences,’ i.e., ‘consequences [that are not] too remote, insubstantial, or speculative
14
and [are] supported by evidence.’” Id. (quoting Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1139). “‘Generally,
15
public interest concerns are implicated when a constitutional right has been violated,
16
because all citizens have a stake in upholding the Constitution.’” Id. (quoting Preminger
17
v. Principi, 422 F.3d 815, 826 (9th Cir. 2005)).
18
This case involves two important public interests: the interest in enforcing the
19
country’s criminal and immigration laws and the constitutional liberty interest “of parents
20
in the care, custody, and control of their children[,]” which “is perhaps the oldest of the
21
fundamental liberty interests recognized by” the Supreme Court. Troxel v. Granville, 530
22
U.S. 57, 65 (2000). Both of these interests are valid and important, and both can be served
23
by the issuance of an injunction in this case.
24
As stated, the public’s interest in enforcing the criminal and immigration laws of this
25
country would be unaffected by issuance of the requested injunction. The Executive
26
Branch is free to prosecute illegal border crossers and institute immigration proceedings
27
against aliens, and would remain free to do so if an injunction were issued. Plaintiffs do
28
not seek to enjoin the Executive Branch from carrying out its duties in that regard.
21
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 23 of 189 22 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1745 Page
1
What Plaintiffs do seek by way of the requested injunction is to uphold their rights
2
to family integrity and association while their immigration proceedings are underway. This
3
right, specifically, the relationship between parent and child, is “constitutionally
4
protected,” Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978), and “well established.”
5
Rosenbaum v. Washoe Cty., 663 F.3d 1071, 1079 (9th Cir. 2011). The public interest in
6
upholding and protecting that right in the circumstances presented here would be served
7
by issuance of the requested injunction. See Arizona Dream Act Coalition, 757 F.3d at
8
1069 (quoting Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006, 1029 (9th Cir. 2013) (“‘[I]t is
9
clear that it would not be equitable or in the public’s interest to allow the state … to violate
10
the requirements of federal law, especially when there are no adequate remedies
11
available.’”) Accordingly, this factor, too, weighs in favor of issuing the injunction.
12
III.
13
CONCLUSION
14
The unfolding events—the zero tolerance policy, EO and DHS Fact Sheet—serve to
15
corroborate Plaintiffs’ allegations. The facts set forth before the Court portray reactive
16
governance—responses to address a chaotic circumstance of the Government’s own
17
making. They belie measured and ordered governance, which is central to the concept of
18
due process enshrined in our Constitution. This is particularly so in the treatment of
19
migrants, many of whom are asylum seekers and small children. The extraordinary remedy
20
of classwide preliminary injunction is warranted based on the evidence before the Court.
21
For the reasons set out above, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for classwide
22
preliminary injunction, and finds and orders as follows:
23
(1)
Defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all those
24
who are in active concert or participation with them, are preliminarily enjoined from
25
detaining Class Members in DHS custody without and apart from their minor
26
children, absent a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the
27
28
22
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 24 of 189 23 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1746 Page
1
child, unless the parent affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be
2
reunited with the child in DHS custody.11
3
(2)
If Defendants choose to release Class Members from DHS custody, Defendants, and
4
their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all those who are in
5
active concert or participation with them, are preliminary enjoined from continuing
6
to detain the minor children of the Class Members and must release the minor child
7
to the custody of the Class Member, unless there is a determination that the parent
8
is unfit or presents a danger to the child, or the parent affirmatively, knowingly, and
9
voluntarily declines to be reunited with the child.
10
(3)
Unless there is a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the
11
child, or the parent affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be reunited
12
with the child:
13
(a)
14
under the age of five (5) within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order; and
15
(b)
16
(5) and over within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order.
17
(4)
Defendants must reunify all Class Members with their minor children who are
Defendants must reunify all Class Members with their minor children age five
Defendants must immediately take all steps necessary to facilitate regular
18
communication between Class Members and their children who remain in ORR
19
custody, ORR foster care, or DHS custody. Within ten (10) days, Defendants must
20
provide parents telephonic contact with their children if the parent is not already in
21
contact with his or her child.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“Fitness” is an important factor in determining whether to separate parent from child. In
the context of this case, and enforcement of criminal and immigration laws at the border,
“fitness” could include a class member’s mental health, or potential criminal involvement
in matters other than “improper entry” under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a), (see EO § 1), among other
matters. Fitness factors ordinarily would be objective and clinical, and would allow for the
proper exercise of discretion by government officials.
11
23
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 83 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 25 of 189 24 of 24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 06/26/18 PageID.1747 Page
1
(5)
Defendants must immediately take all steps necessary to facilitate regular
2
communication between and among all executive agencies responsible for the
3
custody, detention or shelter of Class Members and the custody and care of their
4
children, including at least ICE, CBP, BOP, and ORR, regarding the location and
5
well-being of the Class Members’ children.
6
(6)
Defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all those
7
who are in active concert or participation with them, are preliminarily enjoined from
8
removing any Class Members without their child, unless the Class Member
9
affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be reunited with the child prior
10
to the Class Member’s deportation, or there is a determination that the parent is unfit
11
or presents a danger to the child.
12
(7)
This Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings and to enter such
13
further orders as may be necessary or appropriate to implement and enforce the
14
provisions of this Order and Preliminary Injunction.
15
A status conference will be held on July 6, 2018, at 12:00 noon, to discuss all
16
necessary matters. A notice of teleconference information sheet will be provided in a
17
separate order.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 26, 2018
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 26 of 189
Exhibit R
Government Told Immigrant Parents to Pay for DNA Tests to Get Kids Back, Advocate S... Page 1 of 4
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 27 of 189
FOLLOW
CHEAT SHEET
LOG IN
POLITICS
ENTERTAINMENT
PLAY
HOT
ARTISTS
WORLD NEWS
HALF FULL
ARTS AND CULTURE
U.S. NEWS
TECH
HUNT FOR THE CURE
SCIENCE
SCOUTED
×
ELLA MAI
BOO'D UP
FULL TRACK
EXCLUSIVE
EXCLUSIVE
WE BROKE IT, YOU BUY IT
Government Told Immigrant Parents to Pay for DNA Tests to Get Kids Back, Advocate Says
https://www.thedailybeast.com/government-told-immigrant-parents-to-pay-for-dna-tests-to... 7/11/2018
Government Told Immigrant Parents to Pay for DNA Tests to Get Kids Back, Advocate S... Page 2 of 4
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 28 of 189
EXCLUSIVE
DALLAS—U.S. government officials recently told four immigrant women that they must pay for DNA tests in order to be reunited with their
children, according to the shelter that housed the women.
The tests are the latest ad hoc effort by the Trump administration to reunite families it had separated—in some cases because authorities took
documents from adults proving they are related to their children. The tests are being administered by a private contractor on behalf of the
Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement, which oversees the care and housing of children. HHS has
refused to name the contractor, which may be a violation of federal law.
“None of them have the money [for the tests], so it’s going to fall back on us to push back on that,” said Ruben Garcia, the director of
Annunciation House, an immigrant shelter in El Paso where the women are staying.
Three of the women are mothers of the children, Garcia said, and the fourth is attempting to reunite with her brother, a three and half-yearold boy.
Garcia said that the tests likely cost money that many immigrants entering the country with little more than the clothes on their backs don’t
have. Iliana Holguin, an immigration attorney in El Paso who works with Annunciation House, said the government made some of her clients
pay between $700 to $800 to prove their relationship to a relative as part of their citizenship cases.
“The government wants the parents to foot the bill for the DNA testing when they’re the ones that caused the need for DNA testing,” Holguin
said. “It’s incredible.”
The Office of Refugee Resettlement, responsible for the DNA testing, told The Daily Beast it “provides DNA testing at no cost to verify
parentage.”
Solution for Self-Imposed Problem
ORR requires DNA testing in some cases to verify adult immigrants are related to children in ORR’s custody, before the children can be
released to the adults who have either been paroled or are to be deported. The tests are often required, according Garcia, when parents’ have
had their paperwork regarding their children taken by Customs and Border Patrol or Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (CBP and ICE
did not immediately respond to requests for comment.)
https://www.thedailybeast.com/government-told-immigrant-parents-to-pay-for-dna-tests-to... 7/11/2018
Government Told Immigrant Parents to Pay for DNA Tests to Get Kids Back, Advocate S... Page 3 of 4
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 29 of 189
“When these families come in, Customs and Border Protection takes away the documents from parents and puts them in their file,” Garcia
said. “In the cases where they’ve been separated from their children, ORR then says, ‘You’re going to need to provide the documents that CBP
took.’”
And when the immigrants can’t, Garcia said, ORR tells parents they must take a DNA test.
It’s unclear how many immigrants have been told they’d have to pay for DNA tests. Other immigration attorneys reached by The Daily Beast
said their clients had not been asked to pay for DNA tests.
Greg Chen of the American Immigration Lawyers Association called the tests a “delay tactic” by a government that is “primarily interested in
detaining the children and parents to put pressure on them to accept deportation before they have the opportunity to get a fair hearing on
their asylum claims and other claims for relief.”
GET THE BEAST IN YOUR INBOX!
Enter your email address
By clicking “Subscribe,” you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
SUBSCRIBE
“In a specific case when there’s evidence of fraud DNA testing may be warranted, but it should not be done across the board especially when
proof of familial relationship can be demonstrated in other ways,” Chen said.
Those other ways include the government documents that are taken from immigrants once they’re caught for crossing the border, verification
that a simple phone call from ORR to CBP or ICE could achieve, Garcia said.
“But when I go to ORR, they say, ‘We don’t talk to immigration [authorities],” he said.
Government Keeps Contractor Secret
HHS has refused to reveal the identity of the contractor who is performing the DNA tests. A search of federal contract databases showed no
recent contracts for DNA work with the HHS office which oversees ORR.
“DNA contract information is not available in a readily reportable format,” HHS' Administration of Children and Families office told The
Daily Beast in a statement. A day earlier, that same office said on its website it had “not consulted with the contractor” to get permission to
release the contract.”
Under federal law, government agencies have 30 days from the date of award to release certain basic contract information to a federal
database online.
“Agencies don't need permission from contractors to publicize info on the contract. This is the public's business and taxpayers dollars are
being used,” Nick Schwellenbach of the Project on Government Oversight told The Daily Beast. “Agencies often make this information
available immediately.”
Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union and the government agreed in a court filing on Monday “the federal government will not use
the DNA samples or test results for any purpose besides verifying parentage, and will ensure that the DNA samples and test results are
destroyed afterwards.” In a posting on its website, HHS pledged to destroy DNA swabs and test results after parental relationships had been
confirmed.
Roots in the Obama Administration
The Trump administration isn’t the first to use DNA tests to verify relationships between immigrants or refugees. Under the Obama
administration, the Department of Homeland Security and State Department initiated a DNA testing pilot program for refugees from certain
African countries in the “Priority Three” program that reunited refugees already inside the U.S. with relatives still abroad. Reports of
widespread fraud in the Priority Three program (preliminary testing showed only 20 percent of tested immigrants had a biological
relationship with claimed relatives abroad) prompted the closure of the program in 2008 before it was reopened in 2012.
A 2010 public notice warned that applicants to the Priority Three program would be responsible for the cost of DNA testing, but “successful
applicants may be eligible for reimbursement of DNA test costs.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/government-told-immigrant-parents-to-pay-for-dna-tests-to... 7/11/2018
Government Told Immigrant Parents to Pay for DNA Tests to Get Kids Back, Advocate S... Page 4 of 4
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 30 of 189
Garcia said he has heard that test fees can be waived, but has yet to hear specifically from ORR how to apply for those waivers.
“I don’t know if it’s a situation where if you don’t ask about the waivers they don’t tell you,” he said.
DNA tests continued in 2014, when a wave of unaccompanied children began fleeing from gang violence in Central and South America and
arriving at the southern border. Then, the Obama administration instituted another initiative similar to Priority Three called the Central
American Minors (CAM) program. Many refugee children arrived looking to reunite with parents or relatives already inside the U.S. The
CAM program sought to provide a safer alternative to the often dangerous journey unaccompanied children took through Central America
and to the border by allowing family members to apply for reunification legally.
The program required DNA testing to prove a biological relationship with migrant children. As an HHS fact sheet noted, parents inside the
U.S. would pay for the cost of testing up front and would “be reimbursed for testing costs ONLY if ALL claimed and tested biological
relationships are confirmed by DNA test results.”
The Trump administration ended the program in 2017.
For now, the tests being performed on immigrants caught up in Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy are just another obstacle for mothers and
fathers who have already faced plenty of them in order to be reunited with their children, Garcia said.
“Here’s what I want from ORR: it’s my understanding that DNA test results can be quick or slow, depending on whichever you want. So why
don’t you take the responsibility, ORR, and get this done quickly and get these kids back with their parents. Don’t give me this, ‘There’s too
many to do and it’s going to take a while,’ or ‘There’s a big long line,’ because you’re the one who took the kids away in the first place, so fix
it.”
Justin Glawe
@JustinGlawe
Adam Rawnsley
adam.rawnsley@thedailybeast.com
Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast here.
Sponsored Stories
How to Remove Dark
Spots
Recommended by
These Underwear
Styles Are Taking Over
Men’s Drawers
JUVETRESS
7 Surprising Facts
About HIV
HEALTHGRADES
GET.MEUNDIES.COM
If You Have Good
Credit, This Card Is For
You
CREDIT.COM
Chiropractors Baffled:
Simple Stretch Relieves
Years of Back Pain
(Watch)
Living with HIV | Top 10
Questions About Living
With HIV
HEALTHGRADES
A Car Like No Other:
The New Subaru
Forester Explored
This Radical Woman
Will Become The Next
U.S. President in 2020
EDMUNDS
ASSETS.STANSBERRYRESEARCH.COM
HEALTHHACKTIPS.COM
Politics
Entertainment
World News
Half Full
Arts and Culture
U.S. News
Tech
Hunt for the Cure
Science
Scouted
Travel
Advertise
With Us
https://www.thedailybeast.com/government-told-immigrant-parents-to-pay-for-dna-tests-to... 7/11/2018
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 31 of 189
Exhibit S
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 455 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 7 Page ID #:18135
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/09/18 Page 1 of 32 of 189
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.
Date
CV 85-4544-DMG (AGRx)
July 9, 2018
Title Jenny L. Flores, et al. v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, et al.
Present: The Honorable
Page
1 of 7
DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
KANE TIEN
Deputy Clerk
NOT REPORTED
Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
None Present
Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ “EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR LIMITED RELIEF FROM SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT” [435]
On June 20, 2018, President Donald J. Trump issued an Executive Order requiring “[t]he
Attorney General [to] promptly file a request with [this Court] to modify the [Flores
Agreement], in a manner that would permit the Secretary [of Homeland Security], under present
resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal
proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.” See
Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation, Exec. Order No. 13841, 83
Fed. Reg. 29435, 29435 (June 20, 2018) [hereinafter Exec. Order No. 13841]. On June 21, 2018,
Defendants filed an Ex Parte Application seeking the following “limited” relief: (1) an
exemption from the Flores Agreement’s release provisions so that Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) may detain alien minors who have arrived with their parent or legal
guardian together in ICE family residential facilities, and (2) an exemption from the Flores
Agreement’s state licensure requirement. [Doc. # 435.] Defendants claim that such relief is
warranted under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) and 60(b)(6). See Ex Parte Appl.
at 10 [Doc. # 435-1].1
Although Defendants did not notice their Ex Parte Application for a hearing, they seek “a
prompt hearing on [their] request for immediate relief, together with any additional proceedings
the Court believes appropriate.” See id. at 21. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Ex Parte
Application [Doc. # 450], as did the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) [Doc. # 451] and
the City of Los Angeles, the City of Chicago, the City of New York, and the City & County of
San Francisco (“The Cities”) [Doc. # 453] as amici curiae.
Defendants’ Ex Parte Application is a thinly veiled motion for reconsideration without
any meaningful effort to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 7-18. On July 24, 2015,
1
CV-90
All page references herein are to page numbers inserted by the CM/ECF system.
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Initials of Deputy Clerk KT
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 455 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 7 Page ID #:18136
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/09/18 Page 2 of 33 of 189
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.
CV 85-4544-DMG (AGRx)
Title Jenny L. Flores, et al. v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, et al.
Date
July 9, 2018
Page
2 of 7
the Court denied Defendants’ motion seeking to modify the Flores Agreement on the same
grounds now raised anew in Defendants’ Ex Parte Application. See Defs.’ Motion to Amend
at 13, 17–21, 27–28, 30–33 [Doc. # 120]; July 24, 2015 Order at 19–25 [Doc. # 177]; Ex Parte
Appl. at 15–16 [Doc. # 435-1] (repeating Defendants’ position that detaining family units in
unlicensed family residential facilities deters others from unlawfully entering the country). In
short, Defendants have run afoul of Local Rule 7-18 because the Ex Parte Application
“repeat[s] . . . oral or written argument made in support of” the earlier Motion to Amend. C.D.
Cal. L.R. 7-18.
Even if Local Rule 7-18 did not bar Defendants’ Ex Parte Application, it would still fail
under a Rule 60(b) analysis. The Court’s July 24, 2015 Order analyzed in great detail the
relevant Flores Agreement language and applicable legal authorities, responding to the same
issues raised in Defendants’ current Ex Parte Application. In the absence of a showing of
changed circumstances that the parties could not have foreseen at the time of their Agreement, it
is unnecessary to replow the same familiar territory. See Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail, 502
U.S. 367, 383 (1992) (“Ordinarily, . . . modification should not be granted where a party relies
upon events that actually were anticipated at the time it entered into a decree. . . . [A] party
seeking modification of a consent decree [under Rule 60(b)(5)] bears the burden of establishing
that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree.”); United States v.
Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993) (“[Rule 60(b)(6)] is to be
utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to
prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.”).
At bottom, Defendants’ arguments rest in part on the premise that the July 24, 2015
Order resulted in a “3 to 5-fold increase in the number of illegal family border crossings”
because it led arriving families to believe that Defendants would rather release them than
separate the children from their families. See, e.g., Ex Parte Appl. at 3 [Doc. # 435-1].
Assuming arguendo that Defendants’ representations regarding the increase in border crossings
are correct (i.e., 68,445 apprehensions in 2014; 39,838 in 2015; 77,674 in 2016; and 75,622 in
2017), they do not establish that the Court’s July 24, 2015 Order in any way caused this “surge.”
See id. at 3, 9. Defendants’ reasoning suffers from the “‘logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter
hoc’ . . . literally, ‘after this, therefore because of this[.]’” See Kozulin v. INS, 218 F.3d 1112,
1117 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Huskey v. City of San Jose, 204 F.3d 893, 899 (9th Cir. 2000)).
Any number of other factors could have caused the increase in illegal border crossings, including
civil strife, economic degradation, and fear of death in the migrants’ home countries. See, e.g.,
Govindaiah Decl. at ¶¶ 1–3 (between July 1, 2017 and June 16, 2018, RAICES provided legal
assistance to 5,177 family units detained at Karnes County Residential Center; approximately
5,000 of those family units received positive credible fear determinations from an asylum officer
CV-90
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Initials of Deputy Clerk KT
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 455 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 7 Page ID #:18137
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/09/18 Page 3 of 34 of 189
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.
CV 85-4544-DMG (AGRx)
Title Jenny L. Flores, et al. v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, et al.
Date
July 9, 2018
Page
3 of 7
or an immigration judge) [Doc. # 451-1]; Adam Cox & Ryan Goodman, Detention of Migrant
Families as “Deterrence”:
Ethical Flaws & Empirical Doubts, justsecurity.org
(June 22, 2018), https://www.justsecurity.org/58354/detention-migrant-families-deterrenceethical-flaws-empirical-doubts/ (concluding that “there’s not even a correlational relationship
between [the July 24, 2015 Order] and family migration,” and pointing out that the apprehension
patterns for accompanied and unaccompanied minors after the decision did not differ from one
another). As it did before, the Court finds Defendants’ logic “dubious” and unconvincing.2 See
July 24, 2015 Order at 11 [Doc. # 177].
Moreover, the Flores Agreement has required accompanied minors to be placed in
licensed facilities since 1997. See Flores Agreement at ¶ 19 [Doc. # 101]. Defendants did not
request an alteration of their legal obligations until many years later in 2015 and again now. The
Court’s July 24, 2015 Order merely reaffirmed Defendants’ pre-existing obligations under the
Agreement, and could not have caused the surge in border crossings any more than the
implementation of the Flores Agreement itself caused the numerous surges that occurred after
1997. See Ex Parte Appl. at 3 [Doc. # 435-1].
Additionally, the relief Defendants seek is improper because their proposed modifications
are not “suitably tailored to the changed circumstance[,]” if any. Rufo, 502 U.S. at 391
(emphasis added). Instead, Defendants seek to light a match to the Flores Agreement and ask
this Court to upend the parties’ agreement by judicial fiat.
The Flores Agreement allows Defendants up to five days to place minors in licensed
programs if they are apprehended in districts that do not have those programs, or “as
expeditiously as possible” if there is an “influx of minors into the United States[.]” See Flores
Agreement at ¶ 12.A. In 2015, the Court found that the Flores Agreement could accommodate
Defendants’ request for a 20-day deadline during an influx.3 Yet, Defendants now seek to hold
2
Because Defendants fail to show that the Flores Agreement and the July 24, 2015 Order are responsible
for the so-called “surge” in illegal family border crossings, the Court need not address Plaintiffs’ and the ACLU’s
argument that general deterrence is not a permissible purpose of civil detention. See Pls.’ Opp’n at 11 [Doc. # 450];
ACLU’s Opp’n at 8–11 [Doc. # 451]; see also July 24, 2015 Order at 24 n.11 (declining to address this issue
because Defendants failed to show that detaining families would deter future illegal border crossings) [Doc. # 177].
3
Paragraph 12.A provides in pertinent part that “[t]he INS will transfer a minor . . . to a [licensed
program] . . . within five (5) days [if the minor is apprehended in a district that does not have a licensed program
with space available], except . . . in the event of an emergency or influx of minors into the United States, in which
case the INS shall place all minors [into licensed placements] as expeditiously as possible[.]” The Court previously
observed that, during an influx, a 20-day delay in placement may comply with Paragraph 12.A if that is “as fast as
Defendants, in good faith and in the exercise of due diligence, can possibly go in screening family members for
CV-90
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Initials of Deputy Clerk KT
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 455 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 7 Page ID #:18138
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/09/18 Page 4 of 35 of 189
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.
CV 85-4544-DMG (AGRx)
Title Jenny L. Flores, et al. v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, et al.
Date
July 9, 2018
Page
4 of 7
minors in indefinite detention in unlicensed facilities, which would constitute a fundamental and
material breach of the parties’ Agreement. Cf. Flores v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 898, 910 (9th Cir.
2016) (holding that exempting accompanied minors from the Flores Agreement was not a
suitably tailored response to the influx in family units crossing the border).
Defendants also assert that “families frequently fail to appear at the required
proceedings” if they are released from custody. See Ex Parte Appl. at 2–3 (citing Homan Decl.
at ¶ 30 (attesting that from July 2014 to July 2015, there were 41,297 cases involving family
apprehensions and 11,976 removal orders issued in absentia) [Doc. # 184-1]) [Doc. # 435-1].
But see Ingrid Eagly, et al., Detaining Families: A Study of Asylum Adjudication in Family
Detention,
106
Calif.
L.
Rev.
785,
847–48
(2018),
available
at
http://www.californialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/4-Eagly_Shafer_Whalley.pdf
(Executive Office of Immigration Review data shows that between 2001 and 2016, 86% of
family detainees attended all of their court hearings). The evidentiary record is unclear as to the
accuracy of Defendants’ assertion. Even assuming Defendants are correct, however, this risk
was plainly contemplated by the parties when they executed the Flores Agreement in 1997. See,
e.g., Flores Agreement at ¶ 24.A (providing that a minor in deportation proceedings shall be
afforded a bond redetermination hearing). It does not support a blanket non-release policy or
warrant the Agreement’s modification or abrogation.
After submitting their Ex Parte Application, Defendants filed a “Notice of
Compliance[,]” wherein they contend that a preliminary injunction recently entered in Ms. L v.
U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, No. CV 18-0428 DMS (MDD), 2018 WL 3129486
(S.D. Cal. June 26. 2018), allows them to nullify the release and state licensure provisions of the
Flores Agreement. See Notice of Compl. at 5–8 [Doc. # 447]. Ms. L concluded that a class of
certain parents would likely succeed on the merits of their due process challenge to the “practice
of separating [certain parents] from their minor children, and failing to reunify [parents] with
those children, without any showing the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child[.]” See
Ms. L, 2018 WL 3129486, at *7. The District Court ordered ICE and other governmental
officers and agencies to reunite these parents with their children (the former of whom were in
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) custody) within 14 to 30 days of that Order, unless
(inter alia) “the parent affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be reunited with the
child in DHS custody.” See id. at *11–12.
reasonable or credible fear[.]” See Order re Resp. to Order to Show Cause at 10 [Doc. # 189]. The 20-day deadline
arose from Defendants’ own request for that additional time to comply with their contractual obligations during an
influx. See Def.’s Resp. to Order to Show Cause at 14, 23–24, 34 n.33 [Doc. # 184].
CV-90
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Initials of Deputy Clerk KT
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 455 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 7 Page ID #:18139
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/09/18 Page 5 of 36 of 189
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.
CV 85-4544-DMG (AGRx)
Title Jenny L. Flores, et al. v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, et al.
Date
July 9, 2018
Page
5 of 7
Defendants advance a tortured interpretation of the Flores Agreement in an attempt to
show that the Ms. L preliminary injunction permits them to suspend the Flores release and
licensure provisions. They claim that detaining Flores Class Members with their parents
complies with Paragraph 14’s command that Class Members be “release[d] from . . . custody
without unnecessary delay” because separating a Class Member from a parent would violate the
Ms. L Order. See Notice of Compl. at 6 (emphasis in original) (quoting Flores Agreement at
¶ 14 [Doc. # 101]) [Doc. # 447]. Similarly, Defendants contend that indefinite detention in ICE
unlicensed family residential facilities is consistent with: (1) their obligation to transfer minors
to licensed placements “as expeditiously as possible” if there is an influx of minors, and
(2) Paragraph 12.A’s proviso that such transfer is unnecessary when “any court decree or courtapproved settlement” provides otherwise. See id. at 7 n.1 (quoting Flores Agreement at
¶ 12.A.2–3 [Doc. # 101]). The Court rejects this strained construction of the Flores Agreement it
renders meaningless paragraph 12.A (deadlines for transfers to licensed placements), paragraph
14 (persons to whom Class Members may be released), paragraph 18 (efforts toward release and
reunification), and paragraph 19 (placement of Class Members in licensed programs).4 See Pinel
v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 814 F. Supp. 2d 930, 943 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“Courts must interpret
contractual language in a manner [that] gives force and effect to every provision, and not in a
way [that] renders some clauses nugatory, inoperative or meaningless.” (alteration in original)
(quoting City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 68 Cal. App. 4th
445, 473 (1998))); O’Neil v. Bunge Corp., 365 F.3d 820, 822 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he
construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by principles of local law
which apply to interpretation of contracts generally.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
United Commercial Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 1992))).
To the extent Defendants claim that the Ms. L Order supports their request for
modification, their argument fares no better because they have not shown that Ms. L required
Defendants to violate the Flores Agreement or that compliance with the Ms. L Order would
“directly conflict” with the Flores Agreement’s release and state licensure provisions. See
Flores v. Sessions, 862 F.3d 863, 874 (9th Cir. 2017) (noting that this is the standard for
modifying a decree on change of law grounds). Absolutely nothing prevents Defendants from
reconsidering their current blanket policy of family detention and reinstating prosecutorial
discretion. See Exec. Order No. 13841, 83 Fed. Reg. at 29435; see also 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a)(2)(A) (providing that the Attorney General has the discretion to release certain aliens
4
There is yet another flaw in Defendants’ reasoning—i.e., they seek to indefinitely detain all migrant
children who have arrived with their parents or legal guardians, see Ex Parte Appl. at 21 [Doc. # 435-1], even
though the Ms. L preliminary injunction by its terms excludes a number of family units from its scope, including
those who are subject to Executive Order 13841, see Ms. L, 2018 WL 3129486, at *3 n.5.
CV-90
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Initials of Deputy Clerk KT
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 455 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 7 Page ID #:18140
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/09/18 Page 6 of 37 of 189
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.
CV 85-4544-DMG (AGRx)
Title Jenny L. Flores, et al. v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, et al.
Date
July 9, 2018
Page
6 of 7
on a bond of at least $1,500); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) (providing that the Attorney General has
the discretion to parole certain aliens).
Further, detained parents who are entitled to reunification under the Ms. L Order may
“affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily decline[] to be reunited” with their children, see
Ms. L., 2018 WL 3129486, at *11, and all parties admit that these parents may also affirmatively
waive their children’s rights to prompt release and placement in state-licensed facilities, see
Notice of Compl. at 9 (“[P]laintiffs in this case have always agreed that detention of the family
together is permissible if the parent consents.” (emphasis added)) [Doc. # 447]; Pls.’ Opp’n to Ex
Parte Appl. at 7 (asserting that Class Members’ have the right—“subject to opt out by a
parent—to be released or placed under the terms of the Agreement” (emphasis added)) [Doc.
# 450]; see also Fields v. Palmdale Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 1197, 1204 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he right
of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children is a
fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.”); Wyler Summit P’ship v.
Turner Broad. Sys., 135 F.3d 658, 662 (9th Cir. 1998) (“It is a well settled maxim that a party
may waive the benefit of any condition or provision made in his behalf, no matter to what
manner it may have been made or secured.” (emphasis omitted) (quoting Knarston v. Manhattan
Life Ins. Co., 140 Cal. 57, 63 (1903))); Jeffrey Kavin, Inc. v. Frye, 264 Cal. App. 4th 35, 45
(2012) (“It is well settled a contracting party may waive conditions placed in a contract solely for
that party’s benefit.” (quoting Sabo v. Fasano, 154 Cal. App. 3d 502, 505 (1984)) (internal
quotation marks omitted)). Given the situation arising from Defendants’ earlier family
separation policy, detained parents may choose to exercise their Ms. L right to reunification or to
stand on their children’s Flores Agreement rights. Defendants may not make this choice for
them.5
Lastly, Defendants have known for years that there is “no state licensing readily available
for facilities that house both adults and children.” See Defs.’ Motion to Amend at 32 (filed on
Feb. 27, 2015) [Doc. # 120]. Yet, Defendants have not shown that they made any efforts to
resolve this issue since July 2015, let alone 1997, nor have they demonstrated that any such
attempt would be futile. To the contrary, certain local governments charged with enforcing state
child welfare laws have indicated their “strong interest . . . in the continued licensed regulation of
Defendants’ child welfare programs.” See The Cities’ Opp’n at 13 [Doc. # 453]. Given that the
Flores Agreement has “unambiguously applie[d] both to accompanied and unaccompanied
minors” for over 20 years, see Flores, 828 F.3d at 901, Defendants cannot now complain that the
5
The Court also observes that there is no inconsistency between the Flores Agreement and Executive
Order No. 13841. See Exec. Order No. 13841, 83 Fed. Reg. at 29435 (“The Secretary of Homeland Security . . .
shall, to the extent permitted by law . . . maintain custody of alien families during the pendency of any criminal
improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their members.” (emphasis added)).
CV-90
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Initials of Deputy Clerk KT
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 455 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 7 Page ID #:18141
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/09/18 Page 7 of 38 of 189
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.
CV 85-4544-DMG (AGRx)
Title Jenny L. Flores, et al. v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, et al.
Date
July 9, 2018
Page
7 of 7
Agreement leaves them no choice but to separate parents from their children and violate the
Ms. L Order.
It is apparent that Defendants’ Application is a cynical attempt, on an ex parte basis, to
shift responsibility to the Judiciary for over 20 years of Congressional inaction and ill-considered
Executive action that have led to the current stalemate. The parties voluntarily agreed to the
terms of the Flores Agreement more than two decades ago. The Court did not force the parties
into the agreement nor did it draft the contractual language. Its role is merely to interpret and
enforce the clear and unambiguous language to which the parties agreed, applying wellestablished principles of law. Regardless, what is certain is that the children who are the
beneficiaries of the Flores Agreement’s protections and who are now in Defendants’ custody are
blameless. They are subject to the decisions made by adults over whom they have no control. In
implementing the Agreement, their best interests should be paramount.
In sum, Defendants have not shown that applying the Flores Agreement “prospectively is
no longer equitable[,]” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5), or that “manifest injustice” will result if the
Agreement is not modified, see United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047,
1049 (9th Cir. 1993). Of course, the parties are always free to meet and confer regarding any
contractual amendments on which they can mutually agree. This is basic contract law.
In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES the Ex Parte Application because it is
procedurally improper and wholly without merit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Initials of Deputy Clerk KT
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 39 of 189
Exhibit T
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 40 of 189
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 41 of 189
Exhibit U
Trump's solution for reunifying migrant families: 'Don't come to our country illegally' - P... Page 1 of 3
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 42 of 189
Trump's solution for reunifying migrant families: 'Don't come to
our country illegally'
By LOUIS NELSON | 07/10/2018 09:23 AM EDT
President Donald Trump said Tuesday that the solution to the government’s failure to meet
a deadline for reunifying separated undocumented parents with their children is for such
migrants to stop entering the U.S. illegally in the first place.
“Well, I have a solution. Tell people not to come to our country illegally. That's the solution.
Don't come to our country illegally. Come like other people do. Come legally,” he told
reporters on the White House’s south lawn Tuesday morning as he departed for his
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/10/trump-migrant-families-separated-706144
7/11/2018
Trump's solution for reunifying migrant families: 'Don't come to our country illegally' - P... Page 2 of 3
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 43 of 189
weeklong trip to Europe. “I'm saying this very simply: We have laws. We have borders. Don't
come to our country illegally. It's not a good thing.”
The president and his administration have come under heavy bipartisan criticism in recent
weeks over their policy of referring for criminal prosecution all people crossing the border
illegally, a practice that led to the separation of thousands of children from their parents.
After initially defending the practice and falsely insisting that only Congress could end it, the
president bowed to public pressure and signed an executive order mandating that families
be kept together.
The most reliable politics newsletter.
Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning — in your inbox.
Your email…
By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Despite the president’s order, the status of the already separated families remains unclear,
and the Trump administration on Monday missed a court-mandated deadline for reunifying
roughly 100 children under the age of 5 with their parents. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who
chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, told CNN on Monday that the lack of
progress on reunifying families “boggles my mind.”
The family separations have prompted calls from some Democrats to abolish U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency whose charges include deportations.
Trump, in his Tuesday morning remarks to reporters, slammed calls to do away with ICE.
“The people that are fighting ICE, it's a disgrace. These people go into harm's way. There is
nobody under greater danger than the people from ICE,” he said. “We ought to support ICE,
not do what the Democrats are doing. Democrats want open borders, and they don't mind
crime. We want no crime, and we want borders where borders mean something, all right?”
About Us
Advertising
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/10/trump-migrant-families-separated-706144
7/11/2018
Trump's solution for reunifying migrant families: 'Don't come to our country illegally' - P... Page 3 of 3
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 44 of 189
Breaking News Alerts
Careers
Credit Card Payments
Digital Edition
FAQ
Feedback
Headlines
Photos
POWERJobs
Press
Print Subscriptions
RSS
Site Map
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
© 2018 POLITICO LLC
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/10/trump-migrant-families-separated-706144
7/11/2018
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 45 of 189
Exhibit V
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 46 of 189
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE HONORABLE DANA M. SABRAW, JUDGE PRESIDING
_______________________________________
)
MS. L. AND MS. C.,
)
)CASE NO. 18CV0428-DMS
PETITIONERS-PLAINTIFFS,
)
)
VS.
)
)SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
)TUESDAY JULY 10, 2018
ENFORCEMENT ("ICE"); U.S. DEPARTMENT
) 11:00 A.M. CALENDAR
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; 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, )
)
RESPONDENTS-DEFENDANTS.
)
---------------------------------------REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
STATUS CONFERENCE
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 47 of 189
COUNSEL APPEARING:
FOR PLAINTIFF:
LEE GELERNT, ESQ.
ACLU IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
125 BROAD STREET 18TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10004
BADIS VAKILI, ESQ.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO
AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES
P.O. BOX 87131
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92138
STEPHAN B. KANG, ESQ.
ACLU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
39 DRUMM STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111
FOR DEFENDANT:
SARAH B. FABIAN, ESQ.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION
P.O. BOX 868
BEN FRANKLIN STATION
WASHINGTON, DC 20044
ADAM L. BRAVERMAN
INTERIM UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
BY: SAM BETTWY
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
880 FRONT STREET
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
REPORTED BY:
LEE ANN PENCE,
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
333 WEST BROADWAY, ROOM 1393
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 48 of 189
1
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA - TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2018 - 11:07 A.M.
*
2
3
3
*
*
NO. 1 ON CALENDAR, CASE NO.18CV0428,
THE CLERK:
4
MS. L. VERSUS U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; ON FOR
5
STATUS CONFERENCE.
GOOD MORNING.
6
THE COURT:
7
MAY I HAVE APPEARANCES, PLEASE?
8
MR. GELERNT:
9
GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
GELERNT, FROM THE ACLU, FOR PLAINTIFFS.
STEPHAN KANG, YOUR HONOR, FOR PLAINTIFFS.
10
MR. KANG:
11
MR. BALAKRISHNAN:
12
THE COURT:
14
THANK YOU.
MR. VAKILI:
16
17
18
19
GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. ANAND
BALAKRISHNAN FOR PLAINTIFFS.
13
15
LEE
GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
BARDIS
GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
SARAH
VAKILI FOR PLAINTIFFS.
MS. FABIAN:
FABIAN, WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FOR DEFENDANTS.
MR. STEWART:
GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
SCOTT
STEWART FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
THANK YOU.
AND GOOD MORNING.
20
THE COURT:
21
I HAVE READ ALL OF THE BRIEFING THAT WAS SUBMITTED,
22
23
WHICH I APPRECIATE.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS PROVIDE A NUMBER OF
24
RULINGS FROM THE BENCH SO THAT THE PARTIES HAVE THE BENEFIT OF
25
THE COURT'S DETERMINATIONS AND CAN PROCEED ACCORDINGLY.
JULY 10, 2018
AND
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 49 of 189
4
1
THEN I WILL ISSUE A SHORT WRITTEN ORDER LATER TODAY SETTING
2
OUT THE DETERMINATIONS THAT I AM GOING TO MAKE IN A MOMENT.
3
ON THE CLASS NOTICE ISSUE, I AM GOING TO ADOPT THE
4
PLAINTIFFS' VERSION, SO THAT NOTICE MAY ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE
5
WITH THE PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSAL.
6
ON THE BALANCE OF THE ISSUES, I INTEND TO STAND ON
7
THE DEADLINE ON MOST OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN
8
IDENTIFIED OF THE UNDER-FIVE GROUP, AND WOULD BE ADOPTING IN
9
SIGNIFICANT PART A STREAMLINED APPROACH.
10
AND THE REASONS FOR THAT IS, WHEN ONE LOOKS TO THE
11
MANNER IN WHICH ICE MAKES THESE CONSIDERATIONS, SO IF WE STEP
12
BACK IN TIME AND WE LOOK AT THE CASES OF MS. L. AND MS. C.
13
SPECIFICALLY, THESE INDIVIDUALS GO INTO ICE DETENTION.
14
ARRIVE AS A FAMILY UNIT, AND ICE MAKES DETERMINATIONS AS TO
15
WHETHER TO KEEP THE FAMILY TOGETHER OR TO SEPARATE THEM.
THEY
16
AND WHEN THIS CASE WAS INITIATED, MR. ORTIZ, MARIO
17
ORTIZ, FILED A DECLARATION WITH THE COURT ON MARCH 15, 2018.
18
AND MR. ORTIZ IS A DETENTION OFFICER FOR THE SAN DIEGO
19
DISTRICT OF ICE, THE ENFORCEMENT AND REMOVAL OPERATIONS
20
DIVISION, SINCE 1996.
21
PROCEDURES THAT ERO SAN DIEGO FAMILY UNIT CURRENTLY FOLLOWS.
22
AND THAT FAMILY UNIT ENDEAVORS TO DO PRECISELY WHAT WE ARE
23
TRYING TO DO IN A CONTEXT THAT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE
24
CONTEXT, AGAIN, IS THE APPREHENSION OF FAMILY UNITS, AND THEN
25
A DETERMINATION AT THAT TIME WITH THE INFORMATION THAT IS
HE SET OUT IN HIS DECLARATION THE
JULY 10, 2018
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 50 of 189
1
2
5
AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME WHETHER TO SEPARATE OR NOT.
AND WHAT HE SAYS IS THE FOLLOWING, AND I AM GOING TO
3
QUOTE FROM HIS DECLARATION IN PERTINENT PARTS:
WHEN ALIENS
4
WHO ENTER ICE CUSTODY CLAIM TO BE PARENT AND CHILD, THEY ARE
5
REFERRED TO THE FAMILY UNIT.
6
IS TO MAKE APPROPRIATE PLACEMENT DECISIONS FOR ALIENS
7
TRAVELING WITH CHILDREN WHO CLAIM FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS.
8
ALIENS CLAIMING A PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP ARE ENCOUNTERED,
9
MY UNIT'S PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS ARE, FIRST, WHETHER THERE IS
10
ANY DOUBT ABOUT WHETHER THEY ARE PARENT AND CHILD AND, SECOND,
11
WHETHER THERE IS INFORMATION THAT CAUSES A CONCERN ABOUT THE
12
WELFARE OF THE CHILD SUCH AS THE ADULT HAVING A SIGNIFICANT
13
CRIMINAL HISTORY.
14
SPECIFIC CASE, IF THERE ARE NOT CONCERNS ABOUT THE FAMILY
15
RELATIONSHIP OR WELFARE OF THE CHILD, THE ALIENS MAY BE
16
DETAINED IN A FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CENTER OR, IF APPROPRIATE,
17
RELEASED TO A SPONSOR OR NONGOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION.
18
ARE CONCERNS, THE CHILD MAY BE TRANSFERRED TO O.R.R.
THE MISSION OF THE FAMILY UNIT
WHEN
BASED ON THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN A
IF THERE
19
AND I THINK, GIVEN THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT,
20
THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THIS PRACTICE THAT ICE HAS USED
21
FOR MANY YEARS HAS NOT WORKED SUCCESSFULLY.
22
MAKING THESE KINDS OF DETERMINATIONS FOR YEARS.
23
BEEN SUBJECT TO THE TVPRA, WHICH IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
24
STATUTORY CONSTRUCT THAT IS DESIGNED FOR A DIFFERENT
25
SITUATION.
JULY 10, 2018
THEY HAVE BEEN
THEY HAVE NOT
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 51 of 189
6
THE TVPRA, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED THROUGHOUT THIS
1
2
LITIGATION, IT WAS PRINCIPALLY PROMULGATED TO DEAL WITH
3
UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN WHO CROSSED ON THEIR OWN, WERE
4
APPREHENDED, AND THEN THE GOVERNMENT HAD TO TAKE CUSTODY AND
5
CARE OF THOSE CHILDREN.
AND IN FULFILLING THAT OBLIGATION IT WAS FUNCTIONING
6
7
MUCH LIKE FOSTER CARE FACILITIES DO OR STATE AND COUNTY
8
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES THAT ARE LOOKING AFTER THE WELFARE OF A
9
CHILD, IT WAS FUNCTIONING AS A CHILD WELFARE AGENCY.
AND IN
10
MAKING PLACEMENTS OFTENTIMES THERE ARE NOT PARENTS AVAILABLE
11
BECAUSE THESE ARE CHILDREN WHO CAME OVER ON THEIR OWN, SO THEY
12
ARE LOOKING TO PLACE CHILDREN OFTENTIMES WITH NONPARENT
13
CUSTODIANS.
14
FULFILL THOSE OBLIGATIONS CAREFULLY, THROUGH A RELATIVELY
15
TIME-INTENSIVE PROCESS OF INTERVIEWING SPONSORS, LOOKING INTO
16
THE FAMILY SITUATION, RUNNING BACKGROUND CHECKS; ALL OF THOSE
17
THINGS THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT WHEN YOU PLACE A CHILD IN LIKE A
18
FOSTER HOME TYPE ENVIRONMENT.
AND IT ONLY MAKES SENSE THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO
THAT'S NOT THE CONTEXT HERE.
WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE IS THE CONTEXT IN
19
20
WHICH THE SEPARATIONS OCCURRED, AND THAT IS GOING BACK TO THE
21
CLASS DEFINITION THAT THESE ARE CHILDREN WHO ARRIVED WITH A
22
PARENT.
23
AND SO, NECESSARILY, THE DETERMINATION OUGHT TO BE,
24
AND IN PARTICULAR IN LIGHT OF THE CLAIMS IN THIS CASE THAT
25
THESE FAMILIES WERE IMPROPERLY SEPARATED, THE DETERMINATION
JULY 10, 2018
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 52 of 189
7
1
OUGHT TO BE WHETHER THERE IS ANYTHING ABOUT THE PARENT THAT
2
RENDERS THAT PARENT UNFIT OR A DANGER.
3
ASSUMES THEY ARE THE PARENT.
4
MADE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT ICE HAS BEEN DOING ALL ALONG.
5
THIS, OF COURSE,
AND THOSE CONSIDERATIONS CAN BE
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ADOPT WHOLESALE THE TVPRA AND
6
PLUG IT INTO THIS CONTEXT, WHICH IS COMPLETELY DISSIMILAR TO
7
THE UNACCOMPANIED MINOR SITUATION.
8
9
THE GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE
FAMILIES WERE SEPARATED, HAS AN AFFIRMATIVE OBLIGATION TO
10
REUNIFY, TO DO IT EFFICIENTLY AND TO DO IT SAFELY.
11
CHILD'S INTEREST IS PARAMOUNT.
12
WHOLESALE ADOPTION OF THE TVPRA PROCEDURES.
13
THE
BUT IT CAN BE DONE WITHOUT A
AND I AM MAKING THESE ASSUMPTIONS, GIVEN THE BENEFIT
14
OF THE BRIEFING, THAT WHAT IS AT ISSUE ARE A NUMBER OF POLICY
15
CONSIDERATIONS.
16
RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY.
17
WAY WITH A FEDERAL STATUTE OR RULES THAT HAVE BEEN PROMULGATED
18
THROUGH THE APA AND OTHER FORMALIZED PROCEDURES.
19
POLICIES THAT THE HHS HAS ADOPTED, IS THE UNDERSTANDING I HAVE
20
FROM THE BRIEFING, TO FULFILL ITS MISSION UNDER THE TVPRA FOR
21
UNACCOMPANIED MINOR CHILDREN.
IT IS NOT THE STATUTE ITSELF, IT IS NOT
SO THE COURT IS NOT INTERVENING IN ANY
THESE ARE
22
THAT'S THE ESSENTIAL BACKGROUND.
23
HERE THE PARTIES HAVE INDICATED THAT THERE IS ONLY
24
ONE STATUTORY PROVISION WHICH WOULD APPLY, AND THAT IS WHERE
25
THE TVPRA REQUIRES HOME STUDIES WHERE THERE ARE INDICATIONS OF
JULY 10, 2018
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 53 of 189
8
1
TRAFFICKING OR ABUSE UNDER 8, USC, SECTION 1232(C)(3)(B), AND
2
THAT WOULD BE LEFT UNINTERRUPTED BY TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS AND
3
THE INJUNCTION THAT IS IN PLACE.
4
CONSIDERATIONS, IF THERE IS EVIDENCE OF TRAFFICKING OR ABUSE,
5
THOSE PARENTS ARE NOT GOING TO BE IN THIS CLASS, IN ANY EVENT.
6
SO I THINK WHAT'S IN PLACE WITH THE CLASS DEFINITION
AND IN ADDITION THOSE
7
AND THE PROPOSALS THAT THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE SET OUT, BY AND
8
LARGE, AND THAT ICE HAS USED FOR MANY YEARS, IS COMPLETELY
9
CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE TVPRA; BUT IS MUCH MORE
10
SUITABLE FOR THE SPECIFIC CONTEXT OF THIS CASE, AND THAT IS
11
FAMILY SEPARATION AT THE BORDER, FAMILY UNITS ARRIVING
12
TOGETHER.
13
WITH THAT BACKGROUND, LET ME RUN THROUGH THE AREAS
14
OF DISPUTE.
AND WITH AN INDICATION THAT THERE IS STILL MUCH
15
TIME LEFT TODAY, THAT THESE REUNIFICATIONS OCCUR.
16
ARE FIRM DEADLINES, THEY ARE NOT ASPIRATIONAL GOALS.
17
WE GO THROUGH I CAN BE MORE SPECIFIC AS TO WHO IS IN THE CLASS
18
AND WHO IS NOT, AND WHICH PARENTS AND CHILDREN WE WOULD BE
19
FOCUSING ON FOR PURPOSES OF REUNIFICATION TODAY.
THAT THESE
AND AS
20
THE FIRST AREA OF DISPUTE RELATES TO DNA.
21
GOVERNMENT IS INDICATING THAT IT WOULD LIKE TO TAKE DNA CHEEK
22
SWABS FROM EVERYONE.
23
THE
AND HERE THAT RELATES -- ACCORDING TO THE PRESENT
24
NUMBERS, 34 FAMILIES ARE READY TO BE REUNITED TODAY.
25
OTHERS ARE LIKELY TO BE REUNITED.
17
16 ARE PENDING CONFIRMATION
JULY 10, 2018
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 54 of 189
1
OF PARENTAGE, AND SO THAT MAY BE THE GROUP THAT THIS DNA
2
9
TESTING RELATES TO.
BUT AS TO THAT AREA OF DISPUTE, I WOULD PERMIT DNA
3
4
TESTING, WHEN NECESSARY, WHEN THERE IS A LEGITIMATE, GOOD
5
FAITH CONCERN ABOUT PARENTAGE, OR IF THERE IS A LEGITIMATE
6
CONCERN THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT MEET THE REUNIFICATION
7
DEADLINE, AND THAT MAY BE THE SITUATION WE ARE HERE IN TODAY.
8
THEN THE GOVERNMENT, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PARENT, CAN TAKE
9
A DNA SAMPLE, SUBJECT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER THAT IS PROPOSED
10
BY THE PARTIES.
I THINK THE PROTECTIVE ORDER COMPLETELY PROVIDES THE
11
12
NECESSARY PROTECTION WITH RESPECT TO HOW DNA SAMPLING MAY BE
13
USED.
14
SAMPLING IS DESTROYED WITHIN SEVEN DAYS AND IT IS NOT USED FOR
15
ANY OTHER PURPOSE.
16
THERE HAS TO BE CONSENT BY THE PARENT, AND THEN THE
SO WITH THAT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT
17
IS USING THE DNA TESTING ONLY WHEN NECESSARY AND/OR WHEN
18
NECESSARY TO MEET COURT-IMPOSED DEADLINES, THAT IT MAY BE
19
DONE, SUBJECT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER.
20
MS. FABIAN:
CAN I ASK A POINT OF CLARIFICATION?
21
THE COURT:
LET ME RUN THROUGH THESE, AND THEN WE
22
23
24
25
CAN GO BACK AND CLARIFY AS NECESSARY.
THE SECOND AREA RELATES TO RESTRICTIONS ON HHS
INFORMATION-GATHERING ABOUT CHILD WELFARE.
HERE, I WOULD ADOPT A STREAMLINE APPROACH, NOT THE
JULY 10, 2018
10
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 55 of 189
1
TVPRA STANDARD.
2
THE TVPRA, FROM ITS INCEPTION, IS ALL ABOUT A CUSTODIAN
3
APPLYING AND SEEKING APPROVAL TO BE A SPONSOR OR A RECOGNIZED
4
CUSTODIAN; THIS IS NOT THAT SITUATION.
5
THAT, IN THIS CONTEXT, IS BACKWARDS, BECAUSE
THE GOVERNMENT HAS AN OBLIGATION TO REUNIFY CHILD
6
WITH PARENT.
7
IN THIS CONTEXT.
8
IT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION TO MAKE IT SO, UNLESS THERE
9
ARE ISSUES OF FITNESS OR DANGER.
10
THE IDEA OF AN APPLICATION PROCESS DOESN'T FIT
THE PARENT HAS A RIGHT TO BE REUNIFIED AND
SO ON ADDITIONAL INFORMATION-GATHERING, THAT WOULD
11
NOT BE NECESSARY IN THE UNIQUE CONTEXT OF THIS CASE.
12
NOT THE ORDINARY TVPRA TYPE OF CASE.
13
THIS IS
IN ADDITION, IF THE GOVERNMENT IS AWARE OF
14
INFORMATION BEFORE THE COURT-IMPOSED DEADLINE THAT RAISES
15
ISSUES OF FITNESS OR DANGER -- AND THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES
16
THAT HAVE BEEN SET OUT IN THE PARTIES' FILINGS TODAY OF
17
PARENTS THAT PRESENT ISSUES OF FITNESS OR DANGER --
18
REUNIFICATION DOES NOT HAVE TO OCCUR TODAY.
19
CAN WITHHOLD REUNIFICATION, AGAIN ASSUMING ABSOLUTE GOOD FAITH
20
AND ARTICULABLE REASONS FOR IT.
21
THEN -- WILL THEN BE IMMEDIATELY PROVIDED TO PLAINTIFFS'
22
COUNSEL SO THAT THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THE
23
GOVERNMENT'S DETERMINATION.
24
25
THE GOVERNMENT
AND THAT INFORMATION IS
AND I WILL COME TO THE PROCESS BY WHICH WE WILL
RESOLVE ANY OF THESE DISPUTES, BUT I AM OPTIMISTIC THAT MOST
JULY 10, 2018
11
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 56 of 189
1
ALL WILL RESOLVE THROUGH THE MEET-AND-CONFER PROCESS.
THE THIRD AREA RELATES TO BACKGROUND CHECKS ON OTHER
2
3
ADULTS IN THE HOUSEHOLD.
THIS GOES TO THIS IDEA OF IF WE ARE
4
GOING TO PLACE AN UNACCOMPANIED MINOR WHO SHOWED UP ON HIS OWN
5
AND WAS APPREHENDED, WE ARE NOT GOING TO PUT HIM OR HER IN A
6
HOME UNLESS WE KNOW ABOUT EVERYONE IN THE HOME.
THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT NEEDING
7
8
TO RETURN A CHILD TO HIS OR HER PARENT, ASSUMING THE PARENT IS
9
FIT AND NOT A DANGER.
THESE PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR
10
OWN CHILDREN, AND MANY OF THESE DETERMINATIONS, WE MUST
11
ASSUME, ARE SUBJECT TO THE PARENTS' JUDGMENT AND
12
CONSIDERATION.
13
SO I WOULD ADOPT A STREAMLINE APPROACH HERE.
14
AND THERE MAY BE INDIVIDUALS -- THE GOVERNMENT HAS
15
IDENTIFIED SEVERAL PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS WHO HAVE CRIMINAL
16
HISTORY:
17
ENDANGERMENT, ANOTHER IS NARCOTICS TRAFFICKING, ANOTHER HAS A
18
PENDING OR AN ALLEGED HOMICIDE.
19
OUTSIDE OF THE CLASS.
20
NECESSARILY ADDRESS MANY OF THE GOVERNMENT'S LEGITIMATE
21
CONCERNS ABOUT PROTECTING THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN.
22
ONE IS ALIEN SMUGGLING, ANOTHER IS CHILD
THESE INDIVIDUALS FALL
SO THE CLASS DEFINITION WILL
AND IF THE GOVERNMENT HAS SPECIFIC INFORMATION THERE
23
IS -- FOR EXAMPLE, THERE IS AN IDENTIFICATION OF A PARENT, A
24
SITUATION WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL IN ONE OF THE HOUSEHOLDS HAS AN
25
OUTSTANDING WARRANT FOR AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL SEXUAL ABUSE.
JULY 10, 2018
THE
12
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 57 of 189
1
GOVERNMENT HAS A LOT OF INFORMATION, A LOT OF RESOURCES
2
AVAILABLE.
3
IS NOT A NEED TO REUNIFY.
4
GOVERNMENT PROPERLY WITHHOLDING REUNIFICATION, ADDRESSING IT
5
WITH PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL.
6
CANNOT BE RESOLVED BETWEEN THE PARTIES, BRINGING IT TO THE
7
ATTENTION OF THE COURT FOR RESOLUTION.
8
9
10
11
WHEN THAT KIND OF INFORMATION COMES FORWARD THERE
THAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF THE
AND THEN, IF NECESSARY, IF IT
BUT THE TVPRA PROCESS OF THE FULL BACKGROUND CHECK
OF EVERYONE IN THE HOUSEHOLD IS NOT NECESSARY UNDER THESE
UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES.
NUMBER FOUR IS PROOF OF ADDRESS, SPONSOR CARE PLANS,
12
AND ALTERNATE CAREGIVERS.
13
THESE AREAS ARE NOT OBJECTED TO IN PART.
14
OBJECTION TO PROVIDING PROOF OF ADDRESS BUT THERE IS OBJECTION
15
TO A SPONSOR CARE PLAN.
16
OBJECTION.
17
THERE IS NO OBJECTION.
MANY OF
HERE THERE IS NO
AND I WOULD AGREE OR SUSTAIN THAT
HERE AGAIN, THE PARENTS ARE NOT APPLYING FOR -- THEY
18
DON'T HAVE TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE A GOOD SPONSOR.
19
WHAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO LOOK TO IS WHETHER THE PARENT IS
20
UNFIT OR A DANGER, SO IT IS GOING ABOUT IT A DIFFERENT WAY.
21
THE TVPRA, WITH RESPECT TO THESE INDIVIDUAL CLASS
22
MEMBERS, IS BACKWARDS.
AND FOR THOSE REASONS I WOULD AGREE
23
WITH PLAINTIFFS ON A STREAMLINED APPROACH.
24
AND HERE AGAIN, IF THERE IS ANY INFORMATION THAT THE
25
GOVERNMENT HAS THAT GIVES CONCERNS, IT CAN BE PROPERLY BROUGHT
JULY 10, 2018
13
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 58 of 189
1
TO THE ATTENTION OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL AND THE COURT AT A
2
LATER TIME.
3
THE FIFTH AREA RELATES TO LEGAL ORIENTATION AND
4
SPONSOR CARE AGREEMENT.
5
LEGAL ORIENTATION PROGRAMS AND/OR SIGNING A SPONSOR CARE
6
AGREEMENT SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT DELAY REUNIFICATION.
7
AGREE WITH THAT.
8
9
10
11
12
13
THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO ATTENDING
AND I
SO REUNIFICATION WOULD BE PRIMARY, AND THEN SIGNING
ON TO LEGAL ORIENTATION AND SPONSOR CARE AGREEMENTS CAN BE
DONE AT A LATER TIME, AFTER REUNIFICATION.
THE FINAL AREA IS WHERE A CHILD MAY PRESENT A DANGER
TO HIM OR HERSELF OR TO OTHERS.
THIS IS NOT A CONCERN FOR CHILDREN UNDER AGE FIVE,
14
IT IS A CONCERN FOR CHILDREN OVER AGE FIVE.
AND PROBABLY THE
15
TARGET GROUP HERE WOULD BE CHILDREN OVER AGE 12.
16
INVITE THE PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER ON THAT.
BUT I WOULD
17
HERE AGAIN, IF THE GOVERNMENT HAS ARTICULABLE
18
REASONS OF A CHILD -- AND WHAT COMES TO MIND WOULD BE A
19
TEENAGER WHO PRESENTS A DANGER TO HIMSELF OR OTHERS.
20
GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO BE FREE TO MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS,
21
PROPERLY SO, AND TO KEEP THAT CHILD IN SECURE CUSTODY, NOT BE
22
REUNIFIED.
23
THE
BUT HERE AGAIN WHAT I WOULD EXPECT IS THE PARTIES
24
MEET AND CONFER.
THERE WOULD LIKELY BE AGREEMENT.
25
THE PARTIES CAN BRING THE MATTER TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION.
JULY 10, 2018
IF NOT,
14
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 59 of 189
1
AND AS FAR AS THE PROCESS, I WOULD LIKE THE PROCESS TO
2
CONTINUE, OF COURSE, AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS IT HAS BEEN.
3
COURSE WITH A PARAMOUNT FOCUS BEING ON THE CHILDREN'S WELFARE.
4
BUT THAT CAN BE DONE IN THE MANNER WHICH THE COURT HAS
5
ADDRESSED THESE ISSUES.
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COUNSEL BE AVAILABLE FROM HERE
6
7
THROUGH THE REUNIFICATION PROCESS.
8
AVAILABLE.
9
REPORTS AND STATUS CONFERENCES.
10
AND OF
THE COURT WILL BE
I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO HAVE REGULAR STATUS
AND I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT
IN OPEN COURT.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE YOU, MS. FABIAN, OR YOU, MR.
11
12
GELERNT, IT COULD BE SOME OF THESE ABLE BODIES NEXT TO YOU.
13
BUT I WOULD LIKE A PERSON IN COURT WHO CAN STAND UP AND MAKE
14
REPRESENTATIONS, AND OTHERS CAN PARTICIPATE TELEPHONICALLY.
15
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT ON A REGULAR BASIS.
THERE IS A LOT OF WORK TO DO WITH RESPECT TO THE
16
17
OVER-FIVE GROUP.
AND I AM ANTICIPATING THAT A LOT OF THAT
18
WORK IS WELL UNDERWAY, AND IT WILL CONTINUE ALONG THE LINES
19
THAT WE HAVE SET OUT HERE WITH THE UNDER-FIVE GROUP.
WHAT I AM CONTEMPLATING IS THAT AS WE GO THROUGH
20
21
THIS PROCESS -- AND IT WOULD START WITH BOTH THE UNDER-FIVE
22
AND THEN THE OVER-FIVE GROUP -- IS WHERE THE PARTIES MEET AND
23
CONFER.
24
TO FIVE PAGES.
25
LETTER BRIEF.
IF THERE IS SOME DISPUTE, YOU CAN SUBMIT BRIEFING UP
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE FANCY, IT CAN BE A
IT CAN JUST GET RIGHT TO THE ISSUES SETTING OUT
JULY 10, 2018
15
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 60 of 189
1
THE PARTIES' BASIC POSITIONS.
I WOULD REQUEST A JOINT FILING
2
ON ANY DISPUTE, SO UP TO TEN PAGES TOTAL, FIVE AND FIVE.
AND THE COURT WOULD EITHER CONVENE A STATUS
3
4
CONFERENCE TELEPHONICALLY OR I WOULD SIMPLY RULE ON THE BRIEF
5
THAT IS SUBMITTED, AND WE CAN GO CASE BY CASE.
BUT I AM VERY OPTIMISTIC THAT THAT WILL BE SELDOMLY
6
7
USED.
8
THE SAME DIRECTION HERE, AND IT IS JUST A MATTER OF, I THINK,
9
STREAMLINING THE PROCESS AND PROVIDING CLEAR DIRECTION AS TO
10
11
12
13
THAT WOULD BE MY EXPECTATION.
EVERYONE IS ROWING IN
HOW THE GOVERNMENT WILL PROCEED.
I HAVE JUST A FEW FINAL COMMENTS, AND THEN WE CAN
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FOR CLARIFICATION.
THERE ARE, DEPENDING ON HOW ONE COUNTS, EITHER 101
14
OR 102 IN THIS UNDER-FIVE GROUP.
15
TODAY'S SUBMISSION, 75 OF THIS GROUP ARE ELIGIBLE FOR
16
REUNIFICATION.
17
BY MY COUNT, BASED ON
63 ARE ELIGIBLE FOR REUNIFICATION TODAY.
14 PARENTS ARE NOT IN THE CLASS.
EIGHT HAVE
18
CRIMINAL HISTORY THAT PRECLUDES THEM, FIVE ARE NOT THE
19
PARENTS, AND ONE THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS IT HAS CREDIBLE
20
EVIDENCE OF CHILD ABUSE AND IS THEREFORE A DANGER OR UNFIT AND
21
WOULD FALL OUTSIDE OF THE CLASS.
22
THAT'S 14.
THERE ARE 12 OTHERS THAT FALL -- WELL, THERE ARE TWO
23
OTHERS THAT PRESENTLY FALL OUT OF THE CLASS.
ONE IS
24
CHARACTERIZED AS PRESENTING A DANGER, ONE AS HAVING A
25
COMMUNICABLE DISEASE.
THE ONE WITH THE COMMUNICABLE DISEASE,
JULY 10, 2018
16
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 61 of 189
1
THE PARTIES RECOGNIZE WHEN THAT MATTER IS ADDRESSED, HOPEFULLY
2
SUCCESSFULLY FROM A MEDICAL STANDPOINT, THEN REUNIFICATION CAN
3
OCCUR AT AN APPROPRIATE TIME.
TEN MEMBERS OF THE CLASS ARE IN CRIMINAL CUSTODY,
4
5
STATE OR FEDERAL.
6
THIS POINT IN TIME, BUT THEY WOULD BE ONCE THEY ARE RELEASED
7
TO ICE DETENTION.
SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO WAIT.
THERE ARE 12 THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
8
9
THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REUNIFICATION AT
THEY ARE PART
OF THE CLASS, THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO REUNIFICATION, BUT AT A
10
LATER TIME.
THAT REQUIRES A SEPARATE DISCUSSION, AND THERE
11
ARE MORE COMPLICATING ISSUES THAT HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED WITH
12
THOSE 12.
13
TO BE REUNITED, ABSENT THEIR CONSENT OTHERWISE.
BUT THEY ARE PART OF THE CLASS AND THEY DO DESERVE
14
SO THAT LEAVES 63.
15
THE GOVERNMENT HAS INDICATED -- AND TO RESTATE THIS.
16
OF THE GROUP OF 101 OR 102, 75 ARE SUBJECT TO BEING REUNITED.
17
12 OF THOSE ARE REMOVED AND WILL TAKE SOME TIME.
18
THERE ARE 63 THAT I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS ON TODAY.
19
THE GOVERNMENT HAS INDICATED THAT 34 ARE READY, AND
20
THEY WILL BE REUNITED TODAY.
THERE ARE 17 OTHERS THAT ARE IN ICE DETENTION.
21
16
22
NEED CONFIRMATION OF PARENTAGE, AND ONE HAS CRIMINAL HISTORY
23
PENDING.
24
25
AND IT SEEMS TO ME WITH THE PROCEDURES SET OUT TODAY
THAT THOSE 17 CAN BE ADDRESSED AND REUNITED TODAY, OR WITHIN
JULY 10, 2018
17
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 62 of 189
1
2
3
4
THE IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY OF TODAY.
THERE ARE EIGHT THAT HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM ICE,
AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THEY CAN BE REUNITED TODAY, AS WELL.
AND SO IN THAT REGARD WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS
5
MEET AGAIN THIS FRIDAY AT 1:00 O'CLOCK, WITH THE PARTIES TO
6
SUBMIT A STATUS REPORT THURSDAY BY 3:00 P.M., PACIFIC TIME,
7
GIVING AN UPDATE ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNDER-FIVE GROUP AND
8
GIVING A STATUS ON THE OVER-FIVE GROUP, WHICH IS -- THAT'S
9
GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT UNDERTAKING.
AND WE NEED TO HAVE
10
CONCRETE INFORMATION BY THURSDAY SO THAT MR. GELERNT AND
11
OTHERS CAN MAKE INTELLIGENT AND INFORMED DECISIONS AS TO
12
WHETHER THERE IS COMPLIANCE AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO MAKE
13
REUNIFICATION HAPPEN.
14
WE NEED ANOTHER LIST OF THE OVER-FIVE GROUP.
15
GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT UNDERTAKING.
16
INDIVIDUAL LIST, IT MAY BE BY CATEGORY.
17
THAT'S
HAVE THE PARTIES MEET AND CONFER IN THAT REGARD.
18
IT MAY BE AN
I WILL JUST SIMPLY
IF THERE IS A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE UNDER-FIVE
19
GROUP THEN, MR. GELERNT, WHAT I ASK THAT YOU DO IS PUT THAT IN
20
THE THURSDAY SUBMISSION AND WE CAN ADDRESS IT ON FRIDAY.
21
IF YOU BELIEVE THERE IS A FAILURE TO COMPLY -- AND HERE I AM
22
REALLY FOCUSING ON THE 63.
23
MR. GELERNT:
24
THE COURT:
25
AND
RIGHT.
IF THERE IS A FAILURE TO COMPLY I WOULD
LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IT IS AND WHAT YOU ARE SEEKING BY WAY OF
JULY 10, 2018
18
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 63 of 189
1
2
3
REMEDY.
AND WITH THAT, MR. GELERNT, DO YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS?
I THINK THE GOVERNMENT MAY HAVE MORE
4
MR. GELERNT:
5
QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.
6
HAD A COUPLE OF JUST CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
THAT ALL SEEMS FINE TO US.
I THINK I
WHEN YOU WERE SAYING 101 OR 102 WAS THAT BECAUSE OF
THE ONE CHILD WHO THEY HAVEN'T IDENTIFIED?
THE COURT:
YES.
THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING THAT.
DO WE HAVE ANY -- THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE IS WHAT
THE GOVERNMENT PUT IN ITS LAST BRIEFING?
MR. GELERNT:
RIGHT.
AND WE ARE TRYING TO MOBILIZE
EVERYONE WE CAN JUST TO FIGURE IT OUT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE GOVERNMENT HAS MORE INFORMATION
15
ABOUT THAT ONE CHILD THAT THEY GOT THIS MORNING THAT WE ARE
16
NOT AWARE OF.
17
18
19
THE COURT:
THERE WAS INFORMATION THAT THAT CHILD
MAY BE A U.S. CITIZEN.
MS. FABIAN:
IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION?
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE PARENT MAY BE A
20
U.S. CITIZEN AND THERE WAS A CRIMINAL HISTORY WITH THE PARENT.
21
BUT THAT -- BASED ON THAT IT MAY BE THAT THE CHILD IS ALSO A
22
U.S. CITIZEN.
23
INTO THAT.
SO THAT IS -- I THINK THE CLIENTS ARE LOOKING
24
SO IT MAY BE THAT THE PARENT IS NOT A CLASS MEMBER,
25
BUT IN ANY EVENT THEY ARE LOOKING INTO THE SITUATION WITH THE
JULY 10, 2018
19
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 64 of 189
1
CHILD TO RESOLVE IT, EVEN OUTSIDE OF THIS LITIGATION.
IS THERE A LINK-UP; SO, IN OTHER WORDS,
2
THE COURT:
3
DO YOU KNOW WHO THE PARENT IS?
4
MS. FABIAN:
YEAH.
I BELIEVE SO.
THAT THEY HAVE
5
NOW IDENTIFIED THE PERSON THEY BELIEVE IS THE PARENT, AND THAT
6
IS SORT OF -- THAT'S WHY WE WERE ABLE TO GIVE THE ADDITIONAL
7
INFORMATION IN TODAY'S FILING.
8
THE COURT:
9
WE WILL ADDRESS IT ON FRIDAY.
SO ON THAT CHILD I WILL SIMPLY WAIT AND
THAT'S FINE, YOUR HONOR.
10
MR. GELERNT:
11
WE WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU GIVE US AND LATEST
12
INFORMATION ON THAT, WHENEVER YOU HAVE IT.
13
A U.S. CITIZEN THEY SHOULD BE -- RIGHT.
14
MS. FABIAN:
SURE.
OBVIOUSLY IF IT IS
WE ARE LOOKING INTO THAT
15
SITUATION.
IT MAY NOT THEN BE INVOLVED IN THIS LITIGATION,
16
BUT BECAUSE WE ARE AWARE OF IT, OF COURSE WE WILL TRY TO
17
RESOLVE IT IN THE CORRECT WAY.
18
THE COURT:
19
MS. FABIAN:
YES.
AND IF THE CHILD IS A U.S. CITIZEN THEY
20
ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO STAY IN O.R.R. CUSTODY SO THEY -- WE WOULD
21
DO THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR A RELEASE.
22
23
THE COURT:
MS. FABIAN, ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WE
HAVE COVERED?
24
MS. FABIAN:
25
THE COURT:
I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
YES.
JULY 10, 2018
20
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 65 of 189
1
AND THEN MR. STEWART DOES -- WE HAVE
MS. FABIAN:
2
ONE ISSUE THAT WE WANTED TO RAISE TO THE COURT TODAY THAT HAS
3
COME UP IN LIGHT OF JUDGE GEE'S RULING IN THE FLORES CASE, SO
4
MR. STEWART WILL SPEAK TO THAT.
5
THE COURT:
6
MS. FABIAN:
YES.
BUT I WANTED TO RAISE A COUPLE OF
7
ISSUES JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I AM UNDERSTANDING THE COURT'S
8
RULING.
9
THE DNA, YOUR HONOR HAD NOTED THAT IT SHOULD BE
10
CONDUCTED WHEN NECESSARY.
BASED ON THE DEADLINE OF TODAY, YOU
11
HAD ALSO EXPRESSED THAT IT COULD BE -- IT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE
12
WHEN NECESSARY TO MEET THE DEADLINE.
13
FOR THE 16 WHO ARE STILL PENDING DNA THEY HAVE -- IT
14
IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY HAVE IN FACT BEEN TESTED BUT THE
15
TEST RESULTS HAVE NOT BEEN RECEIVED.
16
SO THE QUESTION -- I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT I
17
EXPECT -- SOME OF THOSE HAVE COME IN OVER THE COURSE OF THE
18
MORNING AND FOLKS HAVE MOVED INTO THE RELEASE-TODAY GROUP.
19
EXPECTATION WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD CONTINUE TO DO THAT AS
20
THOSE RESULTS COME IN.
21
THEY WOULD MOVE INTO THAT GROUP.
22
MIGHT BE TOMORROW.
23
CONSISTENT WITH YOUR HONOR'S RULING TODAY.
24
25
MY
ASSUMING THAT THEY ARE POSITIVE, THAT
THAT MIGHT BE TODAY, IT
I WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THAT IS
THE COURT:
I AM ASSUMING THOSE ARE RELATIVELY
STRAIGHTFORWARD, SIMPLE TESTS, THAT THEY CAN BE PROVIDED OVER
JULY 10, 2018
21
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 66 of 189
1
TO THE GOVERNMENT AND DETERMINATIONS CAN BE MADE TODAY.
IF
2
THEY ARE PARENTS AND ALL OF THE OTHER CRITERIA ARE MET, THEN I
3
WOULD EXPECT REUNIFICATION TODAY.
IF THERE IS A FAILURE, THEN IT WOULD NEED TO BE
4
5
ADDRESSED IN THE THURSDAY STATUS REPORT.
6
I AM LOOKING FOR IS GOOD FAITH, LEGITIMATE, ARTICULABLE
7
REASONS FOR ANY FAILURE TO COMPLY.
8
BE SEEKING.
9
MS. FABIAN:
AND, OF COURSE, WHAT
AND SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD
AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THERE IS
10
JUST SORT OF A TIME PERIOD BETWEEN WHEN THE SWABS ARE TAKEN
11
AND THEY ARE SENT TO THE COMPANY DOING THE TESTS.
12
THE COURT:
13
MS. FABIAN:
14
YES.
AND RECEIVING THE RESULTS.
SO WE HAVE
NOT RECEIVED RESULTS FOR THOSE 16.
15
THE COURT:
THEY NEED TO RESPOND.
SO THIS IS NOT AN
16
INVITATION FOR THEM TO TAKE TIME DOING THE SWAB, THEY CAN DO
17
IT, THEY CAN DO IT QUICKLY.
SO THEY NEED TO BE -- AND I AM SURE THEY ARE AWARE
18
19
OF THE DEADLINE.
20
PROVIDED TODAY; AND, IF NOT, THEN OF COURSE I WILL KEEP AN
21
OPEN MIND AS TO WHAT THE EXPLANATION IS.
22
23
24
25
SO I WOULD EXPECT THAT THESE TESTS WILL BE
MS. FABIAN:
OKAY.
I WILL FIND OUT WHAT THE DELAY
IS.
I GUESS THE CORE QUESTION IS, IF THEY ARE NOT
RECEIVED TODAY IS YOUR HONOR ORDERING THAT THOSE CHILDREN BE
JULY 10, 2018
22
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 67 of 189
1
RELEASED, REGARDLESS OF RECEIVING THOSE RESULTS TODAY, OR
2
WOULD YOU PREFER WAIT PENDING RESULTS BUT GIVE YOU AN
3
EXPLANATION FOR THAT DELAY?
4
THE COURT:
YES.
BECAUSE THE IMPORTANT THING IS NOT
5
TO LOSE SIGHT OF THE CRITERIA, AND I THINK THE CRITERIA ARE
6
VERY CLEAR, THEY ARE OBJECTIVE, AND THEY HAVE BEEN IN PLACE
7
SINCE THE INJUNCTION WAS ISSUED, ABOUT PARENTAGE, FITNESS,
8
DANGER.
THOSE CATEGORIES I THINK ARE CLEAR.
UNDERSTOOD, YOUR HONOR.
9
MS. FABIAN:
10
MR. GELERNT:
11
THE COURT:
12
MR. GELERNT:
YOUR HONOR, COULD I JUST ADDRESS THAT?
YES.
THE ONE THING WE WOULD ASK IS IT
13
SOUNDS -- I AM NOT SURE BUT COUNSEL FOR GOVERNMENT MAY BE
14
SUGGESTING THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET ALL OF THE DNA TESTS
15
TODAY AND I DON'T -- OR AT LEAST IS NOT ABLE TO PROMISE THAT
16
HERE NOW.
THE ONE THING I WOULD SAY IS, YOUR HONOR HAS MADE
17
18
CLEAR THAT DNA TESTING DOESN'T NEED TO BE DONE IN EVERY CASE,
19
IT SHOULD BE DONE WHEN NECESSARY.
20
PARENTS HAD SUBMITTED BIRTH CERTIFICATES AND OTHER
21
DOCUMENTATION, THEN I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THOSE KIDS CAN BE
22
RELEASED.
23
THE COURT HAS SAID THOSE AREN'T NECESSARY IN EVERY CASE.
24
YOU HAVE DOCUMENTATION THAT THE PARENT IS THE PARENT AND THERE
25
IS ALSO -- THE CASE MANAGER WITH THE KID WILL LIKELY HAVE SOME
SO IF THOSE 16 KIDS, THOSE
BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING THE DNA TEST, NOW
JULY 10, 2018
IF
23
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 68 of 189
1
SENSE OF IT, AS WELL.
2
WE WOULD ASK THAT IT NOT BE DELAYED IF THE 16 DNA
3
VERIFICATIONS DON'T COME IN TODAY IF YOU HAVE OTHER WAYS OF
4
VERIFYING THE PARENTAGE.
5
THE COURT:
6
I AGREE.
MS. FABIAN:
I AGREE WITH THAT AS WELL, YOUR HONOR.
7
AND I SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT.
8
PROCESS THAT IS ONGOING TODAY.
9
I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS ANOTHER
SO WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS, IF THERE IS NOT OTHER
10
DOCUMENTATION AND NO RECEIPT OF DNA, THAT WE SHOULD WAIT UNTIL
11
COMPLETION OF THAT PROCESS EVEN IF THAT BRINGS US TO TOMORROW,
12
BUT PROVIDE A DETAILED EXPLANATION TO THE COURT AND TO
13
PLAINTIFFS AS TO WHY THAT WAS.
14
15
16
MR. GELERNT:
I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY I DON'T --
THIS MAY BE JUST MORE OF A QUESTION FOR THE GOVERNMENT.
IS THE GOVERNMENT USING ONE DNA SERVICE?
BECAUSE I
17
KNOW THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF DNA SERVICES WHO ARE REACHING OUT
18
AND SAYING THEY WILL DO THIS, THEY WILL DO IT PRO BONO.
19
IF THINGS ARE GETTING BOTTLED-NECKED BECAUSE THERE
20
IS ONLY ONE DNA SERVICE THE GOVERNMENT IS USING, THAT WOULD
21
ALSO BE SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO RAISE.
22
IT MAY BE NOT AN ISSUE GOING FORWARD BECAUSE THE
23
COURT HAS SAID ONLY USE DNA WHEN NECESSARY IF THERE IS NO
24
OTHER VERIFICATION PROCESS THAT CAN BE -- THAT CAN BE USED.
25
BUT EVEN IF FOR NOW, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHETHER THERE IS A
JULY 10, 2018
24
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 69 of 189
1
BOTTLE-NECK OF ONE.
2
THAT IS MORE A QUESTION OF GOVERNMENT COUNSEL.
3
THE COURT:
4
ON THAT ISSUE, I WILL LET YOU MEET AND
CONFER.
5
MR. GELERNT:
6
THE COURT:
7
WANT TO GO THAT DEEP.
8
OKAY.
WE ARE DEEP IN THE WEEDS, BUT I DON'T
OUT WITH COUNSEL.
9
10
11
MS. FABIAN:
SO YOU CAN WORK A LOT OF THOSE ISSUES
I AGREE, YOUR HONOR.
THE ONE OTHER CLARIFICATION POINT I WANTED TO MAKE,
AND I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER BUT I WANT TO BE SURE.
12
THERE WAS -- YOUR HONOR HAD SAID THAT THE PROCESS OF
13
REVIEW OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS IS A PROCESS THAT YOUR HONOR FEELS
14
IS NOT NECESSARY UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDER.
15
ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WE HAD IDENTIFIED,
16
BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY IN THE REUNIFICATION PROCESS, THE
17
HOUSEHOLD MEMBER WAS DETERMINED TO HAVE A BACKGROUND OF
18
SERIOUS SEXUAL ABUSE.
19
PERSON IS NOW ON THE LIST AS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REUNIFICATION
20
BECAUSE THAT WAS AN IDENTIFIED DANGER.
AND I THINK YOU WILL SEE THAT THAT
21
DOES YOUR HONOR -- SHOULD WE MOVE THAT PERSON INTO
22
THE CATEGORY FOR RELEASE BECAUSE THAT WAS IDENTIFIED THROUGH
23
THE PROCEDURE THAT IS BEING REMOVED, OR IS IT ACCEPTABLE TO
24
LEAVE THEM IN THIS CATEGORY SINCE WE HAVE AT THIS TIME
25
IDENTIFIED THAT AS A POTENTIAL DANGER?
JULY 10, 2018
25
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 70 of 189
1
THE COURT:
I THINK BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED
2
AS A POTENTIAL DANGER THAT THAT PERSON WOULD -- THE
3
REUNIFICATION WOULD NOT GO FORWARD ABSENT A DIFFERENT
4
PLACEMENT.
5
BUT THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE -- THAT IS THE KIND OF
6
ISSUE THAT I WOULD LIKE THE PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER, AND
7
THEN IF THERE IS DISAGREEMENT TO RAISE IT WITH THE COURT.
BUT FOR PURPOSES OF THE DEADLINE TODAY, THAT PERSON
8
9
WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE REUNIFICATION GROUP BECAUSE THE
10
GOVERNMENT HAS MADE A PROFFER THAT THERE IS A DANGER TO THE
11
CHILD, AND SO IT WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE REUNIFICATION
12
CATEGORY.
13
MR. GELERNT:
YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING
14
WHERE WE CAN MEET AND CONFER BECAUSE IF THE INFORMATION IS
15
WRONG ABOUT THE HOUSEHOLD MEMBER WE WOULD WANT TO TELL YOU.
16
IF THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT, WE WOULD WANT TO TAKE STEPS TO
17
GET THAT MOTHER AND CHILD OUT.
18
THE COURT:
19
MR. GELERNT:
RIGHT.
SO THAT IS SOMETHING I HOPE THAT WE
20
CAN CONFER ABOUT TODAY AND TRY AND CLEAR THAT UP.
21
TURNS OUT THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT WE WILL TAKE STEPS TO GET
22
THAT MOTHER AND CHILD OUT.
23
THE COURT:
AND IF IT
BETWEEN THE TWO, THERE IS ENORMOUS
24
RESOURCES, WITH THE GOVERNMENT, AND MR. GELERNT HAS MARSHALED
25
AN ARMY OF NGO'S, FAITH-BASED GROUPS, CITIZENS ALL OVER THE
JULY 10, 2018
26
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 71 of 189
1
COUNTRY WHO WANT TO HELP OUT.
AND SO MUCH OF THIS CAN BE
2
WORKED OUT THROUGH A MEET-AND-CONFER PROCESS.
THE GOAL, OF COURSE, IS TIMELY AND SAFE
3
4
REUNIFICATION.
AND BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES IT SEEMS TO ME
5
THAT THAT CAN HAPPEN, ON TIME AND IN THE SPIRIT OF THE COURT'S
6
ORDER.
7
MR. GELERNT:
8
MS. FABIAN:
9
YES, YOUR HONOR.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER REQUESTS FOR
CLARIFICATION, EXCEPT THAT I NOTE THAT THE PARTIES DID HAVE A
10
QUESTION ABOUT THE TIME FRAMES FOR REMOVED PARENTS.
11
-- THAT MAY NOT BE AN ISSUE TODAY SO MAYBE IT IS ONE THAT WE
12
ADDRESS IN FUTURE STATUS CONFERENCES WHEN WE HAVE REAL
13
EXAMPLES.
14
THE COURT:
YES.
I DON'T
THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS SOME
15
COMPLEXITY TO IT, AND I THINK BOTH SIDES INDICATED YOU WOULD
16
LIKE ADDITIONAL TIME TO CONSIDER IT.
17
BENEFIT OF MORE INFORMATION, BRIEFING ON THAT.
18
MR. GELERNT:
19
THE COURT:
21
MR. GELERNT:
IS THAT SOMETHING WE COULD PUT IN THE
THURSDAY SUBMISSION?
20
I WOULD ALSO, WITH THE
YES.
SO WE COULD CONFER ABOUT THAT.
I
22
THINK WE ARE -- I THINK NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH TIME THE
23
GOVERNMENT NEEDS ONCE THE PERSON IS FOUND.
24
PUT A DEADLINE ON FINDING THE PERSON WHO HAS BEEN REMOVED, BUT
25
WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO TRY TO PUT A DEADLINE ON ONCE THE PARENT
JULY 10, 2018
WE OBVIOUSLY CAN'T
27
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 72 of 189
1
IS FOUND THEN HOW MUCH TIME SHOULD THERE BE TO REUNIFY.
YES.
2
THE COURT:
3
MR. GELERNT:
4
THE COURT:
SO THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD TRY AND DO.
THIS IS GOING TO BE A BIG ISSUE, IT
5
APPEARS, BECAUSE IF WE HAVE 12 OUT OF 101 OR 102, WHEN WE LOOK
6
AT THE NEXT 28, 2900 INDIVIDUALS I AM ASSUMING THERE IS GOING
7
TO BE A COMMENSURATE NUMBER OF PARENTS WHO HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
RIGHT.
8
MR. GELERNT:
9
THE COURT:
10
PARTIES TO CONSIDER CAREFULLY.
SO IT IS ONE THAT I WOULD LIKE THE
11
MR. GELERNT:
12
THE COURT:
13
RIGHT.
AND WE CAN ADDRESS THAT AT THE NEXT
STATUS CONFERENCE.
14
MS. FABIAN:
I THINK AN IMPORTANT ISSUE ON THAT WILL
15
BE THAT THE CHILDREN MAY BE IN THEIR OWN PROCEEDINGS AT THAT
16
TIME, AND THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL WAIVERS OF THE PARENTS TO
17
REMOVE THEM FROM THOSE PROCEEDINGS AND HAVE THOSE CLOSED.
AND SOME OF THEM MAY EVEN HAVE -- BECAUSE SOME OF
18
19
THESE REMOVALS MAY BE ONES THAT OCCURRED ACTUALLY SOME LENGTH
20
OF TIME AGO, AND SO SOME OF THOSE PARENTS -- OR SOME OF THOSE
21
CHILDREN MAY HAVE OBTAINED STATUS.
22
THE GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO THEN REMOVE THEM FROM THE UNITED
23
STATES.
24
25
AND IT WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF
THERE ARE ISSUES LIKE THOSE.
BUT I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT -- I THINK IF WE CAN IDENTIFY SOME OF THOSE WITH
JULY 10, 2018
28
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 73 of 189
1
REGARD TO REAL SITUATIONS WE CAN BETTER TEE THEM UP FOR THE
2
JUDGE -- FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE.
3
MR. GELERNT:
4
I KNOW THAT YOUR CO-COUNSEL WANTS TO RAISE SOMETHING
5
ABOUT THE FLORES ISSUE.
BUT I WAS GOING TO RAISE TWO OTHER QUICK POINTS IF
6
7
THAT SEEMS RIGHT TO ME, YOUR HONOR.
THAT IS OKAY, YOUR HONOR.
YES.
8
THE COURT:
9
MR. GELERNT:
ONE IS WE WERE SEEKING CLARIFICATION
10
FROM THE GOVERNMENT, I THINK, ON WHETHER A PARENT ONLY MEANS
11
BIOLOGICAL PARENT.
12
KNOW THEY ARE NOT THE BIOLOGICAL PARENT, BUT OTHER TIMES IT
13
MAY BE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN RAISING THE PARENT -- THE CHILD
14
SINCE THEY ARE TWO MONTHS THROUGH ADOPTION OR SOMETHING.
I MEAN, SOMETIMES A PARENT MAY NOT EVEN
AND SO I -- WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THEY ARE NOT
15
16
THE PARENT DOES THAT MEAN THEY ARE NOT THE BIOLOGICAL PARENT
17
OR THEY DON'T -- THEY ARE NOT EVEN A PARENT STATUS?
18
MS. FABIAN:
THIS IS THE FIRST I AM HEARING THIS
19
QUESTION SO I WILL ANSWER FROM WHAT I KNOW, AND CAN LOOK INTO
20
IT MORE.
21
IN THE SITUATIONS THAT I IDENTIFIED YESTERDAY, I
22
BELIEVE AT LEAST ONE, IT TURNED OUT, WAS THE GRANDMOTHER.
23
ANOTHER -- THE INDIVIDUAL ADMITTED PRIOR TO DNA TESTING THAT
24
HE WAS NOT THE PARENT.
25
SO IT IS NOT -- WE WOULD AGREE THAT AN ADOPTIVE
JULY 10, 2018
AND
29
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 74 of 189
1
PARENT WOULD -- WITH THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION, LEGAL
2
DOCUMENTATION, WOULD BE A PARENT.
THAT'S THE TYPE OF SITUATION WHERE DNA TESTING WOULD
3
4
NOT BE USEFUL AND THAT PAPERWORK WOULD BE NECESSARY, AND THAT
5
MIGHT TAKE SOME TIME TO GET THE PROPER PAPERWORK FROM THE
6
CONSULATES.
7
THAT IS HELPFUL.
MR. GELERNT:
I APOLOGIZE.
I WAS
8
NOT MEANING FOR YOU TO HAVE TO TELL ME FOR EACH PARENT SO FAR
9
WHETHER THEY WERE BIOLOGICAL, JUST WHAT THE GOVERNMENT'S
10
POSITION WAS GOING FORWARD.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE IN
11
AGREEMENT THAT, IF THERE IS AN ADOPTIVE PARENT, DNA WOULDN'T
12
PROVE THAT BUT IF THEY HAD LEGAL PAPERS SHOWING THEY WERE THE
13
ADOPTIVE PARENT WE WOULD CONSIDER THEM A PARENT WITHIN THE
14
CLASS.
15
SO THAT IS HELPFUL.
16
MS. FABIAN:
17
BE RECOGNIZED IN THIS CONTEXT.
18
SOME INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT MAY HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT WITH
19
CONSULATES, BUT THAT IS NOT -- WE DON'T DISPUTE THAT LEGAL
20
PARENTAGE APPLIES HERE.
21
MR. GELERNT:
THANK YOU.
I THINK LEGAL STATUS AS A PARENT WOULD
OBVIOUSLY WITH QUESTIONS OF
THEN THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I WAS
22
GOING TO RAISE, YOUR HONOR, IS I THINK ONE THAT YOU TOUCHED
23
ON, IS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN THE 12 PARENTS WHO HAVE BEEN
24
REMOVED, AND THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PARENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
25
REMOVED FOR THE OVER-FIVE AND ARE STILL BEING REMOVED.
JULY 10, 2018
30
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 75 of 189
1
I BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT HAS VERIFIED THIS, BUT THE
2
MEDIA IS REPORTING THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE A NUMBER OF
3
GUATEMALAN PARENTS WITH THEIR CHILDREN REMOVED TODAY, AND THEY
4
APPEAR TO BE CLASS MEMBERS.
5
THE LIST YET OF THE FIVE AND OVER.
6
WE ARE NOT SURE, WE DON'T HAVE
WE ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT ANYBODY WHO HAS AGREED TO
7
REMOVAL BEFORE THIS NOTICE HAS GOTTEN -- AND NOW THAT YOUR
8
HONOR HAS SIGNED OFF ON THE NOTICE I AM HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN
9
GET IT OUT TODAY TO THE DETENTION CENTERS.
10
BUT THE FORM THE GOVERNMENT HAD BEEN USING
11
PREVIOUSLY, IN OUR VIEW, WAS MISLEADING AND MAY HAVE SUGGESTED
12
TO THE PARENTS THE ONLY WAY TO GET YOUR CHILD BACK IS TO WAIVE
13
YOUR RIGHT TO CONTEST REMOVAL.
14
NOW, MANY OF THOSE PARENTS MAY HAVE KNOWINGLY WAIVED
15
IT AND HAD NO CLAIMS, BUT MANY OTHERS MAY HAVE HAD A SHOT AT
16
ASYLUM OR SOME OTHER CLAIM.
17
AND SO, YOU KNOW, FOR THE ONES WHO HAVE BEEN REMOVED
18
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CONTACT THEM.
19
NO FURTHER REMOVALS OF CLASS MEMBERS OCCUR UNTIL THEY HAVE
20
BEEN ABLE TO SIGN THE NEW NOTICE THAT MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT
21
YOUR HONOR'S RULING DIDN'T MAKE GETTING YOUR CHILD BACK
22
CONTINGENT UPON WAIVING YOUR RIGHT TO CONTEST REMOVAL OR APPLY
23
FOR ASYLUM.
24
25
THE COURT:
BUT WE WOULD ASK THAT
ISN'T THAT ALREADY IN PLACE?
BECAUSE
THERE IS A CLASS DEFINITION, THERE IS AN INJUNCTION IN PLACE,
JULY 10, 2018
31
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 76 of 189
1
DOESN'T THAT COVER THIS SITUATION?
2
MR. GELERNT:
WELL, IT DOES, YOUR HONOR, EXCEPT THAT
3
I DON'T KNOW THAT THE CLASS MEMBERS ON THE GROUND UNDERSTAND
4
ALL OF THEIR RIGHTS.
5
TO GET THEM NOTICE THAT HAS IT IN VERY PLAIN LANGUAGE YOU MAY
6
GET YOUR CHILD BACK, UNDER YOUR HONOR'S RULING, AND IT DOES
7
NOT MEAN YOU HAVE TO AGREE TO REMOVAL.
WE BELIEVE THE FORM THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS USING UP
8
9
AND THAT IS WHY WE THINK IT IS CRITICAL
UNTIL NOW, SINCE THE RULING, AND MAYBE EVEN A LITTLE BIT
10
BEFORE, DIDN'T MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR, BY ANY MEANS, THAT YOU
11
COULD CONTINUE TO SEEK ASYLUM OR CONTEST YOUR REMOVAL AND
12
STILL HAVE YOUR CHILD BACK.
SO THAT IS OUR CONCERN IS THAT GOING FORWARD WE
13
14
THINK IT IS GOING TO BE FINE BECAUSE THE NOTICE IS CLEAR, IT
15
HAS BOXES TO CHECK AND IT IS IN VERY CLEAR AND SIMPLE
16
LANGUAGE.
17
AGREED TO REMOVAL -- GOTTEN THEIR CHILD BACK AND AGREED TO
18
REMOVAL THAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH.
19
BUT I THINK IT IS THE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE NOW
SO I THINK IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN GO BACK AND GIVE
20
THEM THE NEW NOTICE AND HAVE THEM SIGN THE NEW NOTICE RATHER
21
THAN RELYING ON THE OLD GOVERNMENT FORM, THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD
22
BE ASKING OF YOUR HONOR.
23
THE COURT:
24
MS. FABIAN:
25
DO YOU OBJECT?
I DO OBJECT, YOUR HONOR.
THE NOTICE
THAT -- THE GOVERNMENT DID CREATE A NOTICE IMMEDIATELY
JULY 10, 2018
32
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 77 of 189
1
FOLLOWING YOUR HONOR'S ORDER.
I KNOW THAT PLAINTIFFS BELIEVE
2
IT IS UNCLEAR, WE DISAGREE BUT WE WERE WILLING TO WORK UP A
3
FORM THAT WAS -- THAT WORKED FOR THEM.
4
TOGETHER ON THAT NOTICE THAT YOUR HONOR APPROVED TODAY.
AND SO WE DID WORK
5
THE FORM -- THE INDIVIDUALS, I THINK, THAT ARE BEING
6
REFERENCED -- AND I CAN'T -- I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS IF CLASS
7
MEMBERS HAVE BEEN REMOVED SO FAR OR REALLY WHERE THEY ARE.
8
WILL LEARN MORE ABOUT THAT AS WE -- I WILL LEARN MORE ABOUT
9
THAT AS WE COMPILE INFORMATION AND SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
10
WE
REST OF THE CLASS.
BUT THE INDIVIDUALS SCHEDULED FOR REMOVAL TODAY ALL
11
12
HAVE FINAL ORDERS OF REMOVAL.
13
IMMIGRATION JUDGE, SOME ARE EXPEDITED REMOVAL ORDERS.
14
THEM CLAIMED FEAR, AND SO THEY ARE PROPERLY SUBJECT TO
15
REMOVAL.
THEY DON'T HAVE AVENUES FOR -- TO CONTEST THAT
16
REMOVAL.
THEY ALL REQUESTED TO BE REMOVED WITH THEIR CHILD
17
AND SIGNED A FORM REQUESTING TO BE REMOVED WITH THEIR CHILD.
18
AND THEREFORE THE REMOVALS THAT I UNDERSTAND, AT LEAST AS OF
19
YESTERDAY WERE SCHEDULED FOR TODAY, ARE ALL FINAL ORDER
20
INDIVIDUALS WHO REQUESTED TO BE REMOVED WITH THEIR CHILD.
21
THAT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COURT'S INJUNCTION.
22
MR. GELERNT:
SOME WERE OBTAINED BEFORE AN
NONE OF
AND
YOUR HONOR, AND WE HAVE NO REASON,
23
OBVIOUSLY, TO DISPUTE, AND WE HAVE NO BASIS.
24
BE TRUE THAT THEY ALL SIGNED THE FORM, I THINK THE DISPUTE IS
25
WHETHER THE FORM WAS MISLEADING.
JULY 10, 2018
YOU KNOW, IT MAY
33
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 78 of 189
THE OTHER THING I WOULD JUST NOTE, WHEN THE
1
2
GOVERNMENT SAYS THERE IS A FINAL ORDER, I THINK THEY ARE
3
MEANING THERE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVELY FINAL ORDER.
4
MEAN ALL AVENUES FOR CHALLENGING REMOVAL ARE GONE, BECAUSE YOU
5
COULD GO TO FEDERAL COURT TO CHALLENGE YOUR REMOVAL ORDER TO
6
THE EXTENT THOSE AVENUES ARE POSSIBLE.
7
RECONSIDERATION FROM THE AGENCY.
YOU COULD SEEK
SO I THINK THE FACT -- AND IT MAY BE THAT ALL 13 OF
8
9
IT DOESN'T
THOSE WHEN THEY GET THE NEW NOTICE WILL SAY -- IF THESE
10
REMOVALS HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED THIS MORNING THEY HAVE
11
OCCURRED, BUT TOMORROW BEFORE THE NOTICE, I MEAN, THERE IS NO
12
REASON TO RELY ON THE OLD FORMS NOW THAT THE NEW NOTICE IS
13
THERE.
14
IF THE PARENTS GENUINELY WANT TO BE REMOVED AND KNEW
15
WHAT THEY WERE DOING THEY ARE JUST SIMPLY GOING TO CHECK THE
16
NEW NOTICE FORM BOX.
17
ANY PREJUDICE TO THE GOVERNMENT.
SO I DON'T THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE
HOW MANY PARENTS, DO YOU KNOW, ARE
18
THE COURT:
19
SCHEDULED TO BE REMOVED TODAY?
20
MR. GELERNT:
THE MEDIA IS REPORTING 13 GUATEMALAN
21
FAMILIES WITH THEIR CHILDREN.
22
VERIFICATION OF THAT.
23
REACH OUT TO THE GUATEMALAN CONSULATE.
24
25
THE COURT:
WE HAVE NO INDEPENDENT
I THINK WE WERE GOING TO MAYBE TRY TO
IS IT YOUR REPRESENTATION THAT YOU
BELIEVE THESE 13, WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, ARE CLASS MEMBERS,
JULY 10, 2018
34
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 79 of 189
1
AND YOU WOULD LIKE THEM NOT TO BE REMOVED UNTIL THEY HAVE SEEN
2
THE CLASS NOTICE AND AGREED.
3
MR. GELERNT:
YOUR HONOR, I WANT TO BE CLEAR.
WE
4
HAVE NO BASIS FOR KNOWING IF THEY ARE ALL 13 CLASS MEMBERS OR
5
NOT BECAUSE WE HAVE NO INFORMATION.
6
PROBABLY ARE GIVEN THE TIMING AND THEY JUST RECEIVED THEIR
7
CHILDREN.
I AM ASSUMING THAT THEY
IF THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS THAT THE 13 ARE NOT CLASS
8
9
MEMBERS, FOR WHATEVER REASON, EITHER CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS OR
10
THEY WERE NOT PARENTS WHO HAD THEIR CHILDREN TAKEN AWAY FROM
11
THEM, THEN THAT WOULD -- WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, ACCEPT THAT
12
REPRESENTATION.
BUT IF THEY ARE CLASS MEMBERS AND IF THEY HAVEN'T
13
14
BEEN REMOVED WE WOULD ASK THAT THEY BE GIVEN THE NOTICE BEFORE
15
THEY ARE REMOVED.
16
THE COURT:
ON THAT ISSUE, I WOULD DECLINE TO ISSUE
17
ANY ORDER.
18
THE BENCH AND ISSUE AN INJUNCTION WHERE THE GOVERNMENT WOULD
19
BE PRECLUDED FROM REMOVING THOSE 13 INDIVIDUALS, AND I AM NOT
20
PREPARED TO DO THAT UNLESS THERE IS A REPRESENTATION THAT
21
THESE ARE CLASS MEMBERS.
22
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU ARE ASKING ME TO RULE FROM
MR. GELERNT:
OKAY.
YOUR HONOR, THEN, NO, I
23
UNDERSTAND.
AND I CANNOT, IN GOOD FAITH, MAKE THAT
24
REPRESENTATION BECAUSE I AM RELYING IN SIGNIFICANT PART ON THE
25
MEDIA.
IF THE GOVERNMENT, YOU KNOW, WERE TO TELL US RIGHT NOW
JULY 10, 2018
35
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 80 of 189
1
2
THAT SOME OF THEM ARE CLASS MEMBERS, THAT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT.
BUT I THINK THAT THERE COULD BE REMOVALS TOMORROW OR
3
THE NEXT DAY WHERE EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE SIGNED OFF ON THE
4
NOTICE TODAY THE GOVERNMENT IS STILL RELYING ON THE SIGNATURE
5
FOR AN OLD FORM.
6
ASKED TO SIGN THE NEW FORM BEFORE THE REMOVAL TAKES PLACE,
7
GOING FORWARD.
8
9
AND THOSE SEEM LIKE NOW THE PERSON COULD BE
I AM HAPPY TO AGREE TO GET THAT FORM
MS. FABIAN:
OUT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
YES.
10
THE COURT:
11
AND THIS, OF COURSE, DOESN'T PRECLUDE THE GOVERNMENT
12
FROM ELECTING NOT TO REMOVE THESE 13 PARENTS TODAY.
13
IS ANY DOUBT, THE GOVERNMENT MAY EXERCISE DISCRETION AND HOLD
14
THE FLIGHTS OR WHATEVER THE TRANSPORTATION METHOD IS PENDING
15
FURTHER CLARIFICATION.
16
17
18
19
IF THERE
BUT SO WE ARE CLEAR, I WOULD DECLINE THE INVITATION
TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION AS TO THOSE 13 OR SO INDIVIDUALS.
THERE WAS -- I THINK THERE WAS GOING TO BE SOME
DISCUSSION ON THE JUDGE GEE IN FLORES.
YES.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
20
MR. STEWART:
21
I AM SCOTT STEWART IN FROM DC, YOUR HONOR.
22
THE COURT:
23
MR. STEWART:
YES.
I AM WITH THE MAIN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT,
24
I HEAD THE OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION.
25
TO BE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CIVIL DIVISION.
JULY 10, 2018
I AM VERY GLAD
36
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 81 of 189
1
AS YOU CAN UNDERSTAND, YOU HAVE SEEN, THIS IS AN
2
EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT CASE TO THE GOVERNMENT, AND WE
3
APPRECIATE YOUR HONOR'S OPTIMISM, ENCOURAGEMENT, AND
4
RECOGNITION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S PROGRESS AND EFFORTS TO DATE.
5
I WANTED TO, AS MENTIONED, YOUR HONOR, TO ADDRESS AN
6
IMPORTANT POINT ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S UNDERSTANDING OF
7
COMPLIANCE WITH ANOTHER PIECE OF THIS COURT'S ORDER IN LIGHT
8
OF LAST NIGHT'S ORDER BY THE FLORES COURT.
9
IT SHOULDN'T TAKE ME LONG TO GET THROUGH, BUT I JUST
10
WANT TO MAKE SURE I LAY THE GROUNDWORK CLEARLY FOR YOUR HONOR.
YES.
11
THE COURT:
12
MR. STEWART:
LAST NIGHT, YOUR HONOR, THE FLORES
13
COURT ISSUED AN ORDER REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION
14
UNDER THE FLORES AGREEMENT.
15
THAT THE FLORES AGREEMENT CONTINUES TO REQUIRE THE RELEASE OF
16
A CHILD UNDER THE AGREEMENT EVEN WHERE THIS COURT'S INJUNCTION
17
PRECLUDES SEPARATION OF THE FAMILY.
18
IN SHORT, THE COURT CONCLUDED
IN ORDER TO READ THOSE TWO INJUNCTIONS TOGETHER,
19
YOUR HONOR, THE FLORES COURT EXPLAINED -- AS WE UNDERSTAND IT,
20
YOUR HONOR, THE FLORES COURT EXPLAINED THAT THE PARENT COULD
21
WAIVE THIS FLORES RIGHT AND CHOSE TO REMAIN TOGETHER, AND
22
OBSERVED THAT SUCH A WAIVER WAS PERMITTED UNDER THIS COURT'S
23
INJUNCTION.
24
25
IF I CAN JUST BRIEFLY EXPLAIN, YOUR HONOR.
AS YOU
UNDERSTAND, THE GOVERNMENT MUST NOW IMPLEMENT TWO EXISTING
JULY 10, 2018
37
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 82 of 189
1
INJUNCTIONS, YOUR HONOR'S AND THE FLORES COURT'S.
2
TO PROVIDE JUST NOTICE ON HOW WE INTERPRET OUR COMPLIANCE WITH
3
YOUR INJUNCTION, YOUR HONOR.
4
AND WE WANT
AS VERY QUICK BACKGROUND, THE FLORES COURT STATED
5
THAT FLORES RIGHTS COULD BE WAIVED BY A PARENT AND THAT,
6
QUOTE, DETAINED PARENTS MAY CHOOSE TO EXERCISE THEIR MS. L.
7
RIGHT TO REUNIFICATION OR TO STAND ON THEIR CHILDREN'S FLORES
8
AGREEMENT RIGHTS, END QUOTE.
9
LIKEWISE, YOUR ORDER, YOUR HONOR, ALLOWS EXCEPTIONS
10
TO REUNIFICATION, SEPARATION PROVISIONS IF THERE IS, QUOTE,
11
AFFIRMATIVE, KNOWING, AND VOLUNTARY WAIVER BY THE PARENT.
12
YOUR HONOR HAS ALSO EMPHASIZED, ON FRIDAY IN
13
PARTICULAR, AS I RECALL A COUPLE TIMES, THAT THE ATTORNEY
14
GENERAL MAKES HIS OWN DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO
15
DETAIN OR PAROLE OR RELEASE SOMEONE.
16
ORDER YOUR HONOR SAID DOESN'T IMPACT IN ANY WAY THOSE
17
DECISIONS, AND YOU WERE NOT SUGGESTING, YOUR HONOR SAID, THAT
18
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MUST RELEASE OR MUST DETAIN OR WHEN HE
19
CAN RELEASE OR DETAIN.
20
PREROGATIVE, CONSISTENT WITH LAW.
21
22
23
YOUR ORDER -- OR THE
THOSE ARE WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT'S
AND NOW I AM GETTING TO THE KEY POINT HERE, YOUR
HONOR, WHICH IS SORT OF THREE-FOLD.
FIRST, IN LIGHT OF THE FLORES RULING YESTERDAY, YOUR
24
HONOR, WE, THE GOVERNMENT, INTERPRET YOUR ORDER TO PERMIT US
25
TO PROVIDE FAMILIES DETAINED TOGETHER WITH ONE OF TWO OPTIONS.
JULY 10, 2018
38
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 83 of 189
FIRST, THE FAMILY -- THE FAMILY -- THE ADULT MAY
1
2
CHOSE TO REMAIN IN DHS CUSTODY WITH THE FAMILY TOGETHER.
3
UNDER THIS COURT'S INJUNCTION, SUBJECT TO THE NORMAL RULES ON
4
WHEN AN ALIEN WOULD BE RELEASED FROM CUSTODY, SUCH AS PAROLE,
5
SO THE FAMILY COULD STAY DETAINED.
6
THE PARENT WOULD BE ABLE TO WAIVE THE CHILD'S FLORES RIGHTS SO
7
THE CHILD COULD STAY WITH THE PARENT, REUNIFIED, CONSISTENT
8
WITH YOUR COURT'S ORDER.
AND AS THIS FIRST OPTION
THE SECOND OPTION THE GOVERNMENT CAN GIVE YOUR HONOR
9
10
IS THAT THE FAMILY, THROUGH THE PARENT, CAN AGREE TO RELEASE
11
THE CHILD TO O.R.R. CUSTODY, IN WHICH CASE THE FAMILY WOULD BE
12
SEPARATED, BUT WITH THE PARENT'S CONSENT, AS YOUR HONOR
13
ALLOWED.
14
CONSISTENT WITH FLORES.
15
RIGHT.
16
ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, CONSISTENT WITH YOUR COURT'S INJUNCTION,
17
EITHER EXERCISE THE CHILD'S FLORES RIGHT OR WAIVE THAT FLORES
18
RIGHT SO THEY COULD STAY TOGETHER.
19
AND THE CHILD WOULD BE PLACED THROUGH O.R.R. AND
SO THAT WOULD BE EXERCISING A FLORES
SO ONE OR THE OTHER, THE ADULT, YOUR HONOR, WOULD BE
THE KEY POINT THERE AND THE KEY REASON FOR THOSE TWO
20
CHOICES -- AND THIS IS WHY I READ THE INJUNCTION THIS WAY,
21
YOUR HONOR.
22
BE ABLE TO USE THIS COURT'S ORDER, TOGETHER WITH THE FLORES
23
COURT'S ORDER, TO BOOTSTRAP A RIGHT TO RELEASE, A RIGHT TO
24
HINDER, YOU KNOW, OR FORCE THE GOVERNMENT TO ALLOW PAROLE,
25
THAT SORT OF THING.
IS THAT IN NEITHER CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD THE PARENT
AGAIN, THIS IS CONSISTENT, I BELIEVE,
JULY 10, 2018
39
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 84 of 189
1
WITH YOUR HONOR'S ORDER, WITH THE LAW, AND JUST AUTHORITIES TO
2
DETAIN.
BUT, ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT -- YOU
3
4
KNOW, INFORM THE COURT THAT THAT IS HOW THE GOVERNMENT
5
UNDERSTANDS YOUR HONOR'S ORDER, TO BE ABLE TO GIVE THE PARENTS
6
THOSE TWO OPTIONS.
7
FORCED TO RELEASE SOMEONE UNDER YOUR COURT'S ORDER, YOUR
8
HONOR.
AND IN NEITHER CASE IS THE GOVERNMENT
9
AND THIS IS, AS YOU CAN UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR, AND
10
YOU, I THINK, HAVE UNDERSTOOD IT IN PREVIOUS HEARINGS IN THIS
11
REGARD.
12
THE GOVERNMENT.
13
KNOW, THE GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO DETAIN IN IMMIGRATION
14
CUSTODY THESE PARENTS.
15
THAT WOULD HINDER THOSE AUTHORITIES IF -- WE READ THAT AS AN
16
OFF-LIMITS READING AND OUT OF STEP WITH WHAT YOUR COURT'S
17
LETTER AND SPIRIT WOULD SAY.
18
THE AUTHORITY TO DETAIN AND TO PAROLE ARE CRITICAL TO
THERE ARE MANY CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH, YOU
SO ANY READING OF THE COURT'S ORDER
SO GIVEN ALL OF THOSE THAT IS -- JUST TO INFORM THE
19
COURT, YOUR HONOR, THAT IS OUR READING OF YOUR HONOR'S
20
INJUNCTION.
21
EXCEPTION TO THAT TO PLEASE -- WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE RULE ON
22
THAT AND LET US KNOW RIGHT AWAY TODAY SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO --
23
BECAUSE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE KNOW, HAVE CLARITY ON
24
THAT TO COMPLY WITH IT.
25
AND WE ASK IF THE COURT DISAGREES OR TAKES
ABSENT THAT RULING WE WILL CONTINUE -- WE WILL
JULY 10, 2018
40
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 85 of 189
1
PROCEED ON THAT SORT OF IMPLEMENTATION.
2
YOUR HONOR DISAGREES WITH ANYTHING ABOUT THAT UNDERSTANDING,
3
THAT YOU LET US KNOW RIGHT AWAY SO WE CAN MAKE SURE WE ARE IN
4
COMPLIANCE FULLY AND CAN ALSO EXPLORE APPROPRIATE OPTIONS,
5
YOUR HONOR.
6
BUT WE DO REQUEST, IF
BECAUSE IF WE -- JUST IN THE INTEREST OF FULL
7
INFORMATION, YOUR HONOR, IF WE ARE PUT TO THE CHOICE WHERE WE
8
ARE FORCED TO RELEASE PARENTS WE WILL NEED TO EVALUATE
9
OPTIONS, WE WILL NEED TO POTENTIALLY PURSUE IMMEDIATE APPEAL
10
11
TO BE ABLE TO PRESERVE OUR AUTHORITIES.
IF IT IS A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE TO RELEASE WE
12
WOULD ALSO ASK THAT YOUR HONOR STAY YOUR ORDER TO THE EXTENT
13
IT WOULD PROHIBIT, YOU KNOW, HAVING PARENTS MAKE THIS CHOICE.
14
BUT I LEAVE THOSE AS OPTIONS AND AS REQUESTS FOR
15
YOUR HONOR JUST OUT OF EMPHASIS THAT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT
16
THE GOVERNMENT HAVE CLARITY IF THE ARTICULATION AND
17
UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR COURT'S ORDER IS INCORRECT SO THAT WE
18
CAN BE SURE TO COMPLY WITH IT AND KNOW HOW TO PROCEED
19
CORRECTLY.
20
AND TO BE CLEAR, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT THAT WE
21
WOULD SEEK ANY STAY, IT IS NOT ON THE REUNIFICATION PIECE, IT
22
IS NOT ON THOSE, WE ARE FULL SPEED AHEAD ON THOSE.
23
ON THIS NARROW -- TO THE EXTENT WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
24
RELEASE PARENTS UNDER YOUR COURT'S ORDER; WHICH AGAIN I DON'T
25
THINK IS THE RIGHT READING OF YOUR COURT'S ORDER, BUT I RAISE
JULY 10, 2018
IT IS JUST
41
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 86 of 189
1
2
IT OUT OF IMPORTANCE FOR COMPLIANCE.
SO THAT IS THE KEY QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, AND THAT'S
3
OUR -- OR THE KEY ISSUE, AND THAT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S
4
UNDERSTANDING.
5
I HOPE I HAVE BEEN REASONABLY CLEAR.
THE COURT:
YES.
IF THERE IS AN APPEAL IT WOULD
6
DIVEST THIS COURT OF JURISDICTION OF ALL OF THE ISSUES, WOULD
7
IT NOT, INCLUDING REUNIFICATION?
8
MR. STEWART:
9
I DON'T BELIEVE SO, YOUR HONOR.
THIS
IS A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND, YOU KNOW, PROCEEDINGS
10
CONTINUE IN THE DISTRICT COURT, YOU KNOW, EVEN AS A PIECE OF A
11
CASE MIGHT GO UP.
12
AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW --
THE COURT:
THIS WOULD BE UNDER RULE 54, A CARVE-OUT
13
AND PIECEMEAL APPEAL, IN THEORY, IF IT IS JUST ON THIS
14
DETENTION OR RELEASE ISSUE?
15
MR. STEWART:
I AM NOT SURE IF -- WHAT THE RIGHT
16
HOOK, ASIDE FROM 1292(A), WOULD BE, YOUR HONOR.
BUT -- AND,
17
YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, WANT TO SAY SOMETHING TO
18
PREJUDICE OTHER OPTIONS.
19
WHAT WE WOULD BE SEEKING A STAY ON BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IF WE
20
WERE TO PURSUE A FAST APPELLATE STAY, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD WANT
21
-- WE WOULD NEED TO RUN IT BY YOUR HONOR FIRST, IS THAT ALL WE
22
WOULD BE SEEKING A STAY IS ON THIS PIECE.
23
REQUIRED UNDER YOUR HONOR'S ORDER TO START RELEASING PARENTS
24
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T KEEP THEM TOGETHER UNDER FLORES OR
25
SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT IS THE PIECE WE WOULD BE SEEKING A
BUT RIGHT NOW REALLY WHAT WE ARE --
JULY 10, 2018
YOU KNOW, IF WE ARE
42
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 87 of 189
1
STAY ON.
AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO GO FULL SPEED AHEAD AND
2
3
DO THE BEST WE CAN ON REUNIFICATION, AND SEE WHERE WE ARE ABLE
4
TO GO.
5
THE COURT:
IF YOU ARE REQUIRED TO RELEASE -- SO
6
THIS IS THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO FOR THE GOVERNMENT.
7
ARE REQUIRED TO RELEASE, WOULDN'T THAT BE UNDER JUDGE GEE'S,
8
FLORES?
9
IF YOU
DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE.
MR. STEWART:
I DON'T -- IT DEPENDS ON IF WE ARE
10
READING YOUR COURT'S -- IT DEPENDS ON THE RIGHT READING OF, I
11
THINK, THIS COURT'S INJUNCTION, YOUR HONOR.
12
AS JUDGE GEE SAID IN HER ORDER -- AND TO JUST QUOTE
13
THE KEY LANGUAGE -- IS THAT DETAINED PARENTS MAY CHOOSE TO
14
EXERCISE THEIR MS. L. RIGHT TO REUNIFICATION OR TO STAND ON
15
THEIR CHILDREN'S FLORES RIGHTS.
16
SO IT REALLY -- IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU UNDERSTAND THE
17
MS. L. RIGHT TO REUNIFICATION.
18
COURT'S -- THE RIGHT THAT THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED IS THAT IT
19
DOES NOT REQUIRE RELEASE OF PARENTS.
20
AND AS WE UNDERSTAND THIS
YOUR HONOR'S RULING AT THE MOTION TO DISMISS STAGE
21
WAS A DUE PROCESS RULING ABOUT FAMILY INTEGRITY AND WAS --
22
YOUR HONOR VERY CLEARLY EMPHASIZED THAT THE PLAINTIFFS HERE DO
23
NOT CHALLENGE THE GOVERNMENT'S AUTHORITY TO DETAIN.
24
WOULD NOT BE ANY PLAUSIBLE DUE PROCESS ARGUMENT TO FORCE A
25
PARENT TO RELEASE WHEN THAT PARENT, THAT ADULT, IS SUBJECT TO
JULY 10, 2018
AND THERE
43
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 88 of 189
1
DETENTION UNDER A LAWFUL AUTHORITY UNDER THE IMMIGRATION LAWS,
2
8, USC, 1225 OR THE LIKE.
SO, ANYWAY, IT DOES, I THINK -- AGAIN, IT IS A
3
4
MATTER OF INTERPRETING THE TWO INJUNCTIONS TOGETHER.
BUT IF I
5
HAVE UNDERSTOOD YOUR INJUNCTION CORRECTLY, YOUR HONOR, YOU
6
KNOW, AS KIND OF DRAWN OUT BY YOUR STATEMENTS IN COURT, WE ARE
7
NOT -- YOUR INJUNCTION DOES NOT FORCE US TO DO THAT RELEASE TO
8
THOSE PARENTS WHO WE OTHERWISE HAVE VALID AUTHORITY TO KEEP IN
9
CUSTODY.
MR. GELERNT.
10
THE COURT:
11
MR. GELERNT:
WE DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT READING.
12
OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT BOTH YOUR HONOR'S RULING AND JUDGE
13
GEE'S RULING ARE FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
YOUR HONOR WANTS REUNIFICATION, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE
14
15
TOUCH TONE IS ALWAYS WHAT THE PARENT VIEWS IS THE BEST
16
INTEREST.
17
AND KEEP THEIR CHILD WITH THEM IN FAMILY DETENTION THEY HAVE
18
THAT RIGHT -- I MEAN, SORRY -- OR WAIVE YOUR HONOR'S RULING
19
AND SAY WE WANT TO RELEASE, WE WOULD RATHER OUR CHILD BE
20
RELEASED UNDER FLORES.
21
JUDGE GEE SAID VERY CLEARLY, THE PARENT HAS THE RIGHT TO
22
EITHER KEEP THEIR CHILD WITH THEM OR NOT, SO WE AGREE WITH THE
23
GOVERNMENT'S RULING.
24
NOT UNDER YOUR RULING AND NOT UNDER JUDGE GEE'S FLORES RULING
25
WHICH APPLIES TO THE CHILDREN, IT IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOME
SO IF THE PARENT WANTS TO WAIVE THEIR FLORES RIGHTS
I THINK THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID AND WHAT
ANY RELEASE BY THE PARENT IS GOING TO BE
JULY 10, 2018
44
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 89 of 189
1
SEPARATE ACTION WHERE THE PARENT SAYS, I HAVE A DUE PROCESS
2
RIGHT TO GET OUT OF DETENTION.
3
I THINK THERE PROBABLY IS THAT DUE PROCESS RIGHT.
4
JUDGE BOASBERG IN DC JUST TALKED ABOUT THAT, BUT IT DOESN'T
5
IMPLICATE YOUR RULING OR JUDGE GEE'S RULING.
6
IS WE AGREE WITH THE --
7
THE COURT:
THE SHORT OF IT
WHAT IF THE PARENT DOES NOT AGREE TO BE
8
SEPARATED AND HAVE THE CHILD RELEASED TO O.R.R. AND DOES NOT
9
AGREE TO JOINT DETENTION IN A FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CENTER.
10
UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT THE GOVERNMENT IS LEFT WITH THE
11
HOBSON'S CHOICE OF THEN HAVING TO RELEASE THE PARENT BECAUSE
12
UNDER FLORES THEY CAN ONLY HOLD THE TWO FOR 20 DAYS IN
13
DETENTION, BUT IF THE PARENT IS SAYING THEY DON'T WANT JOINT
14
DETENTION THEN DO THEY HAVE TO RELEASE THE PARENT.
15
ASSUME --
16
MR. GELERNT:
AS I
AND LET'S
YOUR HONOR, I WISH THAT FLORES WENT
17
THAT FAR AND REQUIRED THE RELEASE OF THE PARENT.
18
PARENT SAID, I WANT MY CHILD WITH ME UNDER MS. L. AND I DON'T
19
WANT TO BE HERE IN DETENTION LONG-TERM, I WANT TO BE RELEASED;
20
FLORES DOES NOT GIVE THE PARENT THAT RIGHT.
21
IF THE
IF THE PARENT IS GOING TO GET OUT WITH THEIR -- THEY
22
ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BRING A SEPARATE SUIT.
23
GOING TO WIN, MAYBE THEY ARE NOT UNDER DUE PROCESS.
24
WOULD BE A BASIC CLAIM OF, THE GOVERNMENT CAN ONLY DETAIN ME
25
IF I AM A FLIGHT RISK OR A DANGER.
JULY 10, 2018
MAYBE THEY ARE
AND THAT
45
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 90 of 189
BUT NOTHING IN FLORES WOULD REQUIRE THE GOVERNMENT
1
2
TO RELEASE THAT FAMILY UNIT IF THE MOTHER SAID, I WANT MY
3
CHILD HERE BUT I DON'T FEEL LIKE BEING IN DETENTION.
4
THE COURT:
OKAY.
THIS MIGHT BE THE HAPPY SITUATION
5
WHERE, IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, MR. GELERNT, YOU ARE
6
AGREEING WITH WHAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS OUTLINED.
7
SO WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE, BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS
8
ASKING FOR A DETERMINATION BY THE COURT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE,
9
IS THAT YOU MEET AND CONFER.
10
AGREEMENT --
11
MR. GELERNT:
12
THE COURT:
13
14
IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE IN
WE ARE.
-- AND SIMPLY SEND ME A JOINT MOTION AND
ORDER.
MR. GELERNT:
THAT'S FINE, YOUR HONOR.
WE WOULD
15
JUST SAY THAT IT WOULD SAY THAT A PARENT CAN ALWAYS WAIVE THE
16
REUNIFICATION RIGHT AND THEY CAN ALWAYS WAIVE THE FLORES RIGHT
17
TO RELEASE; BECAUSE ULTIMATELY OUR VIEW IS, IN BOTH CASES, THE
18
TOUCH TONE IS THE PARENT MAKES THE DECISION, WHERE THEY ARE
19
FIT AND NOT ABUSIVE, FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.
20
THINK THAT SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE DONE VERY, VERY QUICKLY TODAY.
21
22
23
24
25
THE COURT:
OKAY.
SO I
I WILL BE LOOKING OUT FOR THE
JOINT MOTION AND ORDER.
MR. STEWART:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE.
THE COURT:
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
JULY 10, 2018
I
46
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 91 of 189
1
MR. STEWART:
I SHOULD APOLOGIZE, YOUR HONOR.
I MAY
2
MISS THE FRIDAY HEARING BECAUSE I HAVE TO GO UP TO SAN
3
FRANCISCO TO ADDRESS ANOTHER UNACCOMPANIED MINOR CASE IN THE
4
NINTH CIRCUIT.
5
OUT THE COURT AND CONTINUE -- I WILL BE FURTHERING COMPLIANCE
6
WITH THE COURT'S INJUNCTION AS BEST POSSIBLE.
BUT OTHERWISE I WOULD BE HERE TO TRY TO HELP
VERY GOOD.
7
THE COURT:
8
MR. STEWART:
9
THE COURT:
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
LET'S RECESS.
I WILL LOOK FOR FORWARD
10
TO THE JOINT STATUS REPORT ON THURSDAY, AND THEN WE WILL MEET
11
AGAIN FRIDAY AT 1:00 O'CLOCK.
12
THANK YOU.
13
MS. FABIAN:
14
MR. GELERNT:
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
15
16
17
18
19
*
*
*
I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A CORRECT
TRANSCRIPT FROM THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER.
S/LEEANN PENCE
7/10/2018
LEEANN PENCE, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
DATE
20
21
22
23
24
25
JULY 10, 2018
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 92 of 189
Exhibit W
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 93 of 189
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Enforcement and Removal Operations
Separated Parent’s Removal Form
Purpose: This form is for detained alien parents with administratively final orders of removal who are class
members in the Ms. L. v. I.C.E., No. 18-0428, (S.D. Cal. Filed Feb. 26, 2018) lawsuit. Class members are
entitled to be reunited with their child(ren) and may choose for their child(ren) to accompany them on their
removal or may choose to be removed without their child(ren). Any such decision must be made
affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily.
Instructions: This form must be read to the alien parent in a language that he/she understands. The alien
parent should indicate which option he/she is choosing by signing the appropriate box below.
Parent Name / Nombre de Padre: ________________________________________________________
Parent A # / A # de Padre: ______________________________________________________________
Country of Citizenship / Pais de Ciudadania: ______________________________________________
Detention Facility / El Centro de Detención: _______________________________________________
Child(ren) Name(s) / Nombre de Hijo:
___________________________________________________________
Child(ren) A # / A # de Hijo: ____________________________________________________________
Shelter / Albergue: ____________________________________________________________________
English: I am requesting to reunite with my child(ren) for the purpose of repatriation to my country of
citizenship.
Signature / Firma: ________________________________________________________________________
English: I am affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily requesting to return to my country of citizenship
without my minor child(ren) who I understand will remain in the United States to pursue available claims of
relief.
Signature / Firma: ________________________________________________________________________
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this form was served by me at________________________
(Location)
on ___________________________ on _____________________________, and the contents of this
(Name of Alien)
(Date of Service)
notice were read to him or her in the __________________________ language.
(Language)
___________________________________ __________________________________________
Name and Signature of Officer
Name or Number of Interpreter (if applicable)
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 94 of 189
Exhibit X
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 9927-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 95 ofPage 1 of 10
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/10/18 PageID.1966 189
1 CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
2 SCOTT G. STEWART
3 Deputy Assistant Attorney General
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
4 Director
5 Office of Immigration Litigation
U.S. Department of Justice
6
WILLIAM C. SILVIS
7 Assistant Director
Office of Immigration Litigation
8
SARAH B. FABIAN
9 Senior Litigation Counsel
NICOLE MURLEY
10
Trial Attorney
11 Office of Immigration Litigation
U.S. Department of Justice
12
Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
13 Washington, DC 20442
Telephone: (202) 532-4824
14
Fax: (202) 616-8962
15
ADAM L. BRAVERMAN
16
United States Attorney
17 SAMUEL W. BETTWY
Assistant U.S. Attorney
18
California Bar No. 94918
19 Office of the U.S. Attorney
880 Front Street, Room 6293
20
San Diego, CA 92101-8893
21 619-546-7125
22 619-546-7751 (fax)
Lee Gelernt*
Judy Rabinovitz*
Anand Balakrishnan*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
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
23 Attorneys for Federal Respondents24 Defendants
Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice
25
26
27
28
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
Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280)
Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 343-1198
F: (415) 395-0950
skang@aclu.org
samdur@aclu.org
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 9927-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 96 ofPage 2 of 10
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/10/18 PageID.1967 189
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1
2
Case No. 18cv428 DMS MDD
MS. L, et al.,
3
Petitioners-Plaintiffs,
4
5
JOINT STATUS REPORT
REGARDING REUNIFICATION
vs.
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
6 ENFORCEMENT, et al.,
7
Respondents-Defendants.
8
9
10
On July 9, 2018, this Court held a status conference, and ordered the parties
11
12 to file a joint report on July 10, 2018, “setting forth how many Class Members
13 have been or will be reunited with their children by the court-imposed deadline,
14
and how many Class Members may not be reunited with their children by the
15
16 court-imposed deadline due to legitimate logistical impediments that render timely
17 compliance impossible or excusable . . . .” ECF No. 95 at 2. The parties submit this
18
joint status report in accordance with the Court’s instruction.
19
I.
COMPLIANCE
20
21
A. Defendants’ Position
22
23
As previously reported to the Court, Defendants have identified 102 children
24 under age 5 who, upon initial review by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
25 Services (“HHS”) were determined potentially to have been separated from a
26
parent, and who therefore were potentially the children of class members. Upon
27
28
1
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 9927-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 97 ofPage 3 of 10
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/10/18 PageID.1968 189
1 further review, and based on the latest available information at the time of filing,
2 Defendants report the following regarding the reunification scenarios for those 102
3
children.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Not Eligible For Reunification
• 14 are not eligible for reunification because their parents are not class
members.
o 8 parents had serious criminal history discovered during
background checks (criminal histories identified include child
cruelty and narcotics, human smuggling, a warrant for murder,
and robbery).
o 5 adults were determined not to be the parent of the
accompanying child.
o 1 parent faces credible evidence of child abuse.
• 2 are not eligible for reunification because their parents are not class
members at this time.
o 1 parent has been determined to present a danger to the child at
this time because an adult in the household where the parent
plans to live with the child has an outstanding warrant for
aggravated criminal sexual abuse against a 10 year old girl.
This determination can be reconsidered if the parent identifies a
different living situation.
o 1 parent detained in ICE custody is currently being treated for a
communicable disease. When the parent no longer has a
communicable disease, the reunification process can proceed.
• 10 are not eligible for reunification at this time. They will be assessed
for reunification after they are released from criminal custody,
provided that Defendants are made aware of that release.
o 8 parents are in the custody of U.S. Marshals Service. They will
be assessed for reunification after they are released from
criminal custody and are transferred to U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody.
o 2 additional parents are in state or county custody. They will be
assessed for reunification after they are released from criminal
28
2
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 9927-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 98 ofPage 4 of 10
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/10/18 PageID.1969 189
1
2
3
4
5
6
custody, provided that Defendants are made aware of that
release.
• 1 child cannot be reunified at this time because the parent’s location
has been unknown for more than a year. Defendants are unable to
conclusively determine whether the parent is a class member, and
records show the parent and child might be U.S. citizens.
Likely Eligible For Reunification
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
• 4 children were reunified with family members before the July 10
deadline.
o 1 was released to a parent that ICE released into the U.S.
o 1 was released to a parent in the U.S. with the other parent
being deported.
o 1 was released to a parent in the U.S. with the other parent
being still in ICE custody
o 1 voluntarily departed with the child’s adult sibling, with the
consent of the parent who is still in ICE custody.
• 51 are eligible for reunification with a parent who is currently in ICE
detention.
o 34 parents have cleared a criminal background check and
parentage has been verified through a positive DNA match.
They are expected to be reunified on July 10, 2018.
o 16 parents have cleared a criminal background check but the
process for verifying parentage has not yet been completed.
They are expected to be reunified on July 10, 2018, or as soon
thereafter as parentage can be verified.
o 1 parent has criminal background check results that are still in
question and are being resolved today.
• 20 are eligible for reunification but cannot be reunified by July 10 due
to legitimate logistical impediments that render timely compliance
impossible or excusable.
o 12 of those parents were removed from the United States. The
Government will work with Plaintiffs’ counsel to contact these
12 parents and determine whether they wish to have their child
reunified with them in their home country. The parties’
28
3
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 9927-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 99 ofPage 5 of 10
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/10/18 PageID.1970 189
proposals regarding the process to be followed for these
individuals are laid out below.
o 8 parents were previously released into the United States and
are undergoing safety and suitability screening in accordance
with the TVPRA.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Defendants contend that the above numbers show that Defendants are in
compliance with the Court’s order. Of the 75 children eligible for reunification,
7
8
Defendants have already reunified 4, and expect to reunify 34 by the July 10
9 deadline, and 16 soon thereafter pending confirmation of eligibility. Of the
10
remaining 20, 8 will be reunified as soon as HHS can determine that the parent is
11
12
not unfit or a danger to the child in accordance with its existing procedures under
13 the TVPRA, and the remaining 12 may be reunified if their parents can be located
14
and if those parents request reunification, and reunification is otherwise proper
15
16
under the Court’s order. Moreover, of the 27 children not currently eligible for
17 reunification, 14 have parents who are not class members, and the remaining 13
18
may be reunified if and when their parents no longer present a danger, have a
19
20 communicable disease, or are in criminal custody so long as ICE is aware of their
21 release, and it is otherwise determined that they meet the criteria for reunification.
22
Thus, any children not being reunified by the July 10 deadline are not being
23
24 reunified because of legitimate logistical impediments that render timely
25 compliance impossible or excusable, and so Defendants are complying with the
26
Court’s order.
27
28
4
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 99 Filed 07/10/18 PageID.1971 of 189 6 of 10
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 100 Page
B. Plaintiffs’ Position
1
2
Plaintiffs do not agree that Defendants have fully complied with the initial
3
4
reunification deadlines in the Court’s preliminary injunction order. Plaintiffs
5 received Defendants’ updated numbers within the past hour, and have no
6
independent verification that these numbers are accurate, or that there are not
7
8
additional children under five who should be on the government’s list. Plaintiffs,
9 however, can state the following: By today’s deadline, Defendants only plan to
10
reunify about half of the parents with children under five years old. Plaintiffs
11
12
recognize that Defendants cannot yet reunify the parents who are currently being
13 held in criminal custody. But as to all other Class Members with children under
14
five, the government is not in compliance with the clear deadline ordered by the
15
16
17
18
Court.
1.
For the Class Members who were deported without their children,
Defendants have not even tried to contact them or facilitate their reunification by
19
20 today. Their children are stranded in this country because of Defendants’ actions,
21 and yet Defendants have apparently done nothing to facilitate their reunification.
22
2.
For the Class Members who have been released from custody,
23
24 Defendants have not explained why they could not facilitate their reunification by
25 the deadline. Defendants have all of these parents’ contact information, and there
26
are apparently only 8 of them. To the extent Defendants have chosen to subject
27
28
5
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 99 Filed 07/10/18 PageID.1972 of 189 7 of 10
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 101 Page
1 these parents to ORR’s lengthy sponsorship process, Plaintiffs do not believe those
2 procedures are required. Moreover, even if Defendants believed those procedures
3
would prevent them from reunifying 8 parents in two weeks, they should have
4
5 informed the Court far earlier than last Friday’s status conference, a mere four days
6
before the deadline.
7
3.
8
There are Class Members that Defendants do not currently plan to
9 release today, because Defendants have not yet completed their DNA tests.
10
Defendants have not explained why they could not complete these tests or verify
11
12
parentage through other means by today’s deadline.
13
14
4.
There is one child for whom Defendants have not even identified a
parent. They have not explained what steps they have taken to find this Class
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Member.
II.
DEADLINES
• Removed Parents: Defendants have provided to Plaintiffs the date of
removal and country of removal for all known removed parents with
children under 5. Defendants will provide to Plaintiffs the location of
the ICE detention facility where each removed parent was last held.
Plaintiffs’ counsel will seek to locate those removed parents and
provide them with notice of their right to be reunified. If any parent
expresses that he or she wishes to be reunified with his or her child
then Defendants will facilitate that reunification.
o Plaintiffs’ Position: Plaintiffs believe that once Defendants are
notified that a removed parent wishes to be reunified with his or
her child, reunification should occur within 7 days.
27
28
6
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 99 Filed 07/10/18 PageID.1973 of 189 8 of 10
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 102 Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
o Defendants’ Position: Defendants ask the Court to allow a more
flexible time period because there are several issues that may
impact the timing of removal for these children. For example,
Defendants would need to obtain travel documents for the
child, and any ongoing removal proceedings for that child
would have to be terminated which might require separate
waiver from the parents and/or approval from an immigration
judge. Moreover, if the child has already obtained relief and is
in lawful status, then Defendants would not have the ability to
facilitate reunification with a parent abroad. Because pieces of
this process are out of Defendants hands, Defendants request
that the Court allow for a flexible schedule for such removals
that considers the need to complete these steps prior to removal
for reunification.
• Reunification To Released Parents: This issue will be determined, at
least in part, by the Court’s ruling on the parties’ joint submission on
the procedures to be followed by HHS under the Court’s order.
Accordingly, the parties will meet and confer following that ruling
and will submit a proposal, or respective positions, on this issue for
the Court’s consideration.
15
16
17 DATED: July 10, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
18
/s/ Lee Gelernt
Lee Gelernt*
Judy Rabinovitz*
Anand Balakrishnan*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
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
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 99 Filed 07/10/18 PageID.1974 of 189 9 of 10
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 103 Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
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
Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280)
Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 343-1198
F: (415) 395-0950
skang@aclu.org
samdur@aclu.org
Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
SCOTT G. STEWART
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
Director
WILLIAM C. SILVIS
Assistant Director
/s/ Sarah B. Fabian
SARAH B. FABIAN
Senior Litigation Counsel
NICOLE MURLEY
Trial Attorney
Office of Immigration Litigation
Civil Division
28
8
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 9927-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 104 of 189 10 of 10
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/10/18 PageID.1975 Page
1
2
3
4
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
(202) 532-4824
(202) 616-8962 (facsimile)
sarah.b.fabian@usdoj.gov
5
6
7
8
9
ADAM L. BRAVERMAN
United States Attorney
SAMUEL W. BETTWY
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Attorneys for Respondents-Defendants
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 105 of 189
Exhibit Y
Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification
Page 1 of 4
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 106 of 189
We only use cookies that are necessary for this site to function, and to provide you with the best experience.
Learn more in our Cookie Statement. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies.
27Share
Receive Updates
Go
Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and
Family Reunification
U.S. Department of Homeland Security sent this bulletin at 06/23/2018 10:17 PM EDT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 23, 2018
Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Health and Human Services (HHS)
have a process established to ensure that family members know the location of their
children and have regular communication after separation to ensure that those adults
who are subject to removal are reunited with their children for the purposes of removal.
The United States government knows the location of all children in its custody and is
working to reunite them with their families.
As part of the apprehension, detention and prosecution process, illegal aliens, adults and
children, are initially detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) before the
children are sent to HHS’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and parents to
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. Each entity plays a role in
reunification. This process is well coordinated.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
• CBP has reunited 522 Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) in their custody who
were separated from adults as part of the Zero Tolerance initiative. The reunions
of an additional 16 UAC who were scheduled to be reunited on June 22, 2018 were
delayed due to weather affecting travel and we expect they will all be reunited
with their parents within the next 24 hours. There will be a small number of
children who were separated for reasons other than zero tolerance that will remain
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHS/bulletins/1f98ad8
7/11/2018
Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification
Page 2 of 4
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 107 of 189
separated: generally only if the familial relationship cannot be confirmed, we
believe the adult is a threat to the safety of the child, or the adult is a criminal
alien.
• Because of the speed in which adults completed their criminal proceedings, some
children were still present at a United States Border Patrol (USBP) station at the
time their parent(s) returned from court proceedings. In these cases, the USBP
reunited the family and transferred them, together, to ICE custody as a family
unit.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
• ICE has dedicated the Port Isabel Service Processing Center as the primary family
reunification and removal center for adults in their custody.
• A parent who is ordered removed from the U.S. may request that his or her minor
child accompany them. It should be noted that in the past many parents have
elected to be removed without their children.
• ICE has posted information in all of its facilities advising detained parents who are
trying to locate, and/or communicate with, a child in the custody of HHS to call
the Detention Reporting and Information Line for assistance, which is staffed by
live operators Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 8 PM.
• The information provided by these parents to the call operators will be forwarded
to HHS for action. ICE and HHS will coordinate a review of their custodial data to
identify where each child is located, verify the parent/child relationship, and set
up regular communication and removal coordination, if necessary.
• Each ICE Field Office has Juvenile Coordinators who manage these cases
throughout the immigration court proceedings.
• Further, ICE maintains a publicly available online detainee locator which can be
used to locate adults detained by ICE. This site can be accessed at:
https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/index
ICE has completed the following steps toward reunification:
• Implemented an identification mechanism to ensure on-going tracking of linked
family members throughout the detention and removal process;
• Designated detention locations for separated parents and will enhance current
processes to ensure communication with children in HHS custody;
• Worked closely with foreign consulates to ensure that travel documents are issued
for both the parent and child at time of removal; and
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHS/bulletins/1f98ad8
7/11/2018
Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification
Page 3 of 4
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 108 of 189
• Coordinated with HHS for the reuniting of the child prior to the parents’
departure from the United States.
U.S. Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement
• Minors come into HHS custody with information provided by DHS regarding
how they illegally entered the country and whether or not they were with a parent
or adult and, to the extent possible, the parent(s) or guardian(s) information and
location. There is a central database which HHS and DHS can access and update
when a parent(s) or minor(s) location information changes.
• As of June 20th HHS has 2,053 separated minors being cared for in HHS funded
facilities, and is working with relevant agency partners to foster communications
and work towards reuniting every minor and every parent or guardian via wellestablished reunification processes. Currently only 17% of minors in HHS funded
facilities were placed there as a result of Zero Tolerance enforcement, and the
remaining 83% percent arrived to the United States without a parent or guardian.
• Parent(s) or guardian(s) attempting to determine if their child is in the custody of
the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in HHS Administration for Children and
Families should contact the ORR National Call Center
(www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/orr-national-call-center) at 1-800-203-7001, or via
email information@ORRNCC.com. Information will be collected and sent to HHS
funded facility where minor is located. The ORR National Call Center has
numerous resources available for children, parent(s), guardian(s) and sponsors.
• Within 24 hours of arriving at an HHS funded facility minors are given the
opportunity to communicate with a vetted parent, guardian or relative. While in
HHS funded facilities’ care, every effort is made to ensure minors are able to
communicate (either telephonic or video depending on the circumstances) with
their parent or guardian (at least twice per week). However, reasonable safety
precautions are in place to ensure that an adult wishing to communicate with a
minor is in fact that minor’s parent or guardian.
• Minors in HHS funded facilities are permitted to call both family members and/or
sponsors living in the United States and abroad. Attorneys representing minors
have unlimited telephone access and the minor may speak to other appropriate
stakeholders, such as their consulate, the case coordinator, or child advocate.
Additional information on telephone calls, visitation, and mail policies are
available in the policy guide.
• Under HHS’ publicly available policy guide for Unaccompanied Alien Children,
the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) releases minors to sponsors in the
following order of preference: parent; legal guardian; an adult relative (brother,
sister, aunt, uncle, grandparent or first cousin); an adult individual or entity
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHS/bulletins/1f98ad8
7/11/2018
Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification
Page 4 of 4
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 109 of 189
designated by the parent or legal guardian (through a signed declaration or other
document that ORR determines is sufficient to establish the signatory’s
parental/guardian relationship); a licensed program willing to accept legal
custody; or an adult individual or entity seeking custody when it appears that
there is no other likely alternative to long term ORR care and custody.
###
Having trouble viewing this message? View it as a webpage.
You are subscribed to updates from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Manage Subscriptions | Privacy Policy | Help
Connect with DHS:
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | LinkedIn | Flickr | YouTube
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
www.dhs.gov
Powered by
Privacy Policy | Cookie Statement | Help
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHS/bulletins/1f98ad8
7/11/2018
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 110 of 189
Exhibit Z
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 86-1 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.1782of Page 1 of 16
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 111 189
1 CHAD A. READLER
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Acting Assistant Attorney General
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
Director, Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL)
U.S. Department of Justice
WILLIAM C. SILVIS
Assistant Director, OIL District Court Section
SARAH B. FABIAN
Senior Litigation Counsel
NICOLE MURLEY
Trial Attorney
Office of Immigration Litigation
U.S. Department of Justice
Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20442
Telephone: (202) 532-4824
Fax: (202) 616-8962
10 ADAM L. BRAVERMAN
11
12
13
14
15
United States Attorney
SAMUEL W. BETTWY
Assistant U.S. Attorney
California Bar No. 94918
Office of the U.S. Attorney
880 Front Street, Room 6293
San Diego, CA 92101-8893
619-546-7125
619-546-7751 (fax)
Attorneys for Federal Respondents-Defendants
16
17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
18
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
19
20 MS. L, et al.,
Petitioners-Plaintiffs,
21
22
Case No. 18cv428 DMS MDD
DECLARATION OF
JONATHAN WHITE
vs.
23 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, et al.,
24
25
26
27
28
Respondents-Defendants.
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 86-1 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.1783of Page 2 of 16
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 112 189
1
I, Jonathan White, for my declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby state and depose
2 as follows, based on my personal knowledge and information provided to me in the course of my
3 official duties:
4
1.
5
I am a career officer in the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps
and have served in the Department of Health & Human Services in three Administrations. I am
6
7
presently assigned to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, and
8 previously served as the Deputy Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement for the
9 Unaccompanied Alien Children’s Program.
10
2.
I have been involved directly in the actions which HHS has taken to implement
11 Executive Order (EO) 13841 (“Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation”)
12
and comply with the orders in Ms. L., et al., v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.,
13
14
15
Case No. 18-cv-428 (S.D.Cal.). President Trump issued EO 13841 on June 20, 2018, and the Court
issued its orders on June 26, 2018.
16
KEY HHS ACTIONS ON REUNIFICATION
17
3.
Focus on Child Safety: The Secretary of Health and Human Services has directed
18 HHS to take all reasonable actions to comply with the Court’s orders and to prioritize child safety
19 and well-being when doing so.
20
4.
Deployment of Additional Personnel: On June 22, 2018, the Secretary of Health and
21
22
23
Human Services directed ASPR to deploy personnel and resources to help the Office of Refugee
Resettlement (ORR) of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) of HHS reunify children
24 in ORR custody with parents.
25
5.
Determination of Class Members: HHS has worked closely with U.S. Department of
26 Homeland Security (DHS)—including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S.
27
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—to try to determine all individuals who meet the
28
1
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 86-1 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.1784of Page 3 of 16
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 113 189
1 Court’s criteria for class members. The determination of class membership involves real-time, inter2 agency collection and analysis of facts and data to: verify parentage; determine location of DHS
3 apprehension and separation; determine parental fitness; and evaluate whether reunification would
4
present a danger to the child. Class membership is not static; it can change due to transfers of putative
5
parents from ICE to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) (or vice-versa), and newly-acquired information.
6
7
6.
Facilitation of Regular Communication Between Class Members and Children in ORR
8 Custody: HHS has deployed field personnel to help putative class members communicate with
9 children in ORR care.
10
DEPLOYMENT OF ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL
11
7.
12
As noted above, on June 22, 2018, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
activated ASPR to augment the resources that ORR had already devoted to expeditiously discharge
13
14
15
children from ORR care. ORR has had to continue performing core program functions for minors
who cross the border without parents (and who far outnumber separated children in ORR care). The
16 augmenting of resources has helped ORR continue performing those core functions.
17
8.
The activating of ASPR included the Secretary’s Operation Center (SOC), which is a
18 command center that operates 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. The mission of the SOC is to
19 synthesize critical public health and medical information for the U.S. Government. While typically
20
used for a public health emergency or natural disaster (e.g., Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico), the SOC
21
22
23
can also serve as a communications hub for large, data-intensive, inter-departmental operations.
9.
ASPR activated an Incident Management Team. As of July 3, 2018, the Incident
24 Management Team had 33 members (in addition to the permanent staff of the SOC). It works full25 time to provide logistical and administrative support.
26
27
10.
ASPR has also dispatched approximately 115 personnel to the field to engage directly
with putative class members in DHS custody. Those personnel—who are organized into four field
28
2
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 86-1 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.1785of Page 4 of 16
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 114 189
1 teams— are from ACF, ASPR, the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, and the National
2 Disaster Medical System’s Disaster Medical Assistance Team (DMAT). The DMAT is a cadre of
3 trained health and medical professionals and para-professionals that augments ASPR’s capabilities
4
during public emergencies.
5
11.
Finally, HHS has executed a contract with BCFS Health and Human Services, Inc.
6
7
(“BCFS”), to provide an additional 100 reunification case managers, plus approximately 40 staff for
8 logistical and administrative support. HHS has trained the case managers from BCFS, and is
9 deploying them on Thursday, July 5, and Friday, July 6, 2018, to augment existing field operations.
10 They too will engage directly with putative class members in ICE custody.
11
12
DETERMINATION OF CLASS MEMBERS
12.
ORR has a process for placing unaccompanied alien children (UAC) with parents or
13
14
15
other sponsors that is designed to comply with the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement, the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (HSA), and the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection
16 Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), as described in more detail below. This process ensures the
17 care and safety of children who are apprehended in the United States and then referred to HHS as
18 unaccompanied children.
19
20
13.
HHS has modified and expedited its ordinary process so that it can determine class
membership using the Court’s criteria and, to the extent possible, reunify class members and their
21
22
23
children within the Court’s deadlines.
14.
Under its modified process, HHS identifies putative class members with children in
24 ORR custody and verifies parentage. Also, HHS determines the putative class member’s immigration
25 history to confirm where they were apprehended and separated from their child. Finally, HHS
26 collects and analyzes criminal, medical (e.g., communicable disease), and other information to
27
28
3
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 86-1 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.1786of Page 5 of 16
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 115 189
1 determine the parental fitness of the putative class member and confirm that reunification would not
2 present a danger to the child. HHS generally performs these checks concurrently.
3
4
5
15.
Putative class members who are not verified as parents are not included in the class
by HHS. Putative class members apprehended in the interior, who have relevant criminal history,
have a communicable disease, or are otherwise parentally unfit or present a danger to a child, are not
6
7
8
included in the class either.
16.
In general, HHS knows the names and locations of all children who are in ORR care
9 and custody at all times because ORR maintains that data in its online case management portal. The
10 ORR portal includes data about each child that DHS provided when DHS transferred the child to
11 ORR custody. It also includes health and social data collected or entered by ORR personnel, grantees,
12
or contractors. While the ORR portal may contain some data about the child’s parents, the ORR
13
14
15
portal was not designed to determine class membership or facilitate reunification under the criteria
and deadlines established by the Court’s Order. Some of the data required to determine the class
16 membership of a putative class member resides with DHS, while HHS must collect some data directly
17 from the putative class member.
18
17.
The data collection, sharing, and analysis required to determine class membership is
19 extraordinarily time and resource intensive. There are myriad reasons for this. For instance, DHS
20
has different information systems, and those systems were not designed to neatly capture and readily
21
22
23
share all of the data required to determine class membership. The departments must therefore map
their data manually. Also, the class potentially encompasses parents who were separated from their
24 children before the Administration implemented the zero-tolerance policy, and those groups may not
25 have received the same family unit identifiers from DHS as the groups separated after the
26 Administration implemented the zero-tolerance policy. Absent reliable and consistent identifiers,
27
HHS must glean the separations of class members and children (and related details) from the case
28
4
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 86-1 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.1787of Page 6 of 16
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 116 189
1 management files on the ORR portal. On top of these variables, a parent’s class membership can
2 change if the parent is transferred between ICE and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), or if information
3 obtained directly from the parent affects the class membership analysis.
4
18.
5
To ensure that every separated child in ORR custody who belongs to a class member
is identified and reunified, HHS has had each grantee at one of ORR’s approximately 110 shelters
6
7
certify the separated children who the grantee reasonably believes are in its care. HHS has also
8 conducted a full manual review of the case management file for each one of the approximate 11,800
9 children in ORR custody—the substantial majority of whom were not separated from a putative
10 parent at the border—to confirm or rule out any indicia of separation. The manual review was
11 conducted by dozens of HHS personnel working nights and over the weekend. The results of both
12
the manual review and the grantee certifications are undergoing validation.
13
14
15
19.
As of July 5, 2018, we have identified approximately 101 minors under age 5, within
ORR care, whose records contain indicia of separation. Class membership analysis for putative class
16 members associated with the larger group of minors 5 through 18 is ongoing. Also, some of the
17 identified minors may have been separated prior to crossing the border, or there may be other factors
18 that need to be explored that would not make their parents members of the class. HHS has received
19 confirmation from DHS that approximately 40 parents of children in the under-5 group are in DHS
20
custody and another 9 are in U.S. Marshal’s custody. The class membership analysis for putative
21
22
class members associated with the remaining children in the group of 101 is ongoing.
23
Verifying Parentage
24
20.
HHS is using DNA testing to try to verify parentage of all putative class members, as
25 well as all children in ORR custody who ORR reasonably believes were separated from a putative
26 class member. HHS is conducting the DNA testing concurrent with collecting and reviewing
27
28
5
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 86-1 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.1788of Page 7 of 16
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 117 189
1 documentation of parentage, interviewing putative class members and family members, and
2 observing communications or interactions between putative class members and children.
3
4
5
21.
DNA testing is a faster but costlier method for confirming parentage than collecting
and assessing documentation and anecdotal information. When ORR implements its safety and
suitability policies in the ordinary course of administering its program, it confirms parentage through
6
7
DNA testing as a last resort. HHS has dual-tracked global DNA testing to ensure child safety and to
8 expedite parentage verifications to try to comply with the deadlines in the Court’s order.
22.
9
ORR grantees are swabbing the cheeks of the children in ORR custody, while DHS
10 personnel or the field teams deployed by HHS are swabbing the cheeks of the putative class members
11 in ICE custody. The cheek swabs are then sent to a third-party laboratory services provider to
12
complete the DNA testing.
The results are then transmitted electronically to the Incident
13
14
15
Management Team at the SOC, which shares them with the grantees. HHS will use the results only
for verifying parentage.
23.
16
The DNA testing process takes nearly one week to complete for each putative class
17 member and child. Once HHS has made a data match between a putative class member and child, it
18 may take the field teams and grantees up to two days to further validate the match and swab cheeks.
19 It may then take up to three days for laboratory services provider to collect the sample and conduct
20
the test. Once the laboratory services provider completes the testing, it may take up to 24 hours for
21
22
23
24
the Incident Management Team to receive and transmit the results back to the grantees and field
teams.
24.
The field teams are concurrently facilitating the completion of reunification
25 applications by putative class members. The packets seek medical and social data that bear on the
26 criteria for class membership, including parentage, parental fitness, and child endangerment. A copy
27
of a blank reunification application is attached at Tab 1.
28
6
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 86-1 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.1789of Page 8 of 16
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 118 189
1
25.
My opinion is that DNA testing is the method of parental verification most likely to
2 protect children from harm given the compressed timeframe imposed by the court’s order. The risk
3 of placing children with adults who are not their parents is a real and significant child welfare concern
4
for HHS because the experience of ORR is that children are smuggled across the border or trafficked
5
by adults who fraudulently hold themselves out as parents. The children may not disclose the
6
7
situation to CBP, ICE, or ORR because they may fear retaliation by the adults who brought them
8 across the border. In some instances, they may fear retaliation by their parents in their home country,
9 who have given them to the smuggler or trafficker so that they may earn money in the United States.
10 My opinion is that DNA testing mitigates the risk of the United States Government placing children
11 back with adults who are not their parents and who would endanger them.
12
26.
If, however, HHS concludes that it can reliably and more quickly determine the
13
14
15
parentage of a putative class member based on documentation or anecdotal information collected
from the putative class member, then HHS will make that determination to try to comply with the
16 Court’s reunification deadlines.
17
Background Checks for Parental Fitness
18
27.
HHS is assessing the backgrounds of putative class members by reviewing summaries
19 of prior criminal background checks provided by ICE. Already such background check information
20
has come back with two results that show that two putative parents of children under five may
21
22
23
endanger the child (charges of kidnapping/rape and child cruelty), and 12 more need to be further
assessed.
24
Parental Fitness and Child Endangerment
25
28.
As discussed below, HHS’ ordinary process for placing children with sponsors
26 involves a safety and suitability analysis, as well as a home study in certain circumstances. These
27
checks can sometimes take weeks or months.
28
7
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 86-1 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.1790of Page 9 of 16
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 119 189
1
29.
HHS has modified and expedited its ordinary process when further assessing parental
2 fitness and potential child endangerment for a potential reunification with a putative class member in
3 DHS custody. For potential reunifications with putative class members in DHS custody, any further
4
assessment of parental fitness and potential child endangerment involves only the review of the case
5
management records (which includes, for example, case review notes and other electronic files) and
6
7
the putative class member’s completed reunification packet for indicia of child abuse or neglect. If
8 there are no such indicia, then HHS will not conduct further assessment.
9
30.
When further assessing parental fitness and potential child endangerment for potential
10 reunifications of putative class members who are no longer in DHS custody, HHS is modifying and
11 expediting its ordinary process on a case-by-case basis to try to comply with court-ordered deadlines
12
in ways that do not endanger child welfare.
13
14
15
31.
For example, when placing a child with a putative parental sponsor who is no longer
in DHS custody, HHS would ordinarily verify the potential sponsor’s residential address and conduct
16 background checks of adult cohabitants to try to ensure that the potential sponsor is capable of
17 providing shelter and care – and that the potential sponsor’s cohabitants do not endanger the child—
18 after placement. To try to comply with the Court’s deadlines, HHS will likely need to streamline its
19 address verification process for putative class members. But HHS does not believe that it can
20
streamline background checks.
21
22
23
24
32.
UAC sponsors have always included the parents of UACs , and close to half of the
sponsors to whom ORR ordinarily releases UACs are parents.
33.
The Flores settlement agreement (“FSA”) prioritizes release to parents, if they are
25 available, and also specifically provides for ORR to ensure the suitability of such releases, and to
26 protect the child from danger. See FSA paragraphs 14-18.
27
28
8
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 86-1 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.1791 ofPage 10 of 16
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 120 189
34.
1
The FSA describes a variety of criteria to consider before the government releases a
2 UAC to a parent (or other sponsor). See FSA paragraphs 14-18. These factors include:
3
•
•
4
Verifying the identity of the parent;
Verifying the identity and employment of the individuals offering support to the parent
5
and minor;
6
•
8
Receiving information from their address and any future change of address;
•
7
Ensuring the parent will provide for the minor’s physical, mental, and financial well-
9
being;
10
•
11
standard of care he would receive;
12
•
13
Interviewing the members of the household where the parent will live with the child,
and in some cases a home visit; and
14
•
15
16
Requiring the parent to ensure the minor’s presence at all future immigration
proceedings.
17
18
Investigating the living conditions in which the minor would be placed and the
35.
Furthermore, under the HSA and TVPRA, HHS has developed a series of safety and
suitability requirements that ensure child welfare, upon release, is protected. These policies, many
19
20
21
of which were refined after Congressional oversight, are contained in Section 2 of the ORR Policy
Guide: Children Entering the United States Unaccompanied, available at:
22 https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/children-entering-the-united-states-unaccompanied-section23 2#2.1 .
24
36.
The policies include identifying the sponsor; submitting the application for release
25 and supporting documentation; evaluating the suitability of the sponsor, including verification of
26
the sponsor’s identity and relationship to the child; background checks; and in some cases home
27
28
studies; and planning for post-release.
9
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 86-1 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.1792 ofPage 11 of 16
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 121 189
1
37.
ORR requires all potential sponsors, including parents, to undergo fingerprinting in
2 order to ensure the safety and suitability of release. The fingerprints are used to run background
3 checks of databases involving criminal history. ORR also checks sexual abuse information, child
4
abuse information, and other public record sources.
5
38.
ORR also requires that, if there are other adults living in the household with a
6
7
sponsor (including a parent), those adults also undergo background checks. This ensures the child
8 will not be endangered if, for example, those household members have a history of child abuse or
9 sexual abuse that ORR must further consider before approving the release.
10
39.
ORR also requires that sponsors, including parents, identify an alternative caregiver,
11 who will be able to provide care in the event the original sponsor is unavailable. These adult
12
caregivers must also be identified and undergo background checks.
13
14
15
40.
To ensure safety and suitability for children, ORR considers the following factors
when evaluating release of a UAC to parents, other family members, and other potential sponsors in
16 the community:
17
18
19
20
a. The nature and extent of the sponsor’s previous and current relationship with the child or
youth and the unaccompanied alien child’s family, if a relationship exists.
b. The sponsor’s motivation for wanting to sponsor the child or youth.
c. The UAC’s parent or legal guardian’s perspective on the release to the identified
21
22
23
24
25
26
potential sponsor (for cases in which the parent or legal guardian is not the sponsor).
d. The child or youth’s views on the release and whether he or she wants to be released to
the individual.
e. The sponsor’s understanding of the unaccompanied alien child’s needs, as identified by
ORR and the care provider.
27
28
10
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 86-1 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.1793 ofPage 12 of 16
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 122 189
1
f. The sponsor’s plan to provide adequate care, supervision, access to community
2
3
resources, and housing.
g. The sponsor’s understanding of the importance of ensuring the unaccompanied alien
4
child’s presence at all future hearings or proceedings, including immigration court
5
proceedings, and the sponsor’s receipt of Legal Orientation Program for Custodians
6
information that ORR provides to all potential sponsors.
7
8
h. The linguistic and cultural background of the child or youth and the sponsor, including
cultural, social, and communal norms and practices for the care of children.
9
10
i. The sponsor’s strengths, resources, and mitigating factors in relation to any risks or
11
special concerns of the child or sponsor, such as a criminal background, history of
12
substance abuse, mental health issues, or domestic violence and child welfare concerns.
13
14
j. The unaccompanied alien child’s current functioning and strengths in relation to any risk
factors or special concerns, such as children or youth who are victims of human
15
16
trafficking; are a parent or are pregnant; have special needs, disabilities or medical or
17
mental health issues; have a history of criminal, juvenile justice, or gang involvement; or
18
a history of behavioral issues.
19
20
41.
In certain cases, the TVPRA requires a home study, prior to release. 8 U.S.C. §
1232(c)(3)(B) states: “A home study shall be conducted for a child who is a victim of a severe form
21
22
23
of trafficking in persons, a special needs child with a disability (as defined in section 12102 of title
42), a child who has been a victim of physical or sexual abuse under circumstances that indicate
24 that the child's health or welfare has been significantly harmed or threatened, or a child whose
25 proposed sponsor clearly presents a risk of abuse, maltreatment, exploitation, or trafficking to the
26 child based on all available objective evidence.” In circumstances in which a home study is not
27
required by the TVPRA or ORR policy, the Case Manager and an independent third party Case
28
11
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 86-1 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.1794 ofPage 13 of 16
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 123 189
1 Coordinator may recommend that a home study be conducted if they agree that the home study will
2 provide additional information required to determine that the sponsor is able to care for the health,
3 safety and well-being of the child.
4
42.
5
ORR does not disqualify potential sponsors on the basis of their immigration status,
but does require sponsors (including parents) to complete a sponsor care plan. Among other things,
6
7
the care plan identifies the adult caregiver who will act for the sponsor, should the sponsor become
8 unavailable, and how such caregiver will be notified of such situation. It also includes a safety plan
9 in some circumstances.
10
43.
Throughout the release process, care providers work with the child and sponsor so
11 that they can plan for the child’s after care needs. This involves working with the sponsor and the
12
unaccompanied alien child to prepare them for post-ORR custody, assess the sponsor’s ability to
13
14
15
access community resources, and provide guidance regarding safety planning, sponsor care plans,
and accessing services for the child. The care provider explains the U.S. child abuse and neglect
16 standards and child protective services that are explained on https://www.childwelfare.gov, human
17 trafficking indicators and resources, and basic safety and how to use the 9-1-1 number in
18 emergency situations.
19
20
44.
Once the assessment is complete and a sponsor has been approved, the sponsor
enters into an agreement with the Federal government in which he or she agrees to:
21
22
a. Provide for the physical and mental well-being of the child, including but not
23
limited to, food, shelter, clothing, education, medical care and other services as
24
needed.
25
26
27
b. Attend a legal orientation program provided under the Department of
Justice/Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (EOIR) Legal Orientation
Program for Custodians (Sponsors), if available where he or she resides.
28
12
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 86-1 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.1795 ofPage 14 of 16
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 124 189
1
c. Depending on where the unaccompanied alien child’s immigration case is
2
pending, notify the local Immigration Court or the Board of Immigration
3
Appeals within 5 days of any change of address or phone number of the child
4
5
(Form EOIR-33). (If applicable, file a Change of Venue motion on the child’s
behalf.10 A “change of venue” is a legal term for moving an immigration
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
hearing to a new location.)
d. Notify the DHS/U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services within 10 days of
any change of address by filing an Alien’s Change of Address Card (AR-11) or
electronically at http://www.uscis.gov/ar-11.
e. Ensure the unaccompanied alien child’s presence at all future proceedings before
the DHS/Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the DOJ/EOIR.
13
14
15
16
17
f. Ensure the unaccompanied alien child reports to ICE for removal from the
United States if an immigration judge issues a removal order or voluntary
departure order.
g. Notify local law enforcement or state or local Child Protective Services if the
18
child has been or is at risk of being subjected to abuse, abandonment, neglect or
19
maltreatment or if the sponsor learns that the child has been threatened, has been
20
sexually or physically abused or assaulted, or has disappeared. (Notice should be
21
22
23
24
given as soon as it is practicable or no later than 24 hours after the event or after
becoming aware of the risk or threat.)
h. Notify the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children at 1-800-843-
25
5678 if the unaccompanied alien child disappears, has been kidnapped, or runs
26
away. (Notice should be given as soon as it becomes practicable or no later than
27
24 hours after learning of the child’s disappearance.)
28
13
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 86-1 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.1796 ofPage 15 of 16
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 125 189
i. Notify ICE at 1-866-347-2423 if the unaccompanied alien child is contacted in
1
2
any way by an individual(s) believed to represent an alien smuggling syndicate,
3
organized crime, or a human trafficking organization. (Notice should be provided
4
as soon as possible or no later than 24 hours after becoming aware of the
5
information.)
6
j. In case of an emergency, such as serious illness, destruction of home, etc.,
7
8
temporarily transfer physical custody of the child to another person who will
9
comply with the terms of the Sponsor Care Agreement.
10
k. In the event that a sponsor who is not the child’s parent or legal guardian is no
11
longer able and willing to care for the unaccompanied alien child and is unable to
12
temporarily transfer physical custody, notify ORR using the ORR National Call
13
Center, at 1-800-203-7001.
14
15
45.
If HHS cannot reasonably complete processes that are material to ensuring the welfare
16 of the children presently in ORR custody within the deadlines ordered by the Court, then HHS has
17 no choice but to make class membership determinations with incomplete information. The use of
18 incomplete information increases the risk of not only incorrect class membership determinations, but
19 also reunifications that endanger the welfare of the children presently in ORR care.
20
46.
My opinion is that some relaxing of the Court’s deadlines is needed to allow HHS, on
21
22
23
a case-by-case basis, to complete processes that HHS determines are necessary to make informed
class membership determinations and to protect the welfare of the children presently in ORR custody.
24
FACILITATION OF CLASS MEMBER COMMUNIATIONS
25
47.
HHS has facilitated communication between putative class members by helping
26 putative class members connect with case managers. HHS has directed field staff to help facilitate a
27
conversation between a putative class member and his or her child. For example, field staff may call
28
14
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 86-1 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.1797 ofPage 16 of 16
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 126 189
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 127 of 189
Exhibit AA
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 95 Filed 07/09/18 PageID.1927ofPage 1 of 2
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 128 189
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
Ms. L.; et al.,
Case No.: 18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Petitioners-Plaintiffs,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER FOLLOWING STATUS
CONFERENCE
U.S Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”); et al.,
15
Respondents-Defendants.
16
17
18
A status conference was held on July 9, 2018. Lee Gelernt appeared and argued for
19
Plaintiffs and Sarah Fabian appeared and argued for Defendants. After consulting with
20
counsel and being advised of the status of the case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
21
1.
22
documents to the Court:
On or before 6:00 p.m. on July 9, 2018, counsel shall submit the following
23
a.
A joint status report on the issue of the procedures to be followed for the
24
reunification of children and Class Members who have been released from ICE
25
custody. To the extent counsel have agreed on the procedures, they should submit a
26
joint motion and proposed order for the Court’s review. To the extent there is
27
disagreement, each side should set out its respective proposal and specify the
28
disagreements that require court resolution
1
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 95 Filed 07/09/18 PageID.1928ofPage 2 of 2
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 129 189
1
b.
A proposed notice to be provided to the Class.
2
2.
3
setting forth how many Class Members have been or will be reunited with their children
4
by the court-imposed deadline, and how many Class Members may not be reunited with
5
their children by the court-imposed deadline due to legitimate logistical impediments that
6
render timely compliance impossible or excusable, e.g., detention of the Class Member in
7
criminal custody or removal of the Class Member from the United States. For the latter
8
group, counsel should explain why reunification may not be completed, and provide a
9
timeframe for those reunifications.
On or before 10:00 a.m. on July 10, 2018, counsel shall submit a joint status report
10
3.
A further status conference shall be held at 11:00 a.m. on July 10, 2018.
11
4.
The Court has set up a dial in number for counsel and any members of
12
the news media that wish to attend. This number is for counsel and media
13
only, who should follow the steps below to connect to the conference call.
14
Members of the general public may appear in person.
15
1.
Dial the toll free number: 877-873-8018;
16
2.
Enter the Access Code: 9911153 (Participants will be put on hold
17
18
until the Court activates the conference call);
3.
19
20
21
22
23
24
Enter the Participant Security Code 07100428 and Press # (The
security code will be confirmed);
4.
Once the Security Code is confirmed, participants will be prompted
to Press 1 to join the conference or Press 2 to re-enter the Security
Code.
Dated: July 9, 2018
25
26
27
28
2
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 130 of 189
Exhibit BB
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 91 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.1840ofPage 1 of 2
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 131 189
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
Ms. L.; et al.,
Case No.: 18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Petitioners-Plaintiffs,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER SETTING FURTHER
STATUS CONFERENCE
U.S Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”); et al.,
15
Respondents-Defendants.
16
17
18
A status conference was held on July 6, 2018. Lee Gelernt appeared and argued for
19
Plaintiffs and Sarah Fabian appeared and argued for Defendants. After consulting with
20
counsel and being advised of the status of the case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
21
1.
22
a list of the 101 children discussed at the conference that identifies each child and explains
23
the status of each child’s reunification with his or her parent.
24
2.
25
ORR policies and procedures in dispute.
26
3.
27
motion and proposed order for the Court’s review and signature. Otherwise, counsel
On or before July 7, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., the Government shall provide to Plaintiffs
Counsel shall meet and confer about the list, and shall also meet and confer on the
To the extent counsel reach an agreement on these issues, they should submit a joint
28
1
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 91 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.1841ofPage 2 of 2
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 132 189
1
should be prepared to discuss these issues at a further status conference scheduled for July
2
9, 2018, at 10:00 a.m.
3
The Court has set up a dial in number for counsel and any members of
4
the news media that wish to attend. This number is for counsel and media
5
only, who should follow the steps below to connect to the conference call:
6
1.
Dial the toll free number: 877-873-8018;
7
2.
Enter the Access Code: 9911153 (Participants will be put on hold
8
9
until the Court activates the conference call);
3.
10
11
12
13
14
15
Enter the Participant Security Code 07090428 and Press # (The
security code will be confirmed);
4.
Once the Security Code is confirmed, participants will be prompted
to Press 1 to join the conference or Press 2 to re-enter the Security
Code.
Dated: July 6, 2018
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
18cv0428 DMS (MDD)
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 133 of 189
Exhibit CC
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 134 of 189
1
2
3
4
5
6
7'
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
8
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.
NO. 2:18-CV-00939
9
Plaintiff,
DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO
SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
10
V.
11
12
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
I, Francisco Serrano, declare as follows:
15
1.
I am over the age of 18 and have personal knowledge of the facts herein. If called
16
as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the matters set forth below.
17
2.
I reside in the District of Columbia. I live with my wife, my mother, and my two
18
children who are fifteen and seventeen years old.
19
3.
In May 2018, my niece Maria called me to tell me that she had traveled from E1
20
Salvador with a caravan, that she was at the Mexico-United States border and that she was going
21
to cross the border by San Ysidro. She also told me that she was traveling with her two children,
22
M. who is 7 years old and N. who is 2 years old.
23
4.
Approximately a week later I received a call from a shelter indicating that the
24
children were going to be separated from Maria, that they were on their way to New York, that
25
Maria had designated me as a sponsor and asking me whether I was willing to be the sponsor. I
26
DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO
SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
I
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE of CALIFORNIA
1300 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-445-9555
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 135 of 189
I
told the person that I would be the sponsor and then the person told me that I would be able to
2
talk to the children twice a week. Attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2 are the forms I was told
3
to complete in early May 2018 so that I could receive Maria's two sons.
4
5.
I have spoken with the seven-year-old on several occasions since the family
5
arrived. He told me that officials told him that he and his little brother were being taken to a
6
detention center in Washington, D.C. to be closer to me, their uncle. I received a phone call from
7
the seven-year-old who thought he was in Washington, D.C., but he was not. He was in New
8
York. I was told by a social worker that the two young boys are in Lutheran Youth Hostel of
9
New York.
10
6.
To become the sponsor the social worker told me that I had to provide: 1) Maria's
11
mother's birth certificate, 2) Maria's birth certificate, 3) the kids' birth certificates, and 4) my
12
birth certificate, driver's license, passport and proof of citizenship. In addition to completing the
13
paperwork, I had to provide copies of my identification and police record. I did not have copies
14
of Maria's mother's, Maria's or the kids' birth certificates so I had to ask persons in El Salvador
15
to send them to me. This process took 5 days because a fi-iend was in El Salvador and was able
16
to help me, otherwise the process would have taken 15 to 20 days.
17
7.
The social worker who was working with the kids told me that once I submitted
18
the documents she would get approval within 36 hours and the children would be released within
19
24 hours after that. I did not hear from them within 36 hours, but I assumed that everything was
20
valid because I had completed all of the forms and followed all of the instructions.
21
22
23
8.
Approximately one week after I provided the paperwork I was told that I had to
be fingerprinted. The next day I took time off work and got fingerprinted.
9.
After I submitted all the requested documents the social worker told me that she
24
was very sorry but that she had only been able to get one of the approvals she needed to approve
25
the paperwork. She said that she did everything she could but it was out of her hands.
26
DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO
SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
2
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1300 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-445-9555
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 136 of 189
1
10.
In late May 2018, I received a power of attorney from my niece Maria giving me
2
the authorization to care for her two minor sons. A copy of the notarized power of attorney is
3
attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 1 provided a copy of this power of attorney to the social worker in
4
early June 2018.
5
11.
About a week later I was asked to complete a certified form for a further
6
background check. On June 1, 2018, I completed the additional form that Lutheran Social
7
Services had provided to me to get authorization to receive Maria's two sons. I had to have the
8
form notarized. A copy of that form is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
9
12.
Then I was informed that I passed the background check but they needed one
10
more week to release the kids to me. The seven-year-old boy called me and told me that
11
officials had told him that he and his brother would be released to me in a week.
12
13.
But then, I was told that they needed to perform a DNA test to confirm that
13
Maria is the children's mom. Recently, the social worker told me that a few days ago a
14
government employee went to Otay Mesa where Maria was detained to conduct the DNA test
15
but that Maria was not there. Later, when I spoke to Maria she said that she had been at Otay
16
Mesa the entire time.
17
14.
On June 22, several weeks after I submitted all of the paperwork, on June 22,
18
2018, I was told that the paperwork I submitted was wrong, the power of attorney was not
19
valid, and the boys would not be released to me. She said that there were new forms we had to
20
complete, but she did not send me the forms until Friday, June 29, 2018. Those forms are
21
attached hereto as Exhibits 5 and 6.
22
15.
On June 27 after borrowing money from family members, I was able to gather
23
$10,000 to post Maria's bond. An immigration agent told me that Maria would come out on
24
June 28, 2018 and that she would be taken to the bus station so she could take the bus to
25
Washington, D.C. So Maria's bus ticket was for June 28. But immigration released her on
26 1 June 27 and Maria called me because the agents left her in a McDonald's and she did not have
DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO
SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
3
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I Street
Sacrammen to, CA 95814
en
916-445-9555
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 137 of 189
I
any place to go or to sleep. She had to look for someone to take her in for one night and now
2
she in on the way to Washington, D.C.
3
16.
On June 28, 2018, I talked to the social worker who told me that we will have
4
to start the sponsorship process again and that Maria will have to fill the application and
5
request the children because she already was released from immigration detention.
6
17.
I am concerned that now the process for Maria's children to be reunited with my
7
family will have to start all over again. Everyone in my home, including my 78-year-old
8
mother, will have to submit fingerprints, police records, and identification, and we will have to
9
complete a new application form. Because of my mother's age, it is difficult to get her
10
fingerprints, and immigration officials previously told her that she would not have to submit
11
fingerprints again. I was told that my niece Maria will also have to be fingerprinted and will
12
have to submit all the documentation, as well. I am concerned that Maria will not be able to
13
produce the right paperwork to be reunited with her sons. Maria does not have a passport, and
14
all she has is an ID card from E1 Salvador.
15
16
18.
All this process has been very difficult for my family:
a.
At first when I would talk to M., the 7-year-old, he was very talkative and
17
excited because the social worker told him he would be out within a week. When the time came
18
that M. expected to be released and nothing happened he sounded depressed, he would not say
19
much and wanted to cry. He asked me why I had not picked him up yet. The social worker told
20
me that M. is depressed and asked me for words of encouragement to cheer him up. On June 28,
21
I spoke with him and he is glad because he thinks that soon he is going to be reunited with his
22
mother. I am worried about M.'s mental health when he learns that we have to start the process
23
again and that he is not going to be released soon.
24
25
b.
Because I am only able to speak on the phone and N. is too young, I have
not been able to speak with him at all. M. told me that N. cries all the time, and that the only
26
DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO
SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
4
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE CALIFORNIA
13300 0 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-445-9555
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 138 of 189
1
time that the kids see each other is at night. M. told me that they let N. stay with him at night
2
because he is the only one with whom N. won't cry.
3
C.
When I speak with Maria she asks for an update about the children and is
4
speechless when I tell her that I am still waiting for approval. She cries. She has only been able
5
to speak with the kids a few times.
6
d.
The most affected person by all this is my mother. She raised Maria after
7
her mother died when Maria was 8 months o Id. At first, I did not want to tell my mom what was
8
happening because she is 78 years old and I was concerned that the news would adversely impact
9
her health. I only told her that Maria and the kids had crossed the border but were detained.
10
After watching news, my mom demanded I tell her what was happening. My mom became ill
11
when I told her that the kids had been separated from Maria Ever since my mom found out about
12
the family separation, she has had an intense headache and I had to take her to see a doctor. I
13
am really concerned about my mom's health. For Maria, the separation from her kids repeats
14
the story as when she lost her mother.
15
e.
On my part, this process has been very depressive and frustrating. When
16
I finally thought that they were going to give me the children they tell me no. I have also had to
17
take time off work to do all that has been asked of me.
18
19.
Iam hopeful that Maria, M. and N. will be reunited soon.
19
20
21
22
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the laws
of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated this 30th day of June 2018 in Washington D.C.
23
[Signature]
24
FRANCISCO SERRANO
25
26
DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO
SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
5
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1300 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-445-9555
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 139 of 189
1
CERTIFICATION OF TRANSLATION
2
3
Manuel Duran, a translator certified by the Judicial Council of California and the Office
of Federal Courts, certifies that he translated/transcribed completely and accurately, and to the
best of his ability the English translation of the following Spanish document(s):
4
NO. 2:18-CV-00939
5
DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
6
7
I swear under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed on July 2, 2018
in Oceanside, California.
8
r
9
10
11
CALIFOP,NIA
JUDICIAL COUNCIL
CERTIFICATION 30034:
July 2, 2018
Manuel Duran
California Certification No. 300344
Federal Court Certification No. 93-462
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO
SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
6
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1300 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-445-9555
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 140 of 189
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
8
NO. 2:18-CV-00939
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,
9
Plaintiff,
DECLARACION DE FRANCISCO
SERRANO EN APOYO A PETICI6N
DE LOS DEMANDANTES PARA
EXHIBICI6N DE PRUEBAS
ACELERADA
10
V.
11
12
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et
al.,
13
Defendants.
14
Yo, Francisco Serrano, declaro to siguiente:
15
1.
Tengo mas de 18 anos de edad y tengo conocimiento personal de los hechos en
16
este documento. Si se me llamara como testigo, podria y testificaria de manera competente a las
17
cuestiones que se exponen a continuaci6n.
18
2.
Yo resido en el Distrito de Columbia. Vivo con mi esposa, mi mama, y mis dos
19
hijos que tienen quince y diecisiete anos de edad.
20
3.
En mayo de 2018, mi sobrina Maria me llam6 para decirme que habia viajado
21
desde El Salvador con una caravana, que estaba en la frontera de Mexico y los Estados Unidos,
22
y que iba a cruzar la frontera por San Ysidro. Tambien me dijo que estaba viajando con sus dos
23
ninos, M. de 7 anos de edad y N. de 2 anos de edad.
24
4.
Aproximadamente una semana despues recibi una llamada de un albergue
25
diciendome que los ninos iban a ser separados de Maria, que iban rumbo a Nueva York, que
26
DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO
SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
1
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I Street
Sacrammen to, CA 95814
en
916-445-9555
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 141 of 189
I
Maria me habia designado como patrocinador y preguntandome que si yo estaba dispuesto a
2
ser el patrocinador. Yo le dije a la persona que seria el patrocinador y la persona me dijo que
3
yo podria hablar con los ninos dos veces por semana. Adjunto los Documentos 1 y 2 son los
4
formularios que me dijeron que completara a principios de mayo para que pudiera recibir a los
5
ninos de Maria.
6
5.
Yo he hablado con el nitro de 7 anos en varias ocasiones desde que la familia
7
lleg6. El me dijo que oficiales le dijeron que a el y a su hermanito los iban a llevar a un centro
8
de detenci6n en Washington, D.C. para estar mas cerca de mi, sus tio. Recibi una Ramada del
9
nitro de siete anos quien pensaba que estaba en Washington, D.C., pero no era asi. El estaba en
10
Nueva York. Una trabajadora social me dijo que los dos ninos estdn Lutheran Youth Hostel en
11
Nueva York.
12
6.
Para ser el patrocinador la trabajadora social me dijo que tenfa que proveer: 1) el
13
acta de nacimiento de la mama de Maria, 2) el acta de nacimiento de Maria, 3) las actas de
14
nacimiento de los ninos, y 4) mi acta de nacimiento, licencia de conducir, pasaporte y pruebas
15
de ciudadania. Ademas de completar el papeleo, tuve que proporcionar copias de mi
16
identificaci6n y registro policial. Yo no tenia copias de las actas de nacimiento de la mama de
17
Maria, de Maria o de los ninos asi es que tuve que contactar a personas en El Salvador para que
18
me las enviaran. Este proceso tomo 5 dias porque un amigo estaba en El Salvador y me pudo
19
ayudar, si no, el proceso hubiera durado de 15 a 20 dias.
20
7.
La trabajadora social que estaba trabajando con los ninos me dijo que cuando yo
21
entregara los documentos ella obtendria aprobaci6n en 36 horas y los ninos saldrian 24 horas
22
despues de eso. No escuch6 de ellos en las pr6ximas 36 horas, pero asumi que todo era valido
23
porque ya habia completado todos los formularios y seguido todas las instrucciones.
24
8.
Aproximadamente una semana despues que proporcione el papeleo me dijeron
25
que me tenian que tomar la huellas. El dia siguiente pedi tiempo en mi trabajo y me tomaron las
26
huellas.
DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO
SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
2
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I Street
Sacramen to, CA 95814
men
916-445-9555
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 142 of 189
1
9.
Despues de que entregu6 los documentos que me pidieron la trabajadora social
2
me dijo que to sentia mucho pero que solo habia obtenido una de las aprobaciones que necesitaba
3
para aprobar el papeleo. Ella dijo que hizo todo to posible pero que estaba fuera de sus manos.
4
10.
A finales de mayo, recibi un poder legal de mi sobrina Maria dandome la
5
autorizacion para cuidar de sus dos ninos menores. Una copia del poder legal notariado esta
6
adjunta como Documento 3. Yo proporcione el poder legal a la trabajadora social a principios
7
de junio.
8
11.
Aproximadamente una semana despues me pidieron que completara una forma
9
certificada para una verificaci6n de antecedentes adicional. El primero de junio de 2018, yo
10
complete el formulario que me proporciono Lutheran Social Services para obtener la
11
autorizacion de recibir a los dos hijos de Maria. Tuve que certificar el formulario por notario.
12
Una copia del formulario esta adjunto como Documento 4.
13
12.
Luego me informaron que pas6 la verificaci6n de antecedentes, pero necesitaban
14
una semana mas para entregarme a los ninos. Hable con el nino de siete anos y me dijo que los
15
oficiales le dijeron que a el y su hermano me los iban a entregar en una semana.
16
13.
Pero luego me dijeron que necesitaban hacer una prueba de ADN para confirmar
17
que Maria es la mama de los ninos. Recientemente, la trabajadora social me dijo que hace unos
18
dias un empleado del gobierno fue a Otay Mesa donde Maria estaba detenida para tomarle la
19
prueba de ADN pero Maria no estaba ahi. Despues, cuando hable con Maria ella dijo que habia
20
estado en Otay Mesa todo el tiempo.
21
14.
E122 de junio, varias semanas despues que entregue todo el papeleo me dijeron
22
que el papeleo que entregue estaba equivocado, que el poder legal no era valido, y que no me
23
iban a entregar a los ninos. Ella dijo que hay formularios nuevos que tenemos que completar,
24
pero no me envi6 los formularios hasta el viernes, 29 de junio de 2018. Esos formularios estan
25
adjuntos como Documentos 5 X 6.
26
DECLARA'T'ION OF FRANCISCO
SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
3
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1300 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-445-9555
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 143 of 189
1
15.
El 27 de junio despues de pedir dinero prestado a miembros de mi familia, pude
2
recolectar $10,000 y pague la fianza de Maria Un agente de inmigraci6n me dijo que Maria
3
saldria el 28 de junio de 2018 y que la llevarian a estaci6n de autobus para que ella pudiera tomar
4
el autobus a Washington D.C. Asi es que el boleto de autobus de Maria estaba para la fecha del
5
28 de junio. Pero inmigraci6n liber6 a Maria el 27 de junio y Maria me llam6 porque los agentes
6
la dejaron en un McDonald's y ella no tenia a donde it ni dormir. Ella tuvo que buscar a alguien
7
que la alojara una noche y ahora esta en camino hacia Washington D.C.
8
9
10
11
16.
El 28 de junio de 2018, hable con la trabajadora social quien me dijo que
tendremos que empezar el proceso de y que Maria tendra que llenar la aplicaci6n y pedir a los
ninos porque ya sali6 de detenci6n de inmigraci6n.
17.
Estoy preocupado que ahora tendremos que empezar de nuevo el proceso para
12
reunir a los ninos de Maria con mi familia. Todos en mi casa, incluyendo mi mama de 78 anos
13
de edad, tendrdn que someter huellas, registro policial, e identificaci6n, y tendremos que
14
completar un nuevo formulario. Debido a la edad de mi mama, es dificil tomarle las huellas, y
15
oficiales de inmigraci6n me dijeron anteriormente que ella no tendria que someterse a las huellas
16
de nuevo. Tambien me informaron que Maria tendra que tomarse las huellas y tendra que
17
presentar toda la documentaci6n. Estoy preocupado de que Maria no pueda producir el papeleo
18
necesario para poder reunirse con sus dos hijos. Maria no tiene pasaporte, y todo to que tiene es
19
to tarjeta de identificaci6n de El Salvador.
20
21
18.
Todo este proceso ha sido muy dificil para mi familia:
a..
Al principio cuando hablaba con M., el nifio de 7 anos, el estaba muy
22
platicador y estaba emocionado porque la trabajadora social le dijo que saldria en una semana,
23
Cuando el tiempo cuando M. esperaba salir lleg6 y nada pas6, el se escuchaba depresivo, nc
24
decia mucho y queria llorar. Me pregunt6 por que no he venido por el todavia. La trabajador
25
social me dijo que M. estaba depresivo y me pidi6 palabras para animarlo. El 28 de junio habl
26
con el y esta contento porque piensa que pronto va a reunirse con su mama. Estoy mds
DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO
SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
4
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I Street
Sacrammen to, CA 95814
en
916-445-9555
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 144 of 189
I
preocupado por la salud mental de M. cuando se entere que tendremos que empezar el proceso
2
de nuevo y que no va a salir pronto.
3
b.
Porque solo puedo hablar por telefono y N. es muy pequeno no he podido
4
hablar con el. M. me dijo que N. llora todo el tiempo, y el unico momento en que los dos ninos
5
se ven es en la noche. M. dijo que dejan que N. se quede con M. por la noche porque es to unico
6
que hard que N. deje de Ilorar
7
C.
Cuando hablo con Maria ella me pregunta que estd pasando con los ninos
8
y se queda sin palabras cuando le digo que todavfa estoy esperando la aprobaci6n. Ella llora.
9
Ella solamente ha podido hablar con los ninos pocas veces.
10
d.
La mds afectada por todo esto es mi mama. Ella crio a Maria despues que
11
su mamd murio cuando Maria tenia 8 meses de edad. Al principio, yo no queria decirle a mi
12
mamd to que estaba pasando porque ella tiene 78 anos de edad y estaba preocupado que si le
13
decia se iba a poner mal de salud. Yo solo le dije que Maria y los ninos habian cruzado la
14
frontera, pero estaban detenidos. Despues de ver las noticias, mi mamd exigio que le dijera que
15
estaba pasando. Mi mamd se puso mal de salud cuando le dije que los ninos habian sido
16
separados de Maria. Desde que mi mama se enter6 de la separaci6n familiar ha tenido un dolor
17
de cabeza intenso y yo tuve que llevarla al doctor. Estoy muy preocupado por la salud de mi
18
mamd. Para Maria, la separaci6n de sus ninos repite la historia de cuando ella perdi6 a su mamd.
19
e.
Por mi parte, este proceso ha lido muy depresivo y frustrante. Cuando al
20
fin pensaba que me iban a dar los ninos me dicen que siempre no. Tambien he tenido que
21
descansar de mi trabajo para hacer todo to que me han pedido que haga.
22
23
24
25
26
DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO
SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
5
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE of CALIFORNIA
1300 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-445-9555
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 145 of 189
I
19,
Tengf In ospersriza (jur Mm i1a, M , y N, ~e Ir r +rlir:irl ptc,r llf ►
Dechro hajo perm de perjurio bujc In% icycq earl Vi.lado dc Calli'mirin v for. (eye# rte 1w
3
}
F, tmins 1 laidos clue to surlcrior cm vt r Lidt•r[1 y cnri clb),
Fechadcr cglc 30 dfii cte ju►lio dd 201 8 co, Wa h iiytc►n 1 -C,
~+
/P
f
(
r
F1 AN('IS(
.` I?I?RAN(
VA
Rm
12
13
Id
15
1
17
1
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
DECLARKrION OF FRANCTV'O
SURRANO IN Slli'C'OW(W
I
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
PX1TD1 r [s,D r) rsC'U v r.,R y
rn 1111'At ► 0RPUy 01NVRA0.
.'i('A(1'N# CAi,pfoRMA
1 ux► 1 9rr:~
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 146 of 189
EXHIBIT 1
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 147 of 189
F
-
I
OvimorttetlranlRen
t7.&. Detmrtamt.rSeaitt~~~sat:~a
tavnra):
Nom dd
Sponsor ~r
Ona NA DE REMCACION DE REFUGMMS
Dioii;Wn tie Servielm de Niiios
DE CUIDADO DEL PA
fimem del menor A:
s
Fedw de nadmiento del rnenur.
Fecha: (0
~
ih
Les+oiicit6 ala Ofidna de Rcubicaci6n de Refttgiados (Office of Refugce Resettlement, ORR) paftnt uas aun ntrw
extranjero no amm4miHado en el cuidado y In custodia del gobierno federal conforme al acuerdo extrajudimat
estipalado Flores v. Reno.ndmmo 85-4544-RJK (Pic) (C-D.Cal-17 de ewro de 1997), secci6a 462. del Homeland
Secu& * Act de MM y In. secci6a 235 del William Wilbmbree Trafficking Victims Protection Reauborization Act de
2008. Si se apm eba la solicited de paRxtcinio, redbkfi un fannulario de Verijfm ddn de liberaci6n de ORR y se
celebrari on acumdo do custoifia can el gobicma federal en el coal acepta cungWr can las siguiemtes disposiciones
mme6tta5 e1 menm estd en sn coidado:
•
Propocciomw et bicmestmrmental y Hake del menor, quo urlaye; entre otr o% aliurentas, refuM vesfimeuta,
educacidn, atenci6a m6dica y duns servirios segdn sea necesado.
•
Si no es el tutus Legal ai el padre u lamadre dd mmm, hags Ins mejotes es£oerzos pot estabkccrima cumxha
legal con el tribunal Local deu Uo de un tiemmpo razonable
•
Asistir aim prvgrama de ocitataddn legal propomiew do pat el Departamento de Insficia (Depaatment of
Inifim DOJ), o prograura de oricntacifm IMd pars custndios (patt+oCmWores) de la Oficin$ Ejocutiva pars la.
Ravisiidn de la lnmigtacidu (Executive Office for immigration Review, EOIR), si est i disponibIe en e1 Iagar
dondensik-
•
Segfm ddnde esW pendieate W caso de inmigracibn del menor, noftfi= Al. Trial de Inmigtaeibn o al
Tribogal de Ape3acinnes de Inmigraeion local en un parfD& de +®co (5) dies de todo camhio de Iittxcidn o
ndomm de bd6fano del menar, ttsandn d fro de tambdo do direcaifo de mtrtmjervs (forma
EOIR 33). Adcamds, si es necesario, presenlaz rma peticiiut de can*io de competencia tarritorial a marafee del
moor La pedci6n de Cirinbio de competencia terdtoeAdebe contenwinfom ud6u, especificada pot el
Trial de Inmigtacm5w Tenga en cuenta qne la petici6n de cambia de pia oemtoaalpacdc requcaa
la ayuda de tm abogado. Para obtener asesorami=u sabre la "peticidn de cambia de competenda berritotial'',
consaUe el Mwaal de pEk:dm drl Txibuaal de Inmigrid6n en M12:// Lusn.-_ov/eOH9zL. Pam oboe=
informaci6n, sobre cases de Ott, comuniquese con el sdslema de inibirmacidn de cases de b unigraci6n
de EIM Haumudo al I-M-8984184 Visite el sitio web de EOIR pm obtener informaci6n. dal en_
bite: /i~v~i
= ev.justic c.^ot~/cnirlfnrmsi is t.lr t n1_
•
NoMmar al DepartatmWO de 5eguritiad del Territoria National ant of Home] Sectmty, DHS) o
a Serviaiaa dc-Quiladmila a Imnigmici6a de Ios Estados Unidos (U.S. Citizenship and Immigtatitm Services)
*
en un perfado de d"rea (I0) dfas de todo cambia de dh=d6n, ptesentando laTadetn do Cambio do Dir=d&
de F-x ft m jero (AR-11) o de manta eIectr6aica. en b t t D:// 1. m sa.-ovlAe51bIP.
•
Asegumb prescom del umm-en t odas Ivs procedimientos futmos ante DUS a Imnigraciduy Segm%W de
Adonnas (Imiaugration and CustSnms 1. AM"ment, ICE) y el Departamuato de Josh x (Dgwtment of Justice,
DOJ) a EOIA.Para obtimer infounacidn sabre cases de inmigmci6n, comunfipiese con el sist3cma de
ii5 de casos de FsOIR Ilamando aL• I-8tlt)-898 7180.
info
Aw4 mr que el mmw se presimitc auto ICE para la expuhu6n do Ins Estados Unidos ai un j= de
kmgmi6n cmift mm ouku de a gmW6n o um mim de Salida voh mbria. Se asigna aI mrmoc un oficial de
de=iacidn pars Ins promdW=h= de expdm
Sn.
Spume Cse Ag;mw=4 Bev 4tl3BI U
Ann VWnyDif A.
t
Ber. 0#r34~Ot2
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 148 of 189
Us. Deporbmma at Bad& dd nmmm Sft-4 e
Faot ReSoVicatke Appfits a, Hev. MM6
13.
de las ocoparser de su boor sufte de al&= estfermdad grave y contaginsa (p. e)., TB,SIDA, bepaWk)? Si
fnesa, pow tom, ap%pdw.
./V O
14(a). ZUated o algano, de los ocvpantes de sn bar ban sKlo aew"w o condenades par un debto (que no sea una
iutraecWu meow de moo, p. ej, velorldad e>cedva, multa por mgt
)?
ONO []Si
14(b)- gUsted a a%ma persona en sa hozar ban We lnoestigados purr abuse Wca, swual, desaMo o abandema de un
e
1lWA"?
ONO nsi
Si"
Si osted Mpoud 6 " a cnalgakra de Ins preguntas 14 (a) a 14ft sh vase adjunrar una Nsta a este formelario con In
i I fr nBMd6M Para Caft cargetoundena:
(X) Nec bre de bt persaoi hwahm radar (2) hqW y fecha dd inciftnte; (3) descdpeWn del 3ncidente;
(4) ResdocMa sob m el ioaidente (p. ej_, dese~6n de cargiss, nmltado, enme lade, perbadn de preeba); (5) Copia
del(dc los) rq*Ws) jufficiWes), r fttro(s) pobcW(es), yto regWtx+ S) de la agenda de mNkio sodW gabwr mr ntal
rebdowkWs) cm Alm) mss)
15. Si exishese in pfd qoe u5trd deba salir de km Estados Unidas, o sex incapaa de *Wdar al menor, Zen
Superviarfa A Rumor en Sa ansencm?:
Nkmbre del l I it' CMkbAw adatio; Mt;-f (Q
Fecha de nadodeato del paste cafidadnr WW[b rt~'~23hi►t °'~
t
r adnita:-I~
p
podWe
InformacAn de contado (daved6n y mere de.
Itebe i6En con el tor, si hay a4mw +, tk p lj- 4; c. q i-c 5~1
do ! } j cr
ui
Resvaom so pl+ra de etudaalo en cask de qac ust+ed tenga que salir de las Estadoa U 'd use ierapaz de cd8r al m~enor:
de~~~t ~r ~,' [~.s ~~~~ ~~S
~~t~
~.~ •ta
v ~c~~ga~ ~
~,~s,
c
In
s~
Dedaro y ofirwo bajo pens de perjmia que In idormad6n cuntcida en esta solicited es verdadera y preeisa,setgom
mi led saber y enbeader. Day fe de rue funks les doeum mAw qm presstito o lass oopias de dichos +docuneetos a dfin
$bmes de emu: y de fry.
Day fe ademAs qae me atesdr6 a las hm rucc loees coutenidas en d Acuerdo del Pahvebwd'or sabre ed Caidado. velare
por el bier tided y ment a1 del mcnor. Tambi(m cumptir6 con ias kyes de mi estado respec o, del cadrlatlo de este
menor, )a qme brd a la bacr4ci6n del nor ea la escudo, In previs 6a de atenci6ya mica cuando srs necasaria, la
t f
proteceii6n del m+wor corrtra el abuse, d+escnddo y abandow,y cealgmer otro requidto no conteen ei presence.
Faasy RennWumafim Ap#kadao,, Rev 01DS/"
01MUCfAVp,ly
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 149 of 189
r
usw
Onke of Rdlbw Resettlement
U.S. Depmtned of Han And Hmasn Services
FumRy Rmdficafim Application.Rev. Oil3,VW16
OFICINA DE REUBICACI45N DE REFUGIADOS
Divisi6n de servidos pare niiios
SOLICITUD DE REUNMCACI$N FAMILIAR
1. Nombre del rnenur:
2. Su relad6n con el menor:
_0
3. Su nombre We rested):
'Yf2 kcf: Co
c
L'. vSuc s
S. Su pats de origen (de usted):
4. CtWgnier otro nombre qae usted hays udUzado:
SQ:T Tall o
~1 Sa
6. Su femha de nachniento (de usted).
r ~.Qdo f
-4-1k
a fag:
7. Nfimero(s) de teNrono donde nos Podemos com uicar
con usted:
idirin usted p el mennr:
9. El dam
10. ZQu6 idlemas hahla?:
C'S Qq i,~ a {
cr rt o C a
t i1 l ~5
11.Worms td6a de km ocapantes del hugar. (Si necedta mss espacio,sirvalse adjt mtar una hits de los ocupantes del hogar
a e ste iormulatio)
I 4 ~~:
r lD
p
Relaclbn con el menor
(p. ej., madm padre)
Fecha de
Nadiniento
Nu more
'
lc3'o
~'L
QCL(~
!
NIi ; C
"r
1 r
at
CX
(C7C C
Relaci6a con rested
(Cl patrocinador)
.S0.
G'S ©
MCI G
hC
3
~ovn
~° 'o
12.Informadbn flnanciera:Slfrvam explicar c6mu va a mantener tinancferamente al menor:
+v-1-f-v
COWO
-5,a1c,,W
Cu vq
Fan* geaaidinW as ApO kabm%Rev. OU25=16
ORR UCJFBP-39
t,:~2s
[l
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 150 of 189
'USA`
qti
17..9. t11e
Od~irs d
$H111Y
a>,d
.C4
Facer RmaMcmdeat]iecldist lb!Spewoos,Ibm 9 66 4 11114
OFICINA DE REDMICACI$N DE REFUGIADOS
Divu"s de ServicIos }tare NIfiw
MTA DE VMWAC16N FAt4IILI4R PARR PATROMADORES
Fornanlauias arse deben6n ser leados v raantenk]" es so
Doder
0 He compkWo y fi
la Aubo4b.%Kmpara )a
Divtdpci6a & Iufuralaci&
® He Iddo In Carta inhoductaria del Paquft pia la
Rctrnificaci6a Familiar
0 He complebdo y finuado la Solidod pare is remizficacidu
familiar,
0 He ieido el Arumdo, de Cuidado del Pah'vcin~
*He leido la lasts de Venficaci6n Para PaWxinadar'es
He 7.eido el Prvgrama General de Orieniai6n Legal para
CVstodios
M He leido e1 Manuol para el Pa:hucinsdor
O He leido las bstnicciones pare is tvma de imeilas digitales
par si tienen quo ser souefida&
S Carta de Designaci6n del Coidado de Ern Menor pars el
pahucinador que NO es uno de Rn padres del rueuat ni sn tntnr
legal_
Par favurpu4Kw iooe una copia de los siguicubes docmon mfm clue figman a conhunwi6n.Pur favor tome en c-aenta.clue Canto ]a
6n oic Refugmdos (Office of lte[age Resctdcment;ORR) coma la Dwomdu de Servicios de Mm no
Oficma de
oFGlrrldreWs Se vmm lam) pueden xe&am su solieitud coma pakeumadur at f:tlia caWgcaae demCn,M de
soficiWa o si esa n isms esd Meta o no es c =ecta. En el caso de qac no pueda grov=1os documentos
la
+ lurAo, con la Sc hcrtud de Reundd't d6n Familiar. ca la Sue indique cue fipo de docuncutacifin de
una czp
vquc6iosl
respaldo no pun& pm=bwy la raz6n Tenga ea —nta.qne su r-Vhcaci+bn sahte caalgtf= docamcalt std6n faltante goedarfi suj eta a la
aceutwMA do ORRIDCS_
L
Wadw des#IdaQlidat~
•
[haacApiadeamida>tifaddneonitidap~ciB~i~.talcomp:
icadm trailida par el estada
a. Iiumda de aoadaca0 bu*M de Andr
b boca~+saso de ideotidad (— hM) de su pats de ofigea (p- cj, calula)
a pampoate
•
thmeopkdomcad deumdudedo
Z Preebs de to ideatidad dd a+asu:
Una c pik dd ccnifka& dc nadmieWo ddmamr
a
3. Pram" do lyirmEesnoe
• Fs tregob aapiaS do atlti
6 de nab, de mmo~aal0. regisRna
4. MR&IM Y
5.
(A
n !jsiras de la u~tau Duns doeameatcu, afn do aporbT
ref
evidwdadelam*Ai6a
+e)
Si wtod wqmgM Sr a be p xgwibw 14(a) 7fb 10) to la BolidW
F—War, aporte -gLsuw JO-+k+ per+ lro de Los
gACM2WCOftkS cdedmadns ono d/ h)s hKidrnte(S}
se=vioies
m® m;
Si umd Nil cs UM de Laspxb= (Pd how kzd de esw, P= li Mpupadmic de run de los siguimtea domumwtas Como eompmbanic do
dnmia7iu. Si vs W Sias d padoe o d btmr legal dd mcaaa;no es nenesatio qne mnLgm ffi co>oprob=I a de dnuddUo.
a
Una coyer de su icata tctaal
h Uvm eapia dd esiado de meta actual de sa bgxftm
sn
0.
cq t:ia dd propi Ot2ff% en b gaeae a
d. ilraa#adesacrospande~ciis.pMktHAcw=ftuna
FhMW Eton Ap# adm
Spwsarr, Rm. lktltyUM4
deMViciopu 'odiirigrdautisteiL
-bu
oudtndoaimdlduuosdosmew
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 151 of 189
OFICINA DE REUBICAC16N DE REFUGIADOS
Divisidan de Setvicios de Ni ms
AUTOOMC16N PARA LA DIWLGAC16N DE HWORMAC16N
INFORMACI N RMUEl M PARA LA DWESnGACI N DE ANTECO)ENTES
NOMBW M11WN(!)Ra Nb
D1F W"
Apdidn
SEGO:
M
FiBC A DS DiAt
N EiU Ddb MENO-
MPATR+NAIlM
-~ `
MASC.
~}
>~
1~d~ m~tio {
O0~°" -kt+~ei SCt~
¢
A= lR. `46 AWPI7 a c~ 9C COlw de o*
bkFo
!
Prao
©~
t J (
tUGAR M NACIIMWMU: olse el aake de dais ietm pam el esta&)
AUwa
t"
~` ' `r
,
DROP-
MeslArw
AASTA--
~
M
h(COAF
NASTA:
McWASo
AASTA,
t3MAW
Mes Aum
Ciudad {couda3o}
EstAdn
y0jh;Wt iA
Apartaneaa6onro
&S.
CWW (ooudads)
Estado
C6 4i"
McdAiio
DFSDE:
Desdc
mes AOO
m
Me dAi-
DESK:
i Q +k
90QA]r,
+
J+
~' JQ l Yrti-C_l.~,, r
®
Asia
D$
C7
OCROSS1V
Nonibm
RAS A.
FECUADENACI(NMM
1k
)
CadDr
l
UWlUDWYSWWMMIWUS'O:
I Desdm
Mes Arm
Mee Ain
RESME Nt: SE N>4Lesl~ialA~c ds emisidn
Ndm m de cerdrwadvA
MaMWAAn de
Pafs
10
i
5411 r
1 '
Ndmern da regi = del
m&aa*-
' '6a
t'
Pats de ciodadanfa
t
iad"rraor d uiaa:o de 5egw'a Social. Sin embor a,si aw io indk:&, es Pie qae Ia ORR ao pot& reaiix r fa inn de anftoulnitts
ooeesarla parcel ptac~te de tie.
Anffimaistina far Rdem of BdaaaRUM6 IRM lW3lMU
ftma a o[2 1
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 152 of 189
OFICiNA DE REURICACION DE REFUGL4MS
Divisi+6u de Servkiw de Nliw
AUTORMC16N PARA LA DWULGAC16N DE DWORMAQbN
Ira ate 09ft MdMWWs6a, h&qV ftww&yfi&hda cam haft
Aufad= a cualquier investi V4m, ageu$ cgvdal, er Vk ado, coutratista, crsionario u otm representantc debidamente wtuaedo qtw
aabaje to nowbw de is Ofidna de Rat de Ref i&dos (Office of Refugee Reseukmeatt) ague esas llcvando a can In irrvestigadon
de mw anu=dexttes y la eevabzad6n de paaacinio a abuma h4mmad6n a fm de evahzar um capacidad gars brindade e1 ddAdo cuidado y
Ingar a un menory lara proveede lag sun icias postariorm a su 1:"bmucift, segtin'sea necesarm. Antodm a canker agemm deim icia
penal federal.
estatel o local;ageacia pare el bimwAar infantil federal,estatal, kwA o pdvada; agenda fedmml de inmigmci6n o euatgaier
'
otm faente de kIbtmracAi4 td c arao cwwlss,tnlami s,provecdores de tratamiento. Amwonaum de libcrwd c andieicrnallbajo pabbra,
canto verbalamte coma par esaim4 k hrma i6n aretca de todo hilt aw
pmfesiorralm de la salami mental a onas reftwenes, a di vWW,
delictivn,cmgos a dudes sabre abtrso y descaido iafxrl,stmad6n miga t na passda y pme9eate, problemas de salad mRatral, abaso de
sustaucsW viglenraa damiatmo enalgmezotra i birmaai6a psiaasociai iecopilada aeema de mi gerrsana_
AukR im a Jos rjm&os de Im ie&ros y femmes de la mformacidn sobm mi persona,a divulger tal infatmad ante la solicited del
innrestigadfll~ ageOe eapwl,tea,cWhafisbk, aesionauo u otro representame debidamente aamdiu& de is Of cica. de Pwubica66n
de Reftrgiados.
Endw& spas la kdoung6da divulgadapor cualgtuerr casuAto de mis regotms y otms fuentm de Ia infomw6n a= de mi. p=wM es
Para aso a$aalfior prams del gobiame, da ks EE- UU, ms empleados, cesionauos, cants y otro Personal dclegado Para krs fires
expresailos mds =93a y que puede su revda& par el gobiers?o de Im lam. W_ solamente ea la forma autorirada par la ley.
i
Ek iet & q= esta i armad6o se arnvextir en propieded de la Oficina de Rcuhicaci6n de Rcfiq dos y quo pw!de mT mvisai& par sus
a,
empleados, terra mr counatiMs y de dos. Ta wbMn enoando sae la Oficiaa do Renbiracirin de Refugmdos guede cxmnpadir esta
inform ac:i6n can Jos empkados y cooatratistas de otras agendas fedetales.
Pay el Presrrdie rmmacso a makfaki redamo o dw=bo en vuaxl de Los leyes de km EsWAos Unidus contra e] pbiaw federal, sirs
empleados,cc4oaarios,cntzatistas o delegados poruw legalrnente cualgnier informaa6n recopilada dnranm Ia bdsgaeda de mi hktm-hd
i6n rcbtiva. al biter fi&ntil, w acidn migmtona pasada o p ==te, cuaRpAff informaci6a oontemda ea mi solicimd
dehctivo, mf
depaftoemmycaladocamagaczdadercqmldoylamgonuact&rccopda&dcaudquaff aaa foente, en forma. oral o es mtk relarionada
arm esu soliciMd de paftecWo. Pea• d pre=te =mmdo a tuda demanda o acuecdo paevio con wdquier agenda iiederal estatal, local o
privada T= padkm imp uWc al debtgado oficial de la Ofi,cina de Rcubicaei& de Refugiados obtenca la mfonmotba soliddada.
Las c opias de eats aUW&McWn qw Coakfigim mi 6son tan AlidaS canto el a d&aL Fla anwrizad6a es vafii& par on (k) and a parlu•
de la focba de su fnm&
FMW (fume CM tpAd)
que umd hays usado (arras)
Fecha de vac. del. patrocamdor
Estado
Domicilio aetual
a S-
h
FI-apte'aw
C>aUs
Fecha do la firma
Nombm completo (amfigmna o en ktrade
imprenta legible)
Cidlgo
N'
.
Is
del SegtrET!
Wro. de tel6bono de whogar
}
$
Mi
mi"
an ae
de Segero Sodsi.Sin esmatgs,sm to raeux~,es pusidc gee ra uxx m ptroaa : sestet ranm
'No m obtkaW rso uxSmr sn
'
a~ uaoesari: parr d ptoceLD de; to6a
el Idoeta9eay Rea. i4t31~ii
Aa$roe~af~
oRR f117 MP--2a
~0~
Ptp >iof2
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 153 of 189
EXHIBIT 2
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 154 of 189
LT ¢
4
r
•
usA•
U&
of Heatltr nod t~cvapn Services
11,14171AH
AAA (Si los
OBlmarPOhgee Rmerdement
5poaser Case Agreement,Rev. tkY30t=2
OFICINA DE REUBICACitSN DE REFUGLADOS
DiWsidta de Servirios de Nlnas
ACUERDO DE CUIDADO DEL
uanera del menor A:
echa de nacimiento del
l
Fecha: UC' )r, 71P meno:,:--:E*
Le solic O a la Oficina de Reubicacion de Refugiados (Office of Refugee Resettlement,ORR) patrocirtar a un ni iio
extranjem no acompanado en el cuidado y la cusuxlia del gobierno federal confonne al acuerdo extrajudicial
estipulado Mores v. Reno. ndmem 85-4544-RJK (Px) (C.D. CaL,17 de enero de 1997), seccidn 462 del Homeland
Security Act de 2002 y la secci6n 235 del William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Pratection Reauthorization Act de
2008.Si so apmeba la solicitud de patmcinio, recibira un formulario do Verrficaci6n de liberaci6n de ORR y se
celebrariun atnerdo de cusoodia con el gobierno federal err el coal acepta cutnplir con las siguientes dispositions
mientras el menor este an su cuidado:
s Progorciousr el bienestar mental y fisico del menor,quo incluye,entre obit, alimentos, refugio,vestimenta,
educaci6n,atenci6n medica y elms servicios segdn sea necesario_
s Si no es el tutor legal ni el padre o la madre del menor, hags los rnejores esfverzos par establecer una custodia
legal con el tribunal local dentro de un fienrpo razonable.
•
As'iudr a un programa de orientaci6n Legal pmporcionado por el Depart amento de Justicia (Department of
Justice,DOI), o programs de orientaci6n legal Para custodies (patrocinadores) de la Oficina Ejecutiva Para la
Revisi6n de la Imnigraci6a W
Accutive Office for luunigration Review, EOIR), si esta disponible en el lugar
don& reside.
+
Segun d6nde est6 pendicptle ei caso de inmigra66n del menor,nortificar al Tribunal de Inmigcaei6n o al
Tribunal de Apelaciones de Inmigraci6n local en un periodo de cineo (5) dins de todo cambio de direction o
mimem de teWono del menor, usando eI formulario de cambio de direceion de exbmjeros (formulario
EOIR 33). Aden*,si es necesario,preseritar una petici6n de cambio de competencia territorial a nombre del
menor. La petici6n de cambio de competencia territorial debe contener informaci613 especificada por el
Tribunal de Inmigraci6n.Tenga on cuenta quo la petition de cambic de competencia territorial puede requerir
la ayuda de un abogado.Para obtener asesoramiento sobre la "petici6n de cambio de competencia territoriar,
consulte el Manual de practica del Tribunal de Inmigraci6n en lm wl,' t , ul a. a k ()t 19v t.. Para obtener
informacift sobre cases de inmigraci6n, comuniquese con el sistema de information de casos de inmigraci6n
de EOIR llamando al 1-EWS98 7180.Visite el sitio web de EOM pare obtencr information adkional en:
+
Notificar al Departamento de Seguridad del Territorio National (Department of Homeland Security, DHS) o
a Servicios de Ciudadania a hurugrad6n de los Estados Unidos (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services)
on un pedodo de diez ( dfas de todo cambio de direction, presentando la Tm jeta de Cambio de Direcci6n
10)
de Extranjera (AR 11) o de manera electr6nica on I it I p:// 1 . c ,,,. _ m M0 N [ P,
Asegurar la prmencia del menor en todos los procedimimtos futuros ante DHS o lnm graci6n y Seguridad de
Aduanas (Immigration and Qztoms Enforcement,ICE) y el Departamento de Justicia ('Department of Justice,
DOJ) o EOIR _ Para obtener information sobre cases de inmigraci6n,comunfquese con el sistema de
informacion de casos de EOIR Ilamando ah 1-800-848-7180.
Asegarar clue el menor se presente ante ICE pars la expulsion de los Estados Unidos si un juez de
inmigrad6u eunte, Ina order de expulsi6n o una orden do salida voluntaria Se asigna al menor un o$cial de
deportation parn los procedirrrientos de expulsi6n.
5poavor Care Agreement,Rev. t141MM12
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 155 of 189
T
e
.
C
'tf5A'
O$ke of Rcf'agee Resettlement
Family RetwI radon Ap phullm Rev. OV2SM16
U.S. Department of Health and Hmnan Services
DFICINA DE REUBICACION DE REFUGIAUUS
Mid& de servidos para nitnos
SQLICTTUD DE REUNMCACIQN FAMM AR
1. Nombre del men -
Z. Su rdacidn con el menor:
C
rd
4. Cualquier otro nombre que uAM hays nallizado:
):
3. Su nombre (de
`IWC'SC'O CIP
S. Su pals de migen (de usted):
CY' O 92
i ,~ /_/
I U d/GI i
t
u
donde nos
os
7. Mnwro(s
con usted:
9. El domicdio donde residir III
,~.~
6. Su fecha de mctmiento (de usted):
r
M&L
1diomas habla?:
10.4Qut;
Ct it v-0co
y el menor:
vt
5
11.Informacddn de loss ocupantes del hogar. (SI necesita mas espacio,sirvase adjtmtar um lista de los ocupantes del hogar
a este formulario)
Fecho de
Nacknknto
Nombre
/1601- C05
W"
Lo-
kC7
Wcxjt.V
Reladdn con usted
(e) patrocivador)
Relacidn con el menor
(p- ej-, ma&e, padre)
c,e tlet
AA d 144 '
~l° .V
a
Rff
a
~t1~0
12.Wormaddn l"mandera:Sfrvnm expRear como va a mantener finanderamente al menor:
~rd
~rQ
t7
df ©4
u
Family Resutn at m Appunadao, Rev. Olawo16
OM UM"-3s
( e24-ty
ao
S
-Iry
t,
i Gz4 co
OS
-
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 156 of 189
U.S. Department of Health and Humwn Services
Office of Refugee Resettlement
Family Reunification Application, Rex 01f2VM16
13. ZAlguno de ios ocupantes de su hogar sufre de alguna enferinedad grave y contagiosa (p. ej., TB, S1DA, hepatitis)? Si asi
fuera, por favor, expliquelo:
/t/ f-}
14(a). gUsted o alguno de los ocupantes de su hogar ban sido acusados o condenados por un delito (que no sea una
infraed6n menor de tr6nsito, p. ej., velocidad excesiva, multa por mal estacionamiento)?
® NO u Sf
14(b). ZUsted o algunn persona en su hogar ban sido investigados por abuso flsico, sexual, descuido o abandon de un
menor?
® NO u Si
Si usted responded "Si" a cuslquiera de las preguntas 14 (a) o 14(b), sirvase adjuntar una lists a este formulario con la
siguiente infornmeWn pare cada cargo/condena:
(1) Nombre de la persona involucrada; (2) lugar y fecha del incidente; (3) descripci6n del incidente;
(4) Resoluci6n sohm el incidente (p• ej., desestimaci6n de cargos, multado, encarcelado, periodo de prueba); (5) Copia
del(de los) registro(s) judicial(es), registro(s) policial(es), ylo registro(s) de la agencia de servicio social gubernamental
relacionado(s) con el(los) incidente(s)
15. Si edstiese la posibilidad que usted deba satir de los Estados Unidos, o ser encapaz de cuidar al menor, gquWa
supervisaria al menor en su ausencia?.
t J0" Ca'(Wt ~
yt
g,Z
Nombre del posible cuidador adulte: 4Aa f(V4t
Fecha de nad flento del posible cuidador adulto: ~rj
u
Informaci6n de contacto (direcci6n y niimero de telef000) del posible cuidador adulto:
Relacl6n con el menor, si hay alguna: T, a V e /; ~CcL Qol 5t ja PaTQ JV (it { + 1 C?
Resum su plan de culdado en caso de que usted tenga que safer de los Estados Unidos o sea incapaz de cuidar al menor:
dco i
a
l=os ~Ot I ~+~S"
d;01LjrQ
F
Pof Cva( C~'L41Qi E me t 0C C. ~-C
?QlaA
COM C7
r~~ga~
Cowl-~ S'c e ~ creL~ ~ ~.
i
Declaro y afirmo bajo pens de perjurio que la informaci6n contenida en esta solicitud es verdadera y precise, segnn
mi leal saber y entender. Doy fe de que todos los documentos que presento o las copias de dichos documentos est6n
fibres de error y de fraude.
Doy fe ademas que me atendre a [as instructions contenidas en el Acuerdo del Patrocinador sabre el Cuidadv. Velare
per el bienestar fisico y mental del menor. Tambien cumplire con Ins leyes de mi estado respecto del cuidado de este
menor;to que incluye la inscripd6n del menor en la escuela, la provision de atenci6n medics cuando sea necesaria, la
protecei6n del menor contra el abuso, descuido y abandono, y cualquier otro requisito no contenido en el presente.
SU FIRMA:
Family Re+ini6cation Application, Rev. (!1/25/2016
ORR IUCIFRP-39
FECHA:
c)5
It
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 157 of 189
Trr
z
t~
O 'USA,
Offim o
U.S. ant of I fealth and ffimwa Serv3se
p ~RnlQnt
Fad Rs+anWea6m Checklist Ibr Sponsors, Rev. 04AMM14
OFIMA DE REUBICACION DE REFUGIADOS
Divisibn de Servicios pare Nifios
LLSTA DE VERE'ACION FAMI LIAR PARA PATROCINADORES
N He cempletado y firmado la Auluazacion para la
Divulgacidu de Inforn=i6n
IN He completado y firniado la Solieitud para la rmni&wion
familiar
Forn odarios aloe debelrbn ser Milos y mantenidos en su
get'
He lefdo la Carta introductoria del Paquete pars la
Reunificacidn familiar
a
He lefdo eI Acuerdo do Cuidado del Pahncinador
® He lefdo la l ista de Verificacion para Patrocinadores
He lefdo el Programs General de Orientacidia Legal Para
Castodios
® He lefdo el Manual para el Patmcinador
He lefdo Ins lnstnlcciones para la toma de huellas digitales
por si denen que ser sometidas.
s Carta de Designaci6n del Cuidado de un Metlor pars el
patrocinador que NO es uno do los padres del menor ni su tutor
legal.
Documentos ulrubatarios
Par favor proporcione una copea de los siguientes docurnentos que figursn a continuation.Par favor tome an cucutit que tanto la
Oficina de Renb:caadn de Refugiados (Office of Re#ngee Resettlement, ORR) Como la Division de Serviraos de Nubs no
Acoupanados (Division of Children's Services,DCS) paeden 1ecllazar su solicitud coma patrocinador A falls cualquier elemento de
"
la infoamaci6n solicitada c si era mtww ester inconVleta o no es correcta. En el caso de que no pueda proveer los documentos
n
regaeridos, adjunte una eaplicad6n. junto con is Sobcitud de Reunificaci6a Familiar, en la que Mque que tips de docameniaciim de
respaldo no puede presentar y la razdn. Tonga en cuenta que su expliead6n sobre cualquier documentation faltante quedara aujeta a la
RAALL
4i41iRM
1.
Prveba de sa Idenfidad:
Una copia de mta idenfificaddn er6dda par el gobierno, tal coma:
•
IL 11cencia de coaduir o tmjeta de idaWfieacirm a mWda por el cuado
b. Duumnewa do Wmfidad (con foto) de su paEs de origea (p. ej., cedula)
c.
Y
w
Pasaparte
Una cogia de su onfificado de nacimien6o
2L Prueba de la iden6dad dd meann
. Tuna coca del certificado do uAdmiento del minor
3. P meba de Par+enlewo:
•
FnUvgue copies de ccrf rcadoc de naeimimto,de manimonio, regaros jndiciales, regisuns de la tutnoa u oam documentos, a fin der aperrar
'
evidcucia de Is relud bn ffiae usted y el menu
4. Rog6tr- Legaks (si carnrtpaIIde)
Si usted respandio "5a a In pregantas 14(a) y/u 14(b) on In SoIEcift d de Reun jkmcion Familiar, spartc regis uns judiciales,policiales, ylo de toe
mrvicios sodWes gubernamemales relaciaw con el/ las incideule(s).
5. $t usW NO es um de las padres o ci [mnr iegd de We mo=or,par favor pngmdu= de uno de Ins siguimies documsmlos cones comlxubante tle
dvmiciiio. Si umd SI es el padre o el nfiot legal del mo=or,no es nece wio que eo tregue un campmbante de dorWoEo.
a Una eapla de suienta acnW
b_ Una copia del estalo de cuaAa actual de su lMpoteca
a Cowta del propietRde. en la que se eon5me su domicilio.
d_ Una oopade sa ccnrspoftda, pte(e ubkmente um factma de serviLio Ffibbco ditWda a ustsd,corrtspondiendo a los Wilmot dos mews.
Family Retmdncatlon AppHcaffon Cbechrld far Sponsors,Rev_ OW44014
ORR UACIFRPc3Aa
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 158 of 189
OFICWA DE REUBICACION DE REMGIADOS
Divisi6n de Servicios de Niitos
AUTORUAC16N PARA LA Dn ULGACION DR INFORMAC16N
INFORMACI N
RIDAZ&RA LA IlVYESTIGACION DE AN'TECED
NOMREDMMENOP,=
.
VECHA DE NAC0411 NW DEL MEMR:
FECIIADENACHUfffrO
.
-EWORMACIONIDELPATROCMADOM
1'r1a~
Ap>el6lda
elk PU
SEXO: IMMUC. 0>RE14L
l4ic
Reza
Peso
3
Altura
~Q•}y viQ
LUGAR DE NACI1►
re del at to {sumo)
r
c,
c~
L
Color de ojos
6tFaS
Color d epelo
q a
(W t gX
`
f
t
NUMRODESEGUROSOCIAL
: (Use et codes de das letras pars el estado)
Pals
Estado
Combdo
Ciudad
501,1~a .# e cla
~
OTROS NOM$RES UTH ZAD
Des&:
Nombre
Mrs Ano
Basta:
Mes Aiio
f S'Q ~~ d
Hombre
I ►Q rr (
OS Y SUS NECHAS DE USO:
Desde:
Mes ABo
Has%,
Mes Aiio
RESID) NCIAS @1 LOS ULT040S 5 ANOS:
Apartamentonro.
MWAno
DESDE:
' 1 19-ov
0
HASTA:
JDESDE:
MeslAno
BASTA:
MedArm
HASTA:
Mes/Ano
DESDE:
MesiAiSo
~
P
Mes/Ano
DE'SDE:
/ $ E'tr~t~ i`l
Mes/Aito
Cddego
Estado
Ciudad(coadado)
Apartamento nro.
Domicilio
'
C6digo
le ctado
Ciadad (coa dado)
postal
Apattamcnto me.
Domier'iro
C6di90
Eslado
Citulad (condado)
poslsd
Apartaeneato nrn.
Domicillo
C6digo
Estada
Ciudad (*Wiade)
Postal
Mrs/Ano
SASTA:
MWADANJA DE LOS FMADOS UNWOS Si el patrocinador es ciudadano estadounidense,pem no m66 en los EE. UU., brinde infonnaci6n acerca de
una o mis de las sigukntcs pruebas de ciudadanfa.
CertWicade de naboAlimacidn
Certirkado de ceudadania UD6ade st errriti 6 et certi
Ciudad
Estado
Ciudad
Tribunal
r
~}Yi ~{
MesAXa/Aiio de emisinn
Ndnrero de certificado
?
Jp~
d tt b/ 7
tado
t,t>~tr~t `
to de Estado:Inioraee del uadnitado en el
Fo muWrio ?40 dcl
Explicacian
Medl)fa /Ano
Indique la fecha en que se pmpaM
.
m de tm ciadadano de ios Zstades Unidos
el formulario y brinde um
explimi6a si fitese =esa:io.
FASWrtc de los EE UU.
McdWMo de eansi6
Paede ser tanto un pasaporte de los EE. UU wh3al eomo aulmiar.
DOSLE CMDADANIA: Si el suido tiene (o tuvo) doble ciJldadania de los Estados
Unidos y de oiro pals, indique el nomhm de dicAO pals en el eq=io de la deieoha.
E 1'RANJERO Si el sujeto es extranjeso,indique la siguiente informaci6n:
Estado Fecba de enuada a Jos
Ciudad
EE.Im.
L ugm de euhada a Im
Mm Ila
Apo
Esudos Unidos
'ieguro
' No es oblaptorlo indimr el nutrtero ae ,
war:Ida
oecesaria pars el procediiz koto de reunEr
Aaihorbmtlon for Rise of ladwm dm,Rev IM MI
ORA UCWRP-2s -- -
.
name n..w, ,.w....
d/ V-S .11-10 11
Pais
~/
_
1
Mmero de mgistm del
extracim
%ABU% w pu
c~
Wt7 1
ra
Pais de ciudadmia
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 159 of 189
OFICINA DE REUBTCACION DE REFUGIADOS
Division de Servidos de Nifies
AUTOPJZACION PARR IA DIVULGACION DE INFORMACION
Lea cuiAdwamenk esta mutorezci6n, ftaego f rnnela y f6chela con tints negra.
Autorizo a cualquier investigador,agente especial,emplmdo, contratista, cesionado u otro mpresentante debidarnente autarizado que
trabaje ennombre de la Oficina de Reubicad6n de Refugiados (Office of Refugee Resettlement) que est6 Ilevando a cabo la investigaci6n
de mis antecedentes y la evaluaci6n de patrocimo a obtener infarmaci6n a fin de evaluar mi capaddad pare brindarle el debido cuidado y
lugar a un mmor y para pmveerle los servicios posteriores a su liberad6n, selon sea accasado.Autorizo a cualquier agenda de justicia
penal federal,estatal o local;agenda pats el bienestar infantil federal, estatal, local o privada;agencia federal de inroigtaci6n a cualquier
otm fuente de infonnwi6n.tal Como escoelas, tribunales, pmveedores de tratamiento,funcionarios de libenad candicionallhajo palabra,
pmfesionales de la sahzd ment2d u otters referencias, a divulgar,tanto verbalmente como por escrito,ioformaci6n acerca de todo.historial
delictivo, cargos o dudae sobre abuso y descuido infantil, situacion migratoria pasada y presents, problemm de salud mental, abusa de
sustancias,violencia domestica o cnalquier otra informaci6n psicosocial recopilada acenca de mi persona.
ted
Autarizo alas custo&os de los regist m y fuentes de ]a informaci6n sobre mi persona, a divulgar tad informi6dn ante la solici del
investigador, agente especial, empleado,coniratista,cesionado u otro representante debidamente ac►editado de la Oficina de Reubicaci6n
de Refugiados.
Entiendo que to informaci6a divulgada. pot cualquier custodio do mis registros y otras fuentes de la informaci6n acerea de mi persona es
para use oficial por patio del gobierno de los EE. W_, ws empleados, cesionarios, conuutistas y otro personal delegado pars los fines
expresades m.4s ardba y que puede ser tevelada per el gobieruo de los BE.W, sol:wewe on la forma autvrizada poor la ley.
Entiende que esta informad6n se canvertird en propiedad de la Oficina de Reubicad6n de Refugiados y que puede ser revisada por sus
cwpleadas, cesionarias. coy' tome as y delegados.Tambiea entieuda que la Oficina de Reabicaci6n de Refugiados puede compattir esta
informaci6n can los empleados y contratistas de otras agencias federales.
Por el presentee reatww to a coalquier reciamo o derecho en virtud de las ]eyes de los Finadus Unidos contra el gobiersw federal, sus
empleados,cesiomarios, contratistas o delegados por usar legalmente eunlgaier info maci6n recopilada durante la brisqueda de mi bistorial
delictivo,informacift reladva al bionestar infantil, situacida migratoria pagoda o presents, cualqui,er inforaumi6a centenida en mi solicited
de parr wWo y ea la documentad6n de respaldo y la informad6n mcopilada de cualquier otra fuento, en forma oral o escrita, relacionada
con esta solicited de pabocinio. Por el presente renuncia a toda demands o acuesdo previo con cualquier agencia federal estatal, local o
pnvada que pudiem impedide al dcdegado oficial de la Ofidna de Rcubicad6n de Refugiados obtener la infurmad6n solicitada.
Las copiers de esta autorizacidn que contengan mi firma son tan validas como el original. Fsta autodzaci6n es vilida porun (1) ano a partir
do la fecha de sir firma.
Nombre completo (a maquina o en lets de
imprenta legible)
Punta (fume con tinta)
Otnos na
que usted haya usado (alias)
Fecha de la firma
Fecha de nac. del patrocinadar
Numem del Segura
Estado
Domicilio actual
s
(~
, ~~~~(~~" 1
~ ~
C6digo
pa5t81
Mo.
told fono de sir hogar
dje'~
V
~~1~,~~
r srr tri m rle Scgarn Sociard. emnuge, si no to indica,es pos+bte que ra Orut m pneda rearaar ra tuv igamon ae
1Vo es otrlig>+ Eario
anteceded noes m gars et PmebOmmuto de rvmOcapva.
AuttwimflM fcw Rdmw of 7Worued0% tier. lWIf"11
ORR XWJWRP-7$
78,NiX4 throagh 03112018
OMB Qt
Page 1 of
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 160 of 189
EXHIBIT 3
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 161 of 189
..,
c..'t~-.,
r. , i.-i. - •
"
=.1 FI~!(a tta 4:4 iti.
_
..
k ho. klov%imcttt tims snot
+\fly - R • ,\. t.. t tl .4tk1 !•\ltl►.I
#\ ii a i'~\i lit liiki*i
k1, ikiki
...-..
..
so, bows 4400-4465), If you
k C 1i ,-A sti Ali%k~ttv1 •it t ti 4Awuw4lfet
~
►'Ak , X~t'=iyimv% (tit Vim, Yklit 111ay Trovok o this
_w
QSµ► ilil> O *MO +rti.U'al+l
ktANkV
~~ _ • y~ 'w',
,3~t.
l\1e ear.,= tRi a\% Lit% itit \1+E\ \\lih isi*V l Ao tho l 410 \ving 1llitiA10tl Stlhjr+U:
ill tioxtt of t ho wither ~,l('1\Virs,
-,'tlRY-i. .tt k", imk,. iLt1Fti lit itluti of ;iii cul i wko Ow
k'..$ A , =1,~t\'-p
}A
\,
tti i a'^ 1~slll~l\ lA i i4t1\ ti i ii11I{ tj itht htW 41 fivAlt if t'lwh Eli wer you are
•: x r ~: i+ . s+s \1t d i abt d
,'+w'
tE : ,'.•
... , ,~a~,..e.aa .~, .;i v#i~t .~Fali ►►N t►1jtjA&i"twt if %uw N% A pt (u.Waiguoto neon than one)
.°, \\, ,
i wtii t;tw i 1 tt u4i i ri' `\%►1 ill a bt►t ti.+t k i11►t ric>3a c-Nut catch tauwer withheld.
,°
,.. ,,,~~.tt ._,..,.....,;.,
t
,, '' t 4 4 :, a~
.
t
_. a..
k)) k'vrs\ iiik atki family I mate alive.
_.. (,k) tiol► Ats train
,;<.~:~
N~~ , It
t
~kl~ctk iiiiiearlkitigatim
t ~' . . t , t ate iwli S h ►X
; :,~ j; i ti ke11
~` t ' a u .\ .
, .,i 1
htc th dlil, ru iXt1Cr
~t1
W t1~%44 06ilil
*
► O"is
" yy~, ,,Y ``
N4,ok NW
\ titltl `t t~W
swurity, h- edicam,
ternttxt►tal progmMS,
tv civil aC zuitiwy stvitc
~T
yT _
t i~'~ At.I CW THE POWERS USTED .\,BOVE.
1 A#44 W4 WL thii aar outer fives If you initial HueM
aft
'*k' ;A I ik k\N k'RIV t'IWNSa
w.\1 \t yi*'..i toy ~~ 4~~tti,tvilViH`sleilittt AlQilt aeni)
,.:.> ,..'- 5► \
t
w4kv,4 fAWIK'~W Ole AWt it 3 VKXV t~? fm 111Y chile n:
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 162 of 189
4NW
4WIK
At
N*4,K\i iA
-,v
orooNk wl "V svA w*-Cokvl
If
4), *f
.
boo-
Ow
)w ace Al ITk
,-04N*v ofthe W"V*wm
*,
\t rd*AWV
Nmt Vk4#,* 0101M,
IN
4
^k
s.
vkNrk
Mn1
mr)
1~1-lq mmk ~ OfINIan I)IC);N\
l
00, t.4k'IIW I rmwlx
1w Nctr"ft" w0v%ftwt
-4* #Wai~s -4ww
M
1- k(W.NrT
d'C
it~
zmvw XT%
a rq- Ow )"N.4pn*4v-W-v,,skcwmvK"o
the
exscmd
ttv m~~wra th,-
Oailix*-.Ila that the f~rct
Nping
N
U- w AM w II-A s
,
N
IL IK
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 163 of 189
EXHIBIT 4
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 164 of 189
" I A 1 t' I
Vitt '1'41 Ill it 4 1 1 it
,Nlili I it ,-it
A
L"41 i41t«
lift' ill
l
Foundoli Floidloitp fils 4ittlittat It itsio It Ai I % I, I I
Ot,ii I"
Il'i It$ tit I
11to l."ki"itt i4!4!
child atuiso and (169140, alld 11,4111411, with tltA Adsillk W$41.11 I 14flio it k4o'ltls III 711 1,1 "fl-i
110M
Kpope(Jive adaptive or twilur pworill
III
This Harm must b* twp*wrilloo *0 blilitod AliV lialtit4wi I u-I% Isi
1. Comploto at)$$ ki(tyl (tit OaOit bilillylottAl Ito whitill'4 i-illill
Indude a djock ot it"10tibV
2.
oodut Ili Ole t4ijiltil o j. ti 10
m
,
3. Mail ccoplalbO flailu"Ib W. I ib I R) tAilkitui(i, At It I Ow- I
HO 11161A
Vilkil 1,
It hi, v 111i'l I I ill jj'ill n I'
tilt! 'l
;i'jq !t.' -1 1-it
tt
i1
(
(V "_1 1, 1-1"' 1- tit !j-j
I, l' I- 11l'l: Ij it I kil ill It 1
ti
,,,1 64II6104wi I'll till V m k'I'' it A t it
I
Ill
(Illimpw WA fttio ;41 tit
4. Soo 1ristrudilixot' hit ICK; 10"114010, ii 4111 I Will boz 11411, 1 "1 "40,01
oil, 'w_ Ii of
#
MWE LAST
t yuMid
RAMON
Oullo
- -96ifmcibRliim~
——
J
I
11Ioa101!~111141 I - AU1111614 Nervillrew
It
AUIJNG
l
566 le"hers LAno 1"At-khewo Rd #41.100
1
1114141sillio
t AK Mill 14 (W1111 AIII-A olill I
I MMI %N110 :%:I
.1111111 0.
001
1301443-7047
1..1414
;
( ill '7{; :1-11 I I
t
C. Subled of P'"alrda 1444"NOW
fliiAlkk: JAST
Lx~
It 41 It I
A I Ji
.
_(4RFEMUSRAkjti§_1J&ED(AKA, AIJAlil'i 011 MAIIII. N)
_Ljii9T_%WjaiflYGTbk i4AI F MAll INO U Oill- C- 1 ADVI 11 U'.1i,
(01
,
D,
1,11'1
it( I
k~
AUUNWJ8410on BY bit JOW Of 000"01111106441106404
By WOMWj tialttw, I dulloguAlt Ilia W440 44 w4witilkilkill 11"'4044604 111 t".I,41 OjiI4 l6k4ot,
dittliII 041Y h)jjfjjje(j fillidlilit1b III 1411W 11111lit.0 t1i 11"11410 It" 1110 liolAwAl"Illy
ab(All fno "
14*644'
hjt,t%kjjA*%qA toiltj %A
SIONATUW
L39M1
The ira" Of 0 SCWCJI of 010 Gfilk,11411'* Althill(ObhOlkill 1 1,411M
Provi abMO is as h)lktw*.
u
~kk
W64141* 10WOO,Plitilillik"IlIk 044 tillttw
1
Ouf rwirds 00 riot hidWAto 11101010(1t 140111 111wililitAil N ll 1111j1lll4,i twitiOW
"fullflu of AW100 w flai
ji4jjS%.jj '4,, 44
U.,
SUt*wA irl'a wf-wwl
El Our Towdro lrodk;at" lital Chita of 11111110 filtill 141141 Ill 4011t)IIi 114411111 ill 4111111'~11 010 Pol;Jolli
innitiliry miumst
was 1111m ritifii&tc.l.
WWWW 11li Vitt% It
Milt V-00111, 14 kit
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 165 of 189
EXHIBIT 5
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 166 of 189
/MY
I
`
Administracion para los ninos y la familia
~-
Qficina de Reubicacion de Refu9iados
x
Solicitud de reunificacion familiar
Como completar esta solicitud
IMPORTANTE: Si no puede completar estos pasos en at lapso de siete (7) dies, inf6rmeselo at Administrador
de su caso.
Paso 1
Si todavia no to ha hscho, dabs firmar y devolver de inmediato at Administrador de su caso at
formulario de Autorizacion de divul9ad6n de InformaciGn y Una copta de su identificacion (ID) con
foto emitida por of gobierno.
Si se le pide que presente huelias dacfilares, el Administrador de su caso to ayudarA a programar
Una city pare presentar sus huellas dactilares an at tapso de tres (3) digs. Comuniquese con el
Administrador de su caso si tiene preguntas.
Paso 2
Lea el Manual del patrocinador y el Acuerdo del patrocinador sobre el cuidado que incluye otra
informad6n importants que debe saber alcerca de patrocinar a un menor an nuestro programa.
Paso 3
Complete y firms, to $olicitud de reunificacion familiar (p6ginas 3 a 7 de este paquete)_
Paso 4
Retina los documentos necesarios que se enumeran en la secacion Documentos probatorios
(p6ginas 8 a 10 de este paquete).
Paso 5
Presente la Solicitud de reunificacicn familiar (esta solicited ) y los documentos pmbatorios
necesarios al Administrador de su caso.
ORR UAcIFRP-3s [Rev. 05114/2018]
POgina 1 de 10
OMEI 0970-0278 [vAlida hasty el 10n1=18]
ON DE TRAw Es DE 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). Se estima que el pmmedio de las declaraciones pubNeas obligatodes de esta
Le LEY DE SJMPURCACI
solleitud de infommeibn as do 30 mintmos por respuesta, ItWuido at tiampo para reviser Us instruodenes,n:edectar y mantener Jos dates neeeserius y reviser
la solicitud de informaoidn. Una agenda no puede didglr ni patrodner y no as necesario que une persona responda a una reropilacidn de informad6n, a
menos clue muestm un n6rnem de control v6iido y actual de la Ofidna de Administr 6n y Presupuesto (Office of Management and Budget, OMB) Consulte
el aviso de privsoidad adjuntDAXclaracidn de In Ley de Privaddad pera oblener un anelisis aceRm de (1) la autoridad de la sdicihrd de inf nneeft y acerra
de si la divulgaci6n es oblgatoda. o voluntaria, (2) tos prop6sitos prineipales para Jos cuales la inrprmael6n estd didgide, (3) otreos uses rutararioa para Jos
eueles se puede user la inkmnaci6n y (4) Jos efectos, ai Jos hay, de no brindertoda o parte de la informacidn solicilads.
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 167 of 189
Solicitud de reunifrcacion familiar
Oficina de Reublead6n de R,efugiados
Pregunfas frecuentes
GPuedo patrocinar a mi hijo si no tango documentos?
Si. La Oficina de Reubicacion de Refuglados (ORR, Office of Refugee Resettlement)tDivisl6n de Servicios de
Ninos No-Acompanados (Division of Unaccompanied Children's Services, DUCS) primers enWagar un nino a
su madre, padre o tutor legar sin importar la situaci6n migratoria.
Jima un costo patrocinar a un nlfio?
No. No se exigen cargos para completer los requisitos para patrocinar a un nino. Sin embargo, usted puede
ser respvnsable de los costos de viaje y comp acompatiante del nino.
,&Nocosito un abogado para patrocinar a un nifio?
No. No necesita un abogado para completar los requisitos para patrocinar a un nino. Si nec esita ayuda para
completer los requisitos, el Administrador de su caso to puede ayudar. Si busca atenci6n adicional, tenga an
cuenta quo no hay ningun cargo por completer los requisitos para patrocinar a un nino.
,LPor qu6 tango que prosentar mis huellas dactilares?
ORRIDUCS requiere investigaciones de antecedentes pars garantizar la seguridad del nino. Si se le pide
quo presents huellas dactilares, el Administrador de su caso to ayudara a programar una city para presenter
sus huellas dactilares en el lapso de tres (3) dias. Comuniquese con el Administrador de su caso si tiene
preguntas.
4Qu6 informacil6n debo proporcionar?
Debe completer la Solicitud de reunificacion familiar y los documentos probatorios. Tambien debe responder
preguntas del Administrador de su caso sobre su hogar, la relacion con el nino y su capacidad de cuidar el
bienestar fisicn y mental del nino. Debe proporcionar pnteba de su identidad.
zCuAndo tango quo antregarle astos doe mantof; al Administrador de ml caso?
Debe presentar to da la informaci6n necesaria en el lapso de siete (7) dias o antes, si es posible. Cuanto antes
presents todos los documentos necesarios, con mas rapidlez ORR tomarA una decision sobre la liberaci6n del
nino pars su custodia. ORR le informara de inmediato la decision sobre la Iiberacl6n del nino para su custodia
o le notificara si se necesita una evaivaelon o informacion adicional.
ORR UACIFRP-3s [Rev. 05114120181
P3gina 2 de 10
Adm4.Vstrador do. su caso,
oMB 097UM CvADda hasty el 10t31120181
lea LEY DE SIMPuncActN DE TRAMITES DE 1995 (Ruh. L 104-13), se eanta quo el promedio de las dedaraciones p0rxas obiigetories de esta
soticitud de hftmwcibn as de 30 Wnutos por msptresta, induido el tiempo pars reviser Ws lnstrucclones, rocotectar y mantener Ios dams necesarios y
mbar la sorWWd de infonnasi m Una agends no puede dirigir ni patrocinar y no es necesario quo una persona responda a una re coplkod n de
informad6n, a menos que muestre un ntmiem de control WHdo y achiai de la Oficina de Adminrslrad6n y Prmupuesto (Office of Management and Budget,
OMB) Consults el aviso de prKnddad adjunto Dedarsribn de la Ley de Priwdadad pare obtener un anblisis werca de (1) la autorirlod de la sol'Ic'dud de
informad6n y acema de si is divulged6n es odigatnria o voluntada, (2) tos prnp6sitos prMdpales pars los wales la informacidn esiA didgida, (3) ob uses
...,i.....o........... l.....,..,.
I- - -,a
u IA% Ina arw4im ai Ina tlau rip r,n h kwiar Infra n rearla op
IA inrfsm Pr3An .gNL-iIaM
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 168 of 189
Solicitud de reunificacion bmiliar
Oficina de Reubicacicin de Refugiados
Acerca de usted, el patrocinador y el (los) menor(es)
1) Nombre(s) del (de los) menor(es)
Enumere los nombres de todos los ninos que solicita
2) Su relacl6n con el (los) menor(es)
p. ej. madre, tio, amigo de la familia
3) Su nombre
4) Cualquier otro nombre que usted haya
util'izado
Enumere otros nombres que haya usado,
coma su nombre antes de casarse o sus
apellidos matemos (separelos con comas)
5) Su pals de origen (de usted)
D6nde nacio
6) Su fecha de nacimiento (de usted)
P, ej., 12131/1979
7) Wmeros de telefono
p. ej., 210-555-1234
TeWono principal
Tel6fono secundado 1
8) Su direcci6n de correo electr6nico o
ndmero de fax
9) Idioma(s) que habla
Pr#gfna 3 de 14
ORR UACIPRF-3s (Rev. 05114120181
.
LIMB 0704278 IvAlida hasty el 10131/20181
La LEY De simpunc-Aeft DE TRAmmis DE 7995 (Pub. L 104-13). 8e esllme que el pmmedlo de las dedaradones publioas obligabrrias de esta
sol'idfud do irrfarmad6n es de 30 minutos par respuesta, induido el Uempo pare reviser las instrucciones, rewlectar y mantener los datos necesarfos y
revisor to saWtud de infomrad6n. Ure agencia no puede dirigir ni poUodnary no as neemelo que uns parswa responda a one recoolad8n de
infomtad6n, a men as que muestre un ndimem de contred vdlido y actual de Is OBcina de Administracl6n y Presupuesto (Office of Management and Budget,
OMB) Cansutte el aviso de privacidad adjunfaMeclaracidn de Is Ley de Prtvaddad pare obtener un anitlisis acerca de (1) is autorided de Is soticitud de
informad6n y ace= de si Is dWgacihn es oN peWo o volurdaria, (2) fos prop6sitos prirmipates pare fos cuales la Wormecl6n ests dirigida, (3) ours usos
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 169 of 189
Solicitud de reunificaclon familiar
Qficina de Reublcad6n de Refugiados
1,DOinde viviran usted y el (los) menor(es)?
1 0) Domicilio
Domicilio
(+ numero de departamento, si
corresponds)
Ciudad
Estado u Codigo postal
11) zQuien wive actualmente en este domicilio?
umbre eel miembro del hogar
(EJEMPLO) Miguel Perez
ORR UACIFRP-3s 1Rev. 05114120181
OMA 0070.6271; jvAlida hash el 18131120181
Fecha de
Relaci6n can
usted (el
nacimlento patrocinador)
12131/1985
Hermano
Administrador de su cpso.
Relaci6n con el
nwnor
TO
Pagina 4 de 10
ur-1CAt3ON DE 1RAMf Fs DE 1905 (pub, L 144-13). Se estima quo ei promedlo de las dedaradones pabiicas obdgetcdas de esta
solicitud do informad6n at; do 30 minubas por respuasta. Inclufdo al tlempo pare. rater We instruedonas, roecotectar y mantener fos dates necesarios y
reviser is sef9dtud da informad6n. Una agenda no puada dIdgir ni patmeinary no as neceaario qua una persona responda a una reeapiisddn de
infortnaddn, a menos quo rrwmnUo un nO mem de control vAiido y actual de la Ofidna de AdminlsUad6n y Presupuesto (Office of Management and Budget,
OMB) Consufte el aviso de privadded edjunkMedar don de la Lay de Pri► addad pare. obtener un arAftls aroma de (1) la auforidad do la soticitud do
in1ormaci6n y acerca de si la divutgaci6n as o tigaWria o voluntaria, (2) los prop6situs pdndpates pare los males Is informad6n estA dirigida, (3) ohm uses
La LEY DE BtNI
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 170 of 189
Solicitud de reunificacion familiar
Qficina de Reubicacion de Refugiados-
Adulto que se hard cargo del (de los) menor(es) si usted no
puede hacerlo
En el caso de que tenga que irse de los Estados Unidos o no pueda hacerse cargo del (de los) menor(es),
jqulen se harAi cargo del (de los) menor(es)?
12a) Nombre del posible encargado adulto
12b) Fecha de nacimiento del posible encargado
adulto
12c) Informaci6n de contacto del posible encargado
adulto
Numero de
telefono
Domicilio
(+ n6mero de departamento, si
corresponde)
Estado
Ciudad
1-1 C6digo postal
12d) &CuAl es su relacibn con el (los) menor(es)?
(abuelo, t(a, hermano mayor de 111 anos, etc.}
12e) 1,Cual es su relacien con usted, el patrocinador?
12t) LComo se culdard al (a Jos) menor(es) on el caso de que usted se tenga que it de los Estados Unidos
o no pueda cuidarlo(s)?
ORR UACIFRP-38 t
ev. 05114120181
OMB 0070.0278 lvdilda hasta el 10131120181
Adiflinistradot de su caso.
Pdgiina 5 de 10
La LEY DE SIMPUFICAC16N DE TRAMITES DE 1995 (Pub. L.104-13). Se estima que el pmmedio de lea dWareciones publicas ob9getorias de es3a
empo
solicitud de in!Nmac" es de 30 minutos por respuestD, induldo el dem pars reviser ias instrucciones, recolectar y montener kx dalos necesarios y
reviser is soliatud de Informaoi6n. Una agenda no puede didgir M palroclner y no es necesario que una persona responda a um nx op4 i6n de
informad6n, a menos que muestm un numero de ountrot v9do y oaaal de to Mina de AdminWbmeMn y Presupuesto (Office of Management and Budget,
OMB) Consutte at aviso de privaddad adjunta/Dm* aci6n de Is Leyde Privaddad pars obtenerun ar0l is seems de (1) Is aubwidad de la sdidwd de
a,
informacidn y acema de si is divukaddn es oblostoria o volunlaria (2) los prop6sitos principales pare los cuaies is infanmac& esld dirigida, (3) otros usos
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 171 of 189
Solicitud de reunificado' n familiar
Oficina de Reubicaci6n de Refugiados
Informacion economica
13) iCrs3mo mantendid eon6miicamente al (a los) menor(es)?
Incluya todas [as fuentes y los montos de su ingreso (por ejemplo, cu6nto le pagan por semana) y
exp[ique cualquier apoyo ecandmico qua reciba de otros que to ayudaran a mantener econ6micamente al
(a Jos) menor(es).
lnformacivn medica
14a)ZAlguno de los ocupantes de su hogar suite do aiguna enfemmedad grave y contagiosa (tuberculosis
[TB], sindrome de inmunoddeficiencia adquirida [SIDA], hapatitis, etc.)? Si asi fuera, expliquelo:
14b) jSabe de aiguna afeeci6n medica que el (los) menor(es) pueda(n) tenor (discapacidades, alergias,
enfQ111 adades, etc.)? SI asi fuera, expliquelo;
ORR UACIPRP-3s [Rev. 05114120161
OMA 0070.0210 [valida Rasta el 10131130181
Administrado.ede SLI CaSO.
PiAgina S de 10
Le LEY DE SIMPLIfic=6N DE TRAMffES DE 1995 (Pub. L 104-13). Se estime que el pn7mad+o de bas declaredanes pdts6c:as obUgatorias de esla
solicited de kftn adbn es de 30 m6nu6os por mspuesta, induldo el tiempo perm reviser {as insMicdenes, reoofectar y mantener los datos neceserim y
reviser Is aolidtW de infomaei5n, Una egemia no pueds dfrigir ni patrodnar y no es necmado que una persona responda a una recapiladdn de
infonwid6n, a menos que muestm un rulmem de control AlIdo y actual de la Ofidna de Administrad6n y Presupuesto (Office of Management and Budget,
OMB) Conuft of aviso de privacidad adiunto/DWaradbn de la Ley de Prtvacided pera obtanor un sralsis acerca de (1)1a autoridad de la solidtud de
infg►maci4n y owma do pi is divulgad6n es gblfgatorie o vduntaria, M los propdeftne princfpales pain los cuales Is informacOn esla didglds, (3) allm usos
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 172 of 189
Solicitud de reunificaci©n familiar
Oficina de ReubicaddIn de Refugiados
Antecedentes penales
Si responds •Si" a cualquiera de estas preguntas, tends qua brindar mas informaci6n. Consults la pi#gtna de
Documentos probatodos (pagina g dp este paquete) pare obtener m6s informacahn.
15a) &Usted o alguno do los ocupantes de su hogar han silo acusados o candenados por un dellto
alguna vet (que no sea una infraccl6n manor de to insito, p, ej., velocidad excesiva, multa por mal
estaclonamiento, etc.)?
OSi
0N
151b) LUsted o alguna persona an su hogar han silo investigados por abuso fisico, sexual, desculdo o
abandono de un manor alguna vex?
o St 0 No
Firma y fecha de la solicitud
Declaro y afirmo bajo pens de pedurio qua le informacion contenida en esta solicitud es verdadera y
precisa, ssegOn mi leal saber y entender.
Doy fe de que todos los documentos que presento o las copias de dichos documentos estan libres de error
y de frauds.
Doy fe ademas que me atendre a las instrucciones contenidas en at Acuerdo del Paf xinador sobre el
Cuidado.
Velars por el bienestar fisico y mental del (de los) menor(es). Tambidn cumplire con las ieyes de mi estado
respecto del culdado de ante manor, to que incluye:
• la inscripci6n de (de los) menor(es) en la escuela;
la provision de atencion medica cuando sea necesaria;
• la prvtecd6n del (de los) menor(es) contra el abuso, descuido y abandono;
* y cualqui+er otro requisito no contenido an el presente.
SU FIRMA
I
ORR UACIFRP-39 [Rov. 08114120187
CMR 0970.0278 tvalida hasta el 1013IM181
-]
Administrador de SLI CaSO.
FECHA
Paging 7 de 18
La LEY DE SIMPURCACION DE TRQm7E5 DE 1595 (Pub. L 10413). Se esWna que el pmmedio de las docianadones publ = obligatortas de esta
solldtud de h forrnaeidn es de 30 minutes por respuesta, Inctuldo el tlempo pare revisor las lnstruedones, recolectar y mantener los Batas rrecesmdos y
reviser to soiidtud de infwmacidn. Una agencia no puede ditiglr nI patrodnar y no as necesa6o que una persona rosponda a una recopi19d6n de
inforrnad6n, a menos que muestm un numem de control vAlido y actual de to Ofidna de AdinMrtraddn y Presupuesto (Office of Management and Budget,
OMB) Consulte el aviso de pttvacidad adjuntotDeelamcidn de to Lay de Privacidad pare obtener un anAllsis acema de (1) to autoridad de In sottcifud de
Informad6n y acerea cis si In d"nro} d6n as obligaWda o Wontada, (2) los ptop6sRos prindpates pare los cuales In infarmad6n esta dirkkfa, (3) ohm usos
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 173 of 189
Solicitud de reunificacion familiar
4fcina de Reubicacion de Refugiados
Documentos probatorios
S(rvase proveer una copia de los siguientes documentos clue flguran a continuacibn. Si no puede proporclonar
los documentos clue solicitamos. explique el motivo, Tonga en cuenta que podemos rechazar su solicitud si
falta cualquler elemento de la informaclon solicitada, si esta se encuentra incompleta o no es correcta.
1) Prueba de identidad de usted y de los miembros del hogar
Una copia de una identilicacibn emitida por el gobiemo. Puede presenter una opcion de la Lista A o dos o
mss opciones de la Lista B. Si presents opciones de la Lista B, al menos una opcidn debe contar con una
fotografta. Se aceptan documentos vencidos.
Lista A
Pasaporte de los EE. UU o tarjeta pasaporte de los EE. UU.
Pasaporte extranjero clue contenga una fotografia
Tadeta de residente permanente o tarjeta de registro de extranjero (Formulario 1-551)
Documento de Autorizacion de Empleo que contenga una fotografia (Formulario 1-766)
Licencia de conducir o tarjeta de identificacion de los EE_ UU_
Lista B
Certificado de naturalizacion de los EE_ UU.
Tarjeta de ider0caci6n militar de los EE. UU.
Partida de nacimiento
Certrficado de matrimonio
Orden judicial para el cambio de nombre
Tarjeta de ident]ficaclon de extranjero
Recibo de renovacion del pasaporte del consulado que contenga una fotografia
Tadeta de identificacibn del consulado de Mexico
Licencia de conducir extranjera que contenga una fotograffa
Tadeta del registro de votantes extranjeros que contenga una fotograffa
Tai jets de. cruce fronterizo de Canada que contenga una fotograffa
Tadeta de cruce fronterizo de Mexico que contenga una fotograffa con el fonnulario 1-94
valido
Documento de viaje del refugiado que contenga una fotograffa
Obw dwumentos del gobiemo similares
ORR UACIFRP-39 [Rev. 05M412018]
OMB 0970.0278 CvAlida haste el 10131*0191
AdMinistrador de su caso.
i
Pagina 8 de 10
La LEY DE SIMPL.IFICACION DETRAMITEs DE 4995 (Pub. L 104-13)_ Se eshma que el promedio de [as dedaradanes p(Mms obfigaWas do esta
sdidtud de InIbrmseft es de 30 minueos por respuesta, induido el tiernpo pars revisor las instruedones, recolectar y mantener Jos datos neceserios y
reviser Is sal[citud de infarrnoclbn. Una agenda no puede dirigir M petrminar y no as neomrio que una persona rsapenda a una rewolvetdn d@
informacl6n, a trwms. que mueshe un nAmero de cor►trd vdiido y actual de is Oficina de Admmstraddn y presupuesto (Office of Management and Budget,
OMB) Consulte of avlso de pdvacidad adjuntiMedaracidn de [a Ley de Priracidad para ohtener un anillisis acema de (1) Is autoridad do to sdirAud de
infomiad6n y acerra de si la divulgaciixl as cWkJaWda o voluntacia. (2) Jos pmpdsAw prindpates Para tos coales la informaeidn est3 diriaida. (3) otras usos
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 174 of 189
Solicitud de reunificacion familiar
Oficina de Reublcacion de Refugiados
2) Pmeba de la identidad del menor
Una copia del certificado de nacimiento del menor
3) Prueba del parentesco
Coplas de los documentos Para brindar pruebas de una relaci6n errtre usted y el menor. Se aceptan
doeumentos vencidos.
Su relacion con el
menor
Padrel"more
ocurnentos aceptables
• Partldas de nacimiento
• Registros judiciales
a Identi icacion con fotograffa del padrelmadre emifida por el gobierno
adrastralmadrastra
doptd legalmente al
menor
• Partidas de nacimiento
a Identifieacion con fotograffa del padrelmadre emifida por el gobiemo
a Identilicacion con fotograffa del padrastm/madrastra emifida por el
goblerno
a Certificado de matrimonio
a Documentos de una orden judicial que confiirman que se estable 6 la
adopcion o la tutoria legal
Tutor legal
Docurnentos de una orden judicial que confinnan que se establecI6 la
adopcibn o la tutoria legal
w Partidas de nacimiento
• Identificacinn con fotograffa del tutor legal emitida por el gobiemo
+ Registros de la tutoria
a Certificados de defuncion
. Registros hospitalarios
iembro de la familia
o tione parentesco
con el menor
a
• Partidas de nacimiento
* Rastra de certificados de defuncion ylo partldas de nacimiento de los
familiares que muestren que usted y el menor tienen un parentesco
o Certificados de matrimonio
a Registras hospitalarios
a Registros judiciales
• Registros de la tutoria
a Certiticado de bautismo
Comunfquese con el Administrador de su caso
OMUAC"P 3s (Rev. 0W1412DI81
ore 0076-6270 [ratlda pasta st iW3i MS)
Administrador de
PSgina 9 de 10
La LEY DE SIW')Uf1CA 6N t3E TRAMMES DE 1985 (Pub. L 144-13). Se estana que el prws& de Lis dedataciones pubkas tsNga Odd de esta
solicitud de hk mnad6n as de 30 minutos por respuesta, induido et tiernpo {sang mvisar ias insOxxsones, rect9eciar y manterw W datos neoesatios y
mvisar la sollalud de Watms46n. Una agenda no puede dirigir ni patfodnar y no es neewario que una persona responds a una reoopitad6n de
informactdn, a menos que mueslre un n6mem de control mgldo y ac uat de la Mina de AdminWracidn y Pmsupuesto (office of ManagerneM and Sudget,
OMB) Consutte el aviso de pdvaddad adluntaMwiaracibrt de la Ley de PdvacWad pars obtener un aMlisis acerca de (1) la autoridad de to solicttud de
Infnr n,-;An u ara nt-A dR ni in dMlload6n es obfioatofia a Muntarta, (2) los prop"tos principsles Para los cuates la inform d6n estA dhigWa, (3) afros usos
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 175 of 189
4) Registros legales (sl corresponde)
Si usted responft "S[" a cualquiera de las preguntas 15(a) o 15(b) de este formulario, proporcione la
siguiante informaci6n pars cads cargolcondone:
• Nombre de la persona implicada
• Lugar y fecha del incidents
• Eaiplicacl6n del incidents
• Pronunciamiento del incidents (p, ej., retiro de cargos, aplicaci6n de multa, detencion, libertad
condicionai)
• Copia del (de los) registro(s) judicial(es), registro(s) policial(es), y/o registro(s) de la agencia de
servicio social gubememental relacionado(s) con el (los) incidente(s)
5) Evidencia del domicilio
Una copia de at menus un tipo de documentaci6n que verifique su domicifio actual. Los tipos de
documentaci6n aceptables incluyen los siguientes:
• Su rents actual con su nombre, y con fecha en los ultimos dos meses
• Su estado de cuenta actual con su nombre, y con fecha an los Mmos dos mesas
• Su estado de cuenta bancario, con fecha en los 610mos dos meses
• Su empleador emits un recibo de sueldo oficial, con fecha an los ultimos dos mesas
• Su ID del estado valida y vigente con su fotografia y domicifio actual
ico
• Correspondencia, en to posible una factura de servicio ptibli o Ilquida66n do seguros, dirigida a
usted a su domicifio actual, con fecha en los ultimos dos meses
• Carta de su locador, certificada por notario p0blico, en la que se confirme su domicifio y que
contenga su nombre, la fecha en la cual se mud6, la cantidad de dormitorios y la fecha de
vencimiento de la yenta
• Qtros documentos similares que indiquen, de manera confiable, que vine en su domicifio actual,
con facts en los ultimos dos meses
ORR UACIFRP-3s [Rev. OSI14/20181
OMIB 0970-02718 JyMida hasty el 1013111#018]
Administrador de SLI CaSO.
Pigips 10 de 10
La LEY uF SiMPLJFICAMN OE TRAMrrES DE 19% {Pub. L 104-13). Se eame que el pmrnedio do fns dedaradones publieas obligatotias de Oslo
soficitud de Rftnnac l6,n es de 30 m xfts por respuesta, incluido el tJempo Para reviser Ins instrucclones, recolectar y mantener Jos datos necesarlos y
ni pairocinar y no es necesario que una persona responda a una recopilad6n de
n
revisor la solicited de infoaasc&i Una agersda no p mde
informad6n, a memos que muestre un n►imero de control v6lido y actual de is Mina de Adm1ni&ad6n y Presupuesto (Office of Management and Budget,
OMB) Consults el aviso de pdvacidad adjunto/Dedarad6n de la Ley de Pmracidad pare obtener un anAllsis acerca de (1) la autoddad de to solic itud de
inhxmaddn y acerea de si to dMilgacidn es obtigatoria o voluntaria, (2) Ics propdsitos principales para los cuales In informec4n eats diftdo, (3) oWn usos
ru6nerios pare tas euales se puede usar la infonnsci6n y (4) los efeelm si los hay, de no brindsr Coda o parte de la informael6n WkAada.
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 176 of 189
Sponsor Care Agreement
Office of Refugee Resettlement
Le solicit6 a la Oficina de Reubicacion de Refugiados (Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR)
patrocinar a un nino extranjero no acompanado en el cuidado y la custodia del gobierno federal
conforme al acuerdo extrajudicial estipulado Flores v. Reno. n6mero 85-4544-RJK (Px) (C.D.
Cal., 17 de enero de 1997), secc16n 462 del Homeland Security Act de 2002 y la seccl6n 235 del
William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act de 2008. Si se aprueba la
solicitud de patrocinio, recibira un formulario de Vejftacidn de Aberacidn de ORR y se aelebrara
un acuerdo de custodia con el gobierno federal en el cual acepta cumplir con las siguientes
disposiciones mientras el menor este en su cuidado:
• Propordonar el bienestar mental y fisico del menor, que induye, entre otros, alimentos,
refugio, vestimenta, education, atendo'n medica y otros servicios segun sea necesario.
• Si no es el tutor legal ni el padre o la madre del menor, hags los mejores esfuerzos por
establecer una custodia legal con el tribunal local dentro de un tlempo razonable.
• Asfstir a un programa de orientation legal proporcionado por el Departamento de Justicia
(Department of Justice, DOJ), o programa de orientation legal para custodios
(patrocinadores) de la Oficina Ejecutiva Para la Revision de la Inmigracion (Executive
Office for Immigration Review, EOIR), si estd disponible en el lugar donde reside.
• Seg6n donde este pendiente el caso de inmigracion del menor, notificar of Tribunal de
Inmigracion o al Tribunal de Apelaciones de Inmigracion local en un periodo de cinco (5)
dfas de todo cambio de direction o numero de telefono del menor, usando el formulario
cambio
direction
de
extranjeros
(formulario
de
de
EOIR-33). Ademas, si es necesario, presentar una petition de cambio de competencia
territorial a nombre del menor. La petition de cambio de competenda territorial debe
contener information especif'` cada por el Tribunal de Inmigracion. Tenga en cuenta que la
i
petition de cambio de competencia territorial puede requerir la ayuda de un abogado.
Para obtener asesoramient?o sobre la "petid6n de cambio de competencia territorial",
consulte el Manual de pracdca del Tribunal de Inmigracion en
/it.tn~ry.ti~ it ic~i~c nn`r/ 3~rr jar}f /s~S{'T1t~~~ (iJrt ai /ri~i7 n~r,'i rt r
Para
obtener
infnrmaci6n sabre casos de inmigracion, comuniquese con el sistema de informaci6n de
casos de inmigraci6n de EOIR Ilamando al 1-800-898-7180. Visite el, sitio web de EOIR
pars obtener informaci6n aditional en.
•
Notificar al Departamento de Seguridad del Territorio National (Department of Homeland
Security, DHS) o a Servicios de Ciudadania a Inmigracion de los Estados Unidos (U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services) en un periodo de diez (10) dial de todo cambia de
direction, presentando la Tarjeta de Cambio de Direction de Extranjero (AR-11) o de
manera electr6nica en htic:/Li,usa1-c5;~
•
Asegurar la presencia del menor en todos los procedimientos futuros ante DHS o
Inmigracion y Seguridad de Aduanas (Immigration and Customs Enforcement„ ICE) y el
Departamento de Justicia (Department of Justice, DO]) o EOIR. Para obtener infnrmacion
ORR UAC(FPJ -4s [Rev. 05/14/20181
Page Z of 2
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 177 of 189
Office of Refugee Resettlement
sobre casos de inmigracion, comuniquese con el sistema de information de caws de
EOIR llamando al: 1-800-898-7180.
• Asegurar que el menor se presence ante ICE para la expulsion de los Estados Unidos si un
juez de inmigracion ernite una Orden de expulsion o una orden de Salida voluntaria. Se
asigna al menor un oficial de deportacian para los procedimientos de expulsion.
• Notificar a la autoridad policial local o a los Servic' de Probecacion Irrfantil local o estatal
ros
si el menor estuvo o esla en riesgo de estar sujet:o a abuso, abandono, descuido o
maltrato o si se entera de que el menor ha lido amenazado, abusado o agredido sexual o
fisIcamente, o ha desapareddo. Se debe notificar ni bien sea posible o antes de las 24
horas despues de ocurrido el aconbedmiento, o despues de tener conocimiento del riesgo
o la amenaza.
• Notificar al Centro National para Ninos Perdidos y Explotados (National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children) al 1-800-843-5578 si el menor desaparece, fue secuestrado o se
escapa. Se debe notificar ni Mien sea posible o antes de las 24 horas despues de
enberarse de la desapariclon del menor.
• Notificar a ICE si algun individuo que se crea que represents un sindicato de contrabando
de extranjeros, crimen organizado o una organizacion de trafico de Beres humanos se
comunica de alguna forma con el menor. Notificar to antes posible o antes de las 24 horas
despues de conocer esta information. Puede Ilamar a ICE al 1-865-347-2423.
terminos de este Alwamo de cu/dado del pabucinador.
• Si no es el tutor legal ni el padre o madre del nrno, en caso de que ya no pueda y no esbe
dispuesto a cuidar al menor y no pueda transferir de manera temporal is custodia Mica y
el menor retina los requisites de la definicion de nine extranjero no acompanado, debe
notificar a ORR al 1-800-203-7001.
La liberacion del menor mendonado anteriormente de fa Oficina de Reubicado'n de
Refugiados para su cuidado no le oborga al menor ningun estado de inmigracion legal y el
menor debe presentarse a los procedimientos del tribunal de inmigraclon.
ORR UAWRP-ft [Rev. 05/14120181
Page 2 of 2
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 178 of 189
Q {T
r
r
Declaracio' n del p► atr®cinlador
Ofirinn tits Rm ihiraririn rip Rpfi mi irinc
Dedaro y afirmo, bajo pens de perjurio, que soy el pabocinador propuesto para el menor y que
mi Solidlud de raunlfncaddn familiar y los documentos usados comp respaldo a la solicitud
funcionan eomo evidencia de que tengo la plena intenctcin de proporclonarie cuidado al menor
que pretendo patrocinar. Asimismo, no me presento coma patrocinador para no terser a un
menor a mi cuidado y luego transferir ese menor a otra persona, en incumplimiento de la politica
de la Oficina de Reubicad6n de Refugiados Office of Refugee Resettlement; ORR) y las leyes
federales.
Salo puedo transfedr a un menor al cuidado de otra persona en las siguientes situaciones:
(1) a los padres biol6gicos del menor, en caso de que al hacerlo no exponga al nino a un
peligro inmediato y que no haya una finallzact6n de los derechos parentates;
(2) en el caso de que no pueda o no desee continuar el patrocinio debido a una difrcultad
inesperada o en el caso de que deje inminentemente los Estados Unidos, transferire
el cuidado del menor a un cuidador atte nativo (y unicamente al cuidador alternativo)
identificado en mi respuesta a las Preguntas 12a-e de mi Salieitud de reunifica do
familiar, conforme a to aprobado por la ORR en mi Plan de cuidado del patro nador,
si al hacerlo no expongo al menor a un peligro inmediato;
(3) a funcionarios encairgados del cumplimiento de las leyes locales, estatales o federates
o funcionarios del Servicio de Protecci6n de Menores (Child Protective Service, CIS),
o a las personas designadas del gobiemo focal o estatal.
Antes de intentar transferir a un menor, debo notificar al Centro de Atenci6n Telef6nica Nacional
(National Call Center, NCC) de la ORR al 1-800-203-7001. La Ofidna de Reubicaci6n de
Refuglados puede requerir mas informaci6n antes de que pueda realizar una transferencia de
cuidado o puede requerir una medida correctiva antes de aprobar una transferencia..
Si no notifico a la Oficina de Reuhcado'n de Refugiados sobre una transferencia o si transfiero
al menor a una persona no auborizada, entiendo que el gobiemo federal puede procesarme par
perjuido, fraude, trata de personas u otros delitos penales establecidos en la ley federal, segdn
corresponda.
Comprendo que la conspiracio'n o la cooperaci6n en la comisi6n de cualquiera de los siguientes
actos constituye un delito:
(1) ingresar o intentar ingresar a un extranjero a los Estados Unidos par un lugar que no
sea el puerto de entrada designado u otro lugar designado por el Departamento de
Seguridad Nacional (Department of Homeland Security, DHS);
(2) transportar o mover, o intentar transportar y mover, a un extranjero que no gene una
condicion legal dentro de los Estados Unidos para apoyar una violacion de is ley;
(3) alojar u ocultar, o intentar alojar y ocultar, a un extranjero que no tiene una condicidn
legal dentro de los Estados Unidos; o
ORR UAC FRP-10s [OS/1412M]
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 179 of 189
(4) incentivar o inducir a un extranjero para que venga a los Fstados Unidos: si su
residenda es o sera una violacion a la ley.
Ademas, puedo estar sujeto a tener que asumir una responsabilidad civil derivada de una
transferencia del cuidado de un menor a una persona no autorizada de forma negligence o
imprudente. La Qfidna de Reubicacion de Refugiados coopers plenamente con las autoridades
encargadas del cumplimiento de [as [eyes locales, estatales y federales, induidas las autoridades
de inmigracd6n federales o las autoridades de bienestar de menores, para goner en prAcUca
fielmente las leyes que involucran is divulgadon de mi infomiadon personal en el caso de que
un menor sea transferido de una manera no autorizada.
Ademas, entiendo que, si no soy un cludadano estadounidense, una translerencia no autorizada
de un menor puede afectar mi capacidad de permanecer en los Fstados Unidos,
independientemente de mi eondiciNon legal de inrnigraci6n.
Afirmo o certifico que entiendo la advertencia proporcionada en esta declaracio"n.
Nombre del patrocinador
ORR UAC FOIE'=10s 105/1412018]
Fecha
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 180 of 189
Please wait...
If this message is not eventually replaced by the proper contents of the document, your PDF
viewer may not be able to display this type of document.
You can upgrade to the latest version of Adobe Reader for Windows, Mac, or Liinuxg by
visiting http://www.adobe.com/go/reader—download.
For more assistance with Adobe Reader visit http://www.adobe.com/go/acneader.
Windows is eidter a registered trademadc or a trademark of Microsoft Cotpumflon in the United States andfor other cumtries. [else is a trademark
of Apple foe, registered in the United States and other countries. Limo is Ow registered trademark of L'mus Terralde; in the U.S. and oHrer
Cotwtrles.
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 181 of 189
EXHIBIT 6
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 182 of 189
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Child and Family Services Agency
"F~'Rti
re
IIIIIIIIIIIIIL---J
Request for a Child Protection Register (CPR) Check
The purpose of the Child Protection Register is to protect children and to ensure their safety by maintaining an index of
perpetrators of child abuse and neglect in the District of Columbia. This confidential index includes the names of individuals
with substantiated and/or inconclusive findings from the investigative reports of the Child Protective Services Unit of the
Child and Family Services Agency. Authorized individuals may request background checks to establish whether an individual
has a record of substantiated abuse or neglect of a child that occurred in the District of Columbia.
/ To request a local police clearance for the District of Columbia, please visit https://mpdc.dc.gov/node/187552.
For information about the Sex Offender Registry, visit: https://mpdc.dc.gov/service/sex-offender-registry.
/ If you are making a request on behalf of a state child welfare agency outside of the District of Columbia and need
the history of a family previously living in the District of Columbia, you may call 202-671-SAFE.
/ For other questions, call the CPR Unit at 202-727-8885 between 8:30 am and 4:30 pm Monday through Friday.
Read all instructions — incomplete, incorrect or illegible forms will be returned and your request may be delayed
s
Do not complete an old version of the form; get the latest form at https://cfsa.dc.gov/service/baclground-checks.
s
Mail or deliver original application (no photocopies); no faxed, emailed, or scanned applications accepted.
Part I
s Schools (other than DCPS), child care facilities, private foster care agencies, and other private, community-based
organizations should select "Non-Government Organization" as the Requestor Type.
s
CPR check results are not transferrable and cannot be shared from one agency or employer to another.
Part II
s
If you have no middle name write "no middle name" or if a middle name is an initial, indicate "initial only."
If the answer to any question is none, write "N/A".
Part III
s An individual must sign the form to provide consent for CFSA to release information to an authorized requestor.
s
The form must be signed in blue ink; electronic signatures are not permitted.
s
An employment request allows access to substantiated reports of child maltreatment, to chief executive officers
or directors of day care centers, schools, or any public or private organization working directly with children, for
the purpose of making employment decisions.
Part IV
s Forms shall be returned if not notarized (Note: applications for prospective and current CFSA resource parents and
kin caregivers need not be notarized, but photo M must be provided and the form must be signed in the presence
of a CFSA employee).
Part V
s Self-check applications must be submitted in person, not by mail.
s
Individuals requesting a self-check and CFSA resource parents and kin caregivers must present one non-expired,
government-issued, photo identification: e.g., driver's license, state identification card, passport, "green card".
s
Results of CPR self-checks may not be used for employment purposes. Employers must directly request CPR
clearances for prospective or current employees.
MAIL or HAND DELIVER
completed forms to:
Attn: Child Protection Register Unit
Child and Family Services Agency
200 1 Street SE, 3rd Floor
Washington, DC 20003
Applications accepted
between 8:30 am and 4:30 pm
Monday through Friday
Rev. October 2017
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 183 of 189
Please type or print clearly. Sign the form in blue ink, and date where indicated. Thoroughly review and submit to the
CFSA CPR office. Allow up to 30 business days for results to be processed. Expedited requests will be considered on a
case-by-case basis. Forms will be returned if incomplete, incorrect, or illegible resulting in a delayed response.
PART I: Requesting Organization/Employer Information
Request Date
Corrected Application Re-submission Date
Requestor Type
u Court
u Government Agency
u Non-Government Organization
u Self (personal use only)
Purpose
u Adoption
u Visitation
u Court Request
u Current Employee/Volunteer
u Foster/Adoption Licensing
u New Hire/Volunteer
u Kinship Licensing
u Other:
Requesting Organization/Employer Contact Information (results cannot be mailed to a P.O. Box)
Requesting Organization
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, PROGRAM SUPPORT CENTER, DIVISION OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES
Attention To
Cynthia Ramos
Requestor Address
5600 FISHERS LANE, ROOM 02E70, ROCKVILLE, MD 20857
Phone Number
(301) 443-7047
(301) 480-0292
Fax Number
u By Mail
Preferred method to return CPR check results to the requesting organization
u By Fax
PART I1: Applicant Information
Last Name (include suffix if applicable)
Date of Birth (MM/DD/YYYY)
Full Middle Name
(write "no middle name' if there is none)
First Name
Social Security Number (or LISCIS/Alien Registration #)
Gender (on birth certificate)
u Male
u Female
Other Names Used (nicknames, alias, maiden name, previous married name, legal name change, etc.)
Household Information. List all persons living at the current address with the applicant (including students away at college).
Name (first name, middle name, last name)
CPR Check Form
I
I
Date of Birth
obtain the latest form online at cfsa.dc.gov
I
I
Relationship to Applicant
Rev. October 2017 1 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 184 of 189
Previous Residency Information. List all addresses (excluding zip code) and the start and end dates, to the best of your ability.
Indicate L, W or M in the first column (L = lived, W = worked, M = received mail).
•
Applicants for employment or volunteer purposes must include all addresses of residence and where mail was received for the
last five (5) years.
•
Applicants for adoption, foster care, and kinship care must provide addresses for residency, receipt of mail and employment
from the age of 18, per Title 29 DCMR Chapter 60 § 6009.1.
To calculate the starting date for the previous addresses, add 18 years to the date of birth (e.g., If you were born in 1970, add 18
so addresses going back to 1988 must be provided).
To help obtain previous addresses, check the credit report bureaus (Equifax, Experian, TransUnion).
•
•
Current Address (include Street #, Apt #, Quadrant if applicable)
LWM
Previous Address (Include street # and Apt #)
City
City
State
State
Zip
Start — End Dates
(MM/YYYY — MM/YYYY)
CPR Check Form ( obtain the latest form online at cfsa.dc.gov I Rev. October 2017 1 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 185 of 189
PART III: Applicant Consent
I hereby consent and authorize the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency to provide the Requestor (noted in Part 1)
information concerning me that is contained in the Child Protection Register ("CPR").
Printed Name:
Date:
Signature:
Must be signed in blue ink; electronic signatures not permitted
PART IV: Certificate of Acknowledgement of the Applicant before a Notary Public
Leave this space blank for Notary seal
Applicant Name
(Printed)
Applicant Signature
(must be signed in the presence of a Notary)
Date
Subscribed and affirmed or sworn to me, in my presence, on this
day of
Signature of Notary Public:
My commission expires on _~
20
in the state of,
i
PART V: Self Check, CFSA Resource Parent, and CFSA Kinship Caregiver Verification
CFSA USE ONLY: Identification has been shown to me that I have deemed satisfactorily identifies the applicant:
ID #
Type of ID
CFSA Employee Name (print)
CFSA Employee Title (print)
CFSA Employee Signature
CPR Check Form I obtain the latest form online at cfsa.dc.gov I Rev. October 2017 1 Page 4 of 4
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 186 of 189
Exhibit DD
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 187 of 189
July 6, 2018
The Honorable Alex Azar
Secretary
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20201
The Honorable Kristjen Nielsen
Secretary
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528
Dear Secretary Azar and Secretary Nielsen:
As governors representing states where separated migrant children are being detained, we write
to express our growing concern with this Administration’s ability to reunify families in
accordance with the federal court injunction issued on June 26, 2018. Given recent reports
suggesting this process is being carried out chaotically and inconsistently, and in light of your
agencies’ latest admission that hundreds more separated migrant children are in the custody of
the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) than were previously accounted for, we remain
deeply concerned that wholly inadequate resources and procedures are in place to ensure
children and parents are reunified safely and securely within the court-ordered deadlines.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) now claims it has as many as 3,000
children in its custody who were removed from their parents at the southern border, as a result of
this Administration’s outrageous family separation policy. The substantial discrepancy between
this number and the 2,047 children who were previously identified by Secretary Azar raises
serious questions about this Administration’s systems and processes for ensuring these children,
including infants and toddlers, can be safely returned to their parents. To date, your agencies
have also consistently refused to account for the number of children who are already reunified
with their parents or placed with another long-term sponsor.
Let us be clear — the responsibility for these children’s plight rests solely in your hands. It is
unequivocal that this Administration’s harmful “zero-tolerance” policy is to blame for the
forcible separation of families at the southern border, not Congress or the courts. That’s why
each of us forcefully and vocally opposed this destructive approach to immigration enforcement,
which has inflicted intentional, gratuitous and permanent trauma on thousands of young children.
Although we welcomed the decision to abandon the shameful practice of forced family
separation, we strongly object to the omission in the President’s executive order on June 20,
2018, of any clear directive or strategy to reunify separated children with their parents.
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 188 of 189
A federal district court ruled correctly last week that this policy constitutes “irreparable harm”
with long-term implications for children’s health, safety and well-being, and it ordered the
Trump Administration to reunify separated children under the age of five within 14 days and all
separated children within 30 days. Unfortunately, it remains entirely unclear whether your
agencies have established the necessary protocols or dedicated adequate resources to meet these
deadlines without compromising children’s safety and welfare.
Perhaps even more troubling is a recent indication by representatives of your agencies that the
Trump Administration does not believe separated children must be reunified with their actual
parents under the court order. In a meeting with governors’ offices on June 29, 2018, these
representatives shared that reunification may include the placement of separated children with
any long-term sponsor — regardless of whether that placement is with their parents, another
family member residing in the U.S., a family member residing in their home country or in a longterm foster care setting. If true, this interpretation appears to blatantly ignore the terms of the
court order. The federal government has also recently admitted that reunification is being used as
a bargaining chip to induce parents to agree to voluntary deportation.
On behalf of the children residing in our states who have been needlessly traumatized and who
remain justifiably frightened for themselves and their families, we ask that you immediately
answer the following basic questions:
1. How many separated migrant children in HHS custody have already been reunified? Are
there any new children who have been separated from their parents since the President’s
executive order on June 20, 2018? If so, how many and where are they?
2. Of those children who have already been reunified, how many have been placed with the
parents they arrived with at the U.S. southern border? How many were placed with a nonparent family member or other sponsor? Of the children placed with a non-parent family
member or sponsor, in which states were they placed?
3. If any were placed with a non-parent sponsor, what policies do your agencies intend to
put in place to enable long-term reunification between children and their parents?
4. What steps is the federal government requiring separated parents to comply with before
gaining back custody of their children? (For example, must they consent to return to their
country of origin, post bond, or submit to DNA testing or finger-printing?)
5. What safeguards are being put in place to ensure the results of any DNA testing of
parents and children are not used for any purpose other than familial verification? Are
these results de-identified and ultimately destroyed?
6. How many of the separated migrant children in HHS custody have been provided with
legal services and representation?
As parents, we are heartbroken by the unimaginable pain inflicted on thousands of unwitting
children who have done nothing wrong and parents who often have valid claims for refugee or
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 189 of 189
asylum status. As governors, we will not stay silent as long as these children remain unjustly
detained in our states, separated from their parents simply because of this Administration’s
unwillingness or ineptitude to govern legally with humanity and compassion.
Sincerely,
Governor Jay Inslee
State of Washington
Governor Andrew Cuomo
State of New York
Governor Dannel P. Malloy
State of Connecticut
Governor Phil Murphy
State of New Jersey
Governor Tom Wolf
State of Pennsylvania
Governor Kate Brown
State of Oregon
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 1 of 107
Exhibit EE
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 2 of 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
STATE OF WASHINGTON et al,
Plaintiffs,
10
11
12
13
NO. 2:18-cv-00939MJP
v.
DONALD TRUMP in his official capacity
as President of the United States, et al.,
DECLARATION OF
JENNIFER
FLORIAN-VEGA
Defendants.
14
15
I, Jennifer Florian-Vega, am over eighteen years of age, have personal
16
knowledge of and am competent to testify regarding the facts contained herein, and
17
declare the following:
18
I am from Guatemala, and I came to the United States with my 11-year-old
19
daughter. We arrived in Texas on the 18th of May, where immigration officers took
20
us to a place they call iceboxes (hieleras), because they are very cold, and you
21
freeze in there. When we arrived, we saw other mothers with children who were
22
crying. My daughter asked me why they were crying, and a guard who heard us
23
told us that the same thing was going to happen to us, that we would be separated.
24
My daughter began to cry. We were together until 11 o’clock at night. I covered my
25
daughter with an aluminum blanket so that she would not be cold. The guards
26
called her name, and my daughter asked me, “mommy, why are they calling me?” I
DECLARATION OF JENNIFER FLORIANVEGA
Page 1 of 3
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 3 of 107
1
told her that everything would be OK. The guards took her to look her over. I could
2
see her through a door with a window. I saw that she was crying. She asked to go to
3
the restroom, she hugged me, and then they took her away. I tried not to cry, even
4
though I had a knot in my throat, so that my daughter would not be scared. I
5
remained in the icebox for three more days without my daughter and without
6
hearing anything from her. They took me to the court. Before entering the court, a
7
lawyer talked to us and told us that we had to declare ourselves guilty, or they
8
would leave us there another 14 days. So, when the judge asked me, I said that I
9
had entered illegally. The judge told us in the group of mothers who were there that
10
we would be able to see our children when we left.
11
But from there they took me to another icebox and I asked about my daughter, and
12
the guards told me that they didn’t know anything, that I would not see her again,
13
and they laughed while we were crying. I was there for two days, then they sent us
14
to Laredo. On June 3rd, they took us to the Federal Prison in Washington. One
15
morning they woke us up and took us to Tacoma. They did not tell us why. That
16
was 15 days ago. Recently, 3 days ago, I was able to speak with my daughter. A
17
mother who is detained here gave me a telephone number of a home in Texas
18
where her daughter is, so that I could try to see if my daughter was also there.
19
When I called, I found her, and I was able to speak with her for 15 minutes.
20
I told her that I signed my deportation order and that we would go back to
21
Guatemala soon. I renounced my request for asylum because they separated me
22
from my daughter, and the only thing I want is to be with her once more. 43 days
23
passed without me hearing anything from her. Every time I asked officers about
24
her, they did not know where she was.
25
26
I declare under penalty of perjury in accordance to the laws of the state of
Washington and of the United States of America that the above is true and correct.
DECLARATION OF JENNIFER FLORIANVEGA
Page 2 of 3
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 4 of 107
1
DATED this 5th day of July, 2018 in Tacoma, Washington.
2
[Signature]
3
Name: Jennifer Florian Vega
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECLARATION OF JENNIFER FLORIANVEGA
Page 3 of 3
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 5 of 107
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 6 of 107
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,
NO. 2:18-ev-00939 - MJP
9
Plaintiffs,
DECLARACION DE
10
V.
11
12
DONALD TRUMP in his official capacity
as President of the United States, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
17
18
f''s ae
Yo,
11.
, tengo mas de dieciocho anos de edad;
tengo conocimiento personal y soy competente para testificar sobre los hechos aqui contenidos,
y declaro to siguiente:
yM
~
de, 6
►~
~~5
a'~
cur\ ivv )
i
I
u v~~
~s
V~; das
LI qc.~AAO&
1~ ~
19
i
20
urn
os li~v~
21
22
o
d -e `y , CtJCtA^ dc
~<
23
i Cwt
24
((C U
O
~,. Vv0 3 llo
25
26
V`n
DECLARACI6N DE
-
11 ,
2:18-CV-00939 - MJP
V
gat
,u
J. de
yel'C
4
Sue C4
(J
Pdgina
t~
1
-
t0-W405
OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
206-464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 7 of 107
wo
(I k c
P t'T
't
t *.A^
q
2
3
,A
Y\o
4
)4-
5
6
SO
A
C\ OINA V2 V-C
.7
I
7
8
c(
qVII
rao. ct3A
,
rNA 0
-e-
~eUG4 0 f\,
Ok-f
b 5
q tf-xf
I (I
\
j
9
10
(C)
\C
k~ a
11
12
13
Le
)
14
15
t c-I
A CAP^
16
c
17
18
jCkCkjV
19
0
20
21
'Lawd't
4A
Vie ci kie
l
I
V
k 1c (X~
22
23
24
25
26
DECLARAC16N DE
2:18-CV-00939 - MJP
Pdgina 2
-
de'l
OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
206-464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 8 of 107
1
2
3
4
5
i
Dos d,
o
clu ow
3ant
e
6
7
1-10
m e4 ®(
1
-- Sit V1
`~
~,{
t
D
_
ffk
8
<
G
kc
~
fu
9
VN 4
41 `
'
10
{/''CYl'~
11
0
1.
12
0 u., ,..<<~ -
CJ
13
wI
14
15
KAQ
16
17
18
19
20
y
(
d`
21
22
23
tip
fitj
1, •re (,~
~i
`
t
~,
24
25
26
DECLARACI6N DE
2:18-CV-00939 - MJP
Pdgina -9
del
OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
206-464-7744
N
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 9 of 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Declaro bajo pena de perjurio bajo las leyes del estado de Washington y de los Estados
Unidos de America que to anterior es verdadero y correcto.
FECHADO este
( '~-
dia de Julio, 2018 en Tacoma, Washington.
10
11
Nombre:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECLARAC16N DE
2:18-CV-00939 - MJP
Pagina
I de
OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL D
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
206-464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 10 of 107
Exhibit FF
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 11 of 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
STATE OF WASHINGTON et al,
Plaintiffs,
10
11
12
13
NO. 2:18-cv-00939MJP
v.
DONALD TRUMP in his official capacity
as President of the United States, et al.,
DECLARATION OF
IBIS GUZMAN
COLINDRES
Defendants.
14
15
I, Ibis Guzman Colindres, am over eighteen years of age, have personal
16
knowledge of and am competent to testify regarding the facts contained herein, and
17
declare the following:
18
I am from Honduras and I came to the United States with my only son, aged 5
19
years. When we arrived, the immigration officers took us to the icebox (la hielera).
20
It was very cold. The sandwich they gave us was made with frozen bread. About
21
two hours later, they took my little boy from me. They told me that I should give
22
them the boy, they did not tell me where they were going to take him, but that the
23
law was to separate parents from their children. My son was crying because he did
24
not want to be without me. I asked them to leave him with me, but they did not pay
25
any attention. I was there two more days, then they took me to the dog kennel (la
26
perrera), where I was for three more days. I did not hear anything about my son for
DECLARATION OF IBIS GUZMAN C.
Page 1 of 2
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 12 of 107
1
the entire time. In the dog kennel, they told us that we should forget about our
2
children, that they were going to stay in the United States. All of the mothers cried
3
when they told us that. From there, they took us to Laredo. I was there for 15 days,
4
with no contact with my son. They transferred us to Washington on June 3rd to
5
Federal Detention. I was there about 15 more days, still without being able to talk
6
with my son. One Wednesday in the morning, they told us that we would be
7
reunited with our children, but they took us here to the Tacoma Detention Center,
8
which was very sad and disheartening. 6 days after arriving, I was finally able to
9
speak with my son after more than a month and a half of not being able to talk with
10
him. But he didn’t want to talk when I called him, he is angry and sad, and he tells
11
me that he only wants to be with me now. When he spoke with my sister, he told
12
her that I brought him here to give him away. It makes me feel very bad to think
13
that he believes that I would do that. I left Honduras because of death threats and
14
am requesting asylum in order to live here in safety with my son.
15
I am very worried for the well-being of my son, and that he would believe that I
16
brought him all the way here just to leave him on his own.
17
18
19
I declare under penalty of perjury in accordance to the laws of the state of
Washington and of the United States of America that the above is true and correct.
DATED this 5th day of July, 2018 in Tacoma, Washington.
20
[Signature]
21
Name: Ibis Guzman
22
23
24
25
26
DECLARATION OF IBIS GUZMAN C.
Page 2 of 2
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 13 of 107
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 14 of 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,
NO. 2:18-cv-00939 - MJP
9
Plaintiffs,
DECLARACI6N DE
10
V.
T B(S (,~
11
12
DONALD TRUMP in his official capacity
as President of the United States, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
17
18
!l
Yo,
~>
, tengo mas de dieciocho anos de edad,
tengo conocimiento personal y soy competente para testificar sobre los hechos aqui contenidos,
y declaro to siguiente:
11
Q"o
r~-Nk U ni C o
~~ ~o de
-Y g ios . cuaA,~o
19
20
\ 1
f-105<<~1~ rt
f
21
22
23
d ~:
~.
rn
O(
Cam_
C/1t
N° h C-.
24
25
26
DECLARAC16N DE
.
2:18-CV-00939 - MJP
Pagina de
OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL I
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
206-464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 15 of 107
2
no~
4
5
CD VA
,
6
o'
0,
C)n e-tA
o"
s
C)cs
C~
o ~~Os
eu
A-f-eV*
7
h) C)
~,e
9
10
11
uw~
12
bo5
V\c
dos
c)-e ~;'A
ec' +-U \j C,
13
14
15
CAA 40CA
~y C(5
y
Vl e
16
4~"3 A- -U \1 e-
17
"
ow
18
C
~
c-
C(>V~c
GL"~
(r)
hA
YA V C>
U
J\A
C
O
19
20
co"
21
LA
22
c"ue
oL)-(>
fvkw,
i-x> I
tf
23
de
co,
C4
k
c)ol
los
24
25
I
26
DECLARACION DE
C
,)
2:18-CV-00939 - MJP
Pdgina
C de I
OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
2061464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 16 of 107
1
CCU,.
,
L
ue
iv,
CO-
IZ,
2
3
4
0
CVA o
5
(1k L
6
C~u CA
75 0'
7
ob
C-4. V
k-I 6
0
8
9
)
Cj
de
10
1,
J
11
12
13
~4
Ij
14
\1
15
0
16
17
18
19
2
.0
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECLARAC16N DE
2:18-CV-00939 - MJP
Pdgina
rj
de'l
OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
206-464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 17 of 107
1
2
f
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Declaro bajo pena de perjurio bajo las leyes del estado de Washington y de los Estados
Unidos de Am6rica que to anterior es verdadero y correcto.
FECHADO este
C)S dia de Julio, 2018 en Tacoma, Washington.
10
11
s
Nombre:', ~ -, ~ ,~4 C U t Yv1 ck o.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECLARACI6N DE
2:18-CV-00939 - MJP
Pagina
L de
OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL D
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
206-464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 18 of 107
Exhibit GG
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 19 of 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
STATE OF WASHINGTON et al,
Plaintiffs,
10
11
12
13
NO. 2:18-cv-00939MJP
v.
DONALD TRUMP in his official capacity
as President of the United States, et al.,
DECLARATION OF
DUNIA GARCÍA
RAMÍREZ
Defendants.
14
15
I, Dunia Garcia Ramirez, am over eighteen years of age, have personal
16
knowledge of and am competent to testify regarding the facts contained herein, and
17
declare the following:
18
I am from Honduras and I came to the United States with my 8-year-old daughter.
19
When we arrived, I told the immigration officers that I left Honduras because of
20
death threats and requested asylum when they took me to the icebox (hielera). We
21
were there for one night and then they took us to the place they call the dog kennel
22
(perrera). I was there with my daughter for a day until they took me to the court. I
23
told my daughter that I would see her once I came back from the court. But once
24
they separated me from my daughter, the officers in white told me that I would not
25
see my daughter again, that the children were to be given up for adoption. At that
26
point, all of us mothers began to cry out of fear for our children. After the court, I
DECLARATION OF DUNIA GARCIA R.
Page 1 of 2
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 20 of 107
1
was in the dog kennel for about two more days. From there, they took me to a jail in
2
Texas, where I spent 9 days without news of my daughter. From there, they
3
transferred me to Washington, to Federal Detention. After being there for a week, I
4
was recently able to speak with my daughter, who is in a home in California. I try
5
to speak with her twice per week so that she feels better. When we speak, she wants
6
to leave where she is and be together once more, she misses me a lot. I am waiting
7
to see what happens with my asylum case, I want to be with my daughter more than
8
anything. My heart aches day and night because I am separated from her. I want for
9
us to be able to live here to have protection and safety for her and for me.
10
I declare under penalty of perjury in accordance to the laws of the state of
11
Washington and of the United States of America that the above is true and correct.
12
DATED this 5th day of July, 2018 in Tacoma, Washington.
13
[Signature]
14
Name: Dunia Sarai Garcia Ramirez
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECLARATION OF DUNIA GARCIA R.
Page 2 of 2
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 21 of 107
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 22 of 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
ATSEATTLE
7
8
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,
NO. 2:18-cv-00939 - MJP
9
Plaintiffs,
DECLARACI6N DE
10
Wi
~Gyl
V.
11
12
DONALD TRUMP in his official capacity
as President of the United States, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
I
`, ' ..' A
~
►
Yo,
, tengo mas de dieciocho anos de edad,
U l, tengo conocimiento personal y soy competente para testificar sobre los hechos aqui contenidos,
y declaro to siguiente:
17
18
19
'Gv~
20
r. l ~G ~~
,
2
~ .
i
..
21
22
23
x( 10 o .Gtr
`~~. `~
'
~ r-c 1~
CA
.-
•
24
~..
`li
d
25
26
DECLARACI6N DE
f, I8-CV-00939 - MJP
Pagina "~` de
OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
206-464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 23 of 107
1
CA
crx
h
ZVI
2
tu
3
4
5
P
6
.b
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
13
14
15
~n
—
t
16
17
18
19
20
Y
21
CA
22
23
24
25
26
Pagina --de
DECLARACI6N DE
~B
2:18-CV-00939 - MJP
OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
206-464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 24 of 107
1
2
3
4 1
5
6
7
8
9
Declaro bajo pena de perjurio bajo las leyes del estado de Washington y de los Estados
Unidos de Amdrica que to anterior es verdadero y correcto.
FECHADO este1
dia de Julio, 2018 en Tacoma, Washington.
10
0
11
Nombre:
C ew
12)
r'('"
e
Ca ,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECLARAC16N J)E
2:18-CV-00939 - MJP
Plgina de
3
OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL D
WASHINGTON
6uu rinn Avenue, mne zuuu
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
206-464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 25 of 107
Exhibit HH
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 26 of 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
STATE OF WASHINGTON et al,
Plaintiffs,
10
11
12
13
NO.2:18-cv-00939-MJP
DECLARATION OF
SINDY ROSALESCOREAS
v.
DONALD TRUMP in his official capacity
as President of the United States, et al.,
Defendants.
14
15
I, Sindy Rosales-Coreas, am over eighteen years of age, have personal
16
knowledge of and am competent to testify regarding the facts contained herein, and
17
declare the following:
18
I am from El Salvador and I came to the United States with my 9-year-old son. We
19
arrived in Texas on May 16th. The immigration agents took me to the icebox
20
(hielera), where it was very cold. There was no water to drink, just the tap in the
21
bathroom, or they gave frozen ice water and the bread was also frozen. A few hours
22
later they took us away to take our information. Then they took me and left him in
23
another room, and since then I have not seen him again. They did not let me say
24
goodbye to him. The immigration officers told me that they were going to give my
25
son up for adoption and that I would not see him again. Then, they took me to a
26
place that is called the dog kennel (perrera) for 5 days. There, I asked for my son,
DECLARATION OF SINDY ROSALESCOREAS
Page 1 of 2
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 27 of 107
1
and the officers told me once more that they were going to deport me and that they
2
would give him up for adoption. From there, they took me to Laredo, where I was
3
until the 3rd of June. After being there for a week, I was able to talk to my son for
4
about 15 minutes. He is in a home in Arizona. He sounded very sad, and that
5
worries me. On the 3rd of June, they took me to Washington and I was only able to
6
speak with him one more time. The social worker told me that I can only talk to my
7
son once per week. I tried to call him again several times and there was no
8
response. I am requesting asylum because I fled El Salvador because of death
9
threats. I hope to be able to stay here with my son so we can live in safety, but they
10
11
have not yet told me when I can be with him.
I declare under penalty of perjury in accordance to the laws of the state of
12
Washington and of the United States of America that the above is true and correct.
13
DATED this 5th day of July, 2018 in Tacoma, Washington.
14
[Signature]
15
Name: Sindy Rosales
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECLARATION OF SINDY ROSALESCOREAS
Page 2 of 2
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 28 of 107
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 29 of 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9'
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
10
NO. 2:18-cv-00939 - MJP
DECLARACION DE
V.
11
12
DONALD TRUMP in his official capacity
as President of the United States, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
Yo,
':
, tengo mas de dieciocho anos de edad,
tengo conocimiento personal y soy competente para testificar sobre los hechos aqui contenidos,
y declaro to siguiente:
17
18
`kS
ell
19
20
21
22
23
24
LA
25
.
t.
26
DECLARACION DE
2:18-CV-00939 - MJP
Pagina_ de
OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL I
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
206-464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 30 of 107
Of
2
~ ,,es'
{CAS
``~o-
~~~
„x
5
6
7
g
!
+~-
li ~. z
9
10
12
13
~- 0
x
"
14
15
"
,x
16
D
;
r
17
G
18
AX eOCA"
20
21
ko
ii
1
22
23
~
24
25
26
DECLARACI6N DE
2:18-CV-00939 - MTP
Pagina _ de
OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 981043188
206-464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 31 of 107
l
1
2
4
j
AG
3'
4
5'
r
~
icG
or"Ac4
ot A
t
.
6
7'
8
9
Declaro bajo pena de perjurio bajo las leyes del estado de Washington y de los Estados
Unidos de America que to anterior es verdadero y correcto.
FECHADO este
06— dia de Julio, 2018 en Tacoma, Washington.
10
11
Nombre: 3
_1'n ~
12
Q)S SA, S_
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECLARACION DE
2:18-CV-00939 - MJP
Pagina
de
OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL E
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
206-464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 32 of 107
Exhibit II
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 33 of 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
STATE OF WASHINGTON et al,
Plaintiffs,
10
11
12
13
NO. 2:18-cv-00939MJP
v.
DONALD TRUMP in his official capacity
as President of the United States, et al.,
DECLARATION OF
LESLY MARTINEZ
SORIANO
Defendants.
14
15
I, Lesly Martinez Soriano, am over eighteen years of age, have personal
16
knowledge of and am competent to testify regarding the facts contained herein, and
17
declare the following:
18
I am from Honduras and I came to the United States with my two children: my ten-
19
year-old daughter and my 6-year-old son. We decided to leave Honduras because I
20
was being threatened with death and on one occasion people tried to run me over.
21
We arrived in the USA on May 16th. The immigration officers took us to the icebox
22
(hielera) where we were for 5 days. We slept on the floor because there were no
23
mattresses, just some aluminum blankets. We were unable to bathe or brush our
24
teeth. An officer said that we stank. We were given bread and ham that was frozen.
25
It was incredibly cold there. The place was full of people, so many that we couldn’t
26
lie down. We slept in the bathroom because there was no space. I was taken to
DECLARATION OF LESLY MARTINEZ
SORIANO
Page 1 of 2
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 34 of 107
1
court with my hands and feet cuffed and with a chain around my waist. My children
2
saw all this. My son became afraid and asked me “mommy, are they going to kill
3
you?”, while crying. It hurts me so much to remember that moment, the trauma my
4
son went through, remembering his voice crying out of fear. Since that day, May
5
21st, I have not seen them again. From there, they took me to McCali (tr: McAllen),
6
Texas, then from there to detention in Laredo, where I was for more than 30 days
7
without being able to speak to my children. I tried to call them, but in the home
8
where they told me they were, in New York, no one answered. From Laredo, they
9
took me to Washington at the beginning of June, to Federal Detention. I was there
10
until June 20th, still unable to speak with my children. They woke us up one
11
Wednesday and told us that they were going to reunite us with our children, but
12
they took us here to Tacoma and [the children] weren’t here. It was a complete lie.
13
One week ago, I was able to speak with my daughter for the first time, for about 10
14
minutes. I couldn’t speak with my son. My daughter told me that he didn’t want to
15
be there anymore, that he was just crying and crying and couldn’t speak anymore.
16
They are in a home in New York. I also want to say that in Laredo, in the
17
Detention, the officers treated us very badly. They yelled at us, they gave us dirty
18
clothing. Now, what I want more than anything is to be with my children and to
19
continue with my asylum case to be able to live here in safety, since I am afraid of
20
going back to Honduras. I fear for my life and that of my children if we go back.
21
I declare under penalty of perjury in accordance to the laws of the state of
22
Washington and of the United States of America that the above is true and correct.
23
DATED this 5th day of July, 2018 in Tacoma, Washington.
24
[Signature]
25
Name: Lesly Martinez
26
DECLARATION OF LESLY MARTINEZ
SORIANO
Page 2 of 2
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 35 of 107
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 36 of 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,
NO. 2:18-cv-00939 - MJP
9
Plaintiffs,
DECLARACI6N DE
10
Lk' `d ~AIXTIN~
V.
11
12
DONALD TRUMP in his official capacity
as President of the United States, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
L
Yo,
~1
S6?~ ftt\l (
, tengo mas de dieciocho anos de edad,
tengo conocimiento personal y soy competente para testificar sobre los hechos aqui contenidos,
y declaro to siguiente:
18
19
~';^
(49
20
21
22
j .
23
J~
f
25
26
DECLARACION DE
Pagiria _~' C10
j`
2:18-CV-00939 - MJP
OFICINA DEL W
GENERAL I
ASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
206-464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 37 of 107
1
2
0
3
4
25
c-4 CJ 6cA
.5
6
\ -3
0
QC05
7
8
cx
9
is
V
V N
10
~,U V
11
12
I
t.ko(cc ck
f
%ick)
,
13
14
15
-,Lk
%cC6
16
r\ i o
ck
a
-t-t-
?Ct
17
18
19
I
1
JL-L
4
I
20
21
22
23
-Q-
N
24
25
26
DECLARAC16NDE
!I
~A
)-
r
2:18-CV-00939 - MJP
Pdgina
"
de
OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL E
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
206-464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 38 of 107
1
2
(NOV
3
j~j CA
4
,e
~t
Ack^
y
5
6
7
8
9
:tL
10
11
-3v
12
I
~
IV
i
13
~JQ, G.s
WE
15
i_ ~
l `.O
!
' ~ Qom.
~
L
Lc
16
17
18
19
V
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECLARACI6N DE
de
Pagina
2:18AN-00939 - MJP
~r
OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
206-464-7744
IIA
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 39 of 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Declaro bajo pena de perjurio bajo las leyes del estado de Washington y de los Estados
8
Unidos de America que to anterior es verdadero y correcto.
9
FECIIADO este (Y3
dia de Julio, 2018 en Tacoma, Washington.
10
11
Nombre:Ve
t:~ . .`~~
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECLARACI6N DE
2:18-CV-00939 - MJP
Pagina
t`, i de
OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL D
WASHINGTON
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
206-464-7744
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 40 of 107
Exhibit JJ
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 41 of 107
Exhibit JJ
Sponsors of Migrant Children Face Steep Transport Fees and Red Tape - The New York ... Page 1 of 7
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 42 of 107
Sponsors of Migrant Children Face Steep
Transport Fees and Red Tape
By Miriam Jordan
July 1, 2018
LOS ANGELES — Marlon Parada, a construction worker in Los Angeles, already was
worried when he got an urgent call from his cousin in Honduras, asking if he would
agree to take in the cousin’s 14-year-old daughter. She’d been taken from her mother
while attempting to cross the border and detained in Houston, he said. She couldn’t be
released unless a family member agreed to take her in.
Mr. Parada, an immigrant himself who is supporting his wife and three daughters on
$3,000 a month, wondered how he could afford to take on another responsibility. Then he
learned that he would have to pay $1,800 to fly Anyi and an escort from Houston to Los
Angeles.
“It caught me by surprise when they demanded all that money. I asked them to just put
her on a bus, but they wouldn’t,” said Mr. Parada, who scrambled to amass the cash
from friends and wired it to the operator of the migrant shelter where Anyi was being
held.
But that was only one of the hurdles he would have to surmount to take custody of the
girl. Families hoping to win release for the thousands of migrant children being held by
federal immigration authorities are finding they have to navigate an exhausting,
intimidating — and sometimes expensive — thicket of requirements before the
youngsters can be released.
Candidates for sponsorship must produce a plethora of documents to prove they are
legitimate relatives and financially capable sponsors, including rent receipts, utility bills
and proof of income. Home visits are increasingly common as part of the process. And
once those conditions are met, many families must pay hundreds or even thousands of
dollars in airfare to bring the children home.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/us/migrant-children-families.html
7/13/2018
Sponsors of Migrant Children Face Steep Transport Fees and Red Tape - The New York ... Page 2 of 7
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 43 of 107
“The government is creating impossible barriers and penalizing poverty,” said Neha
Desai, director of immigration at the National Center for Youth Law in Oakland.
An estimated 11,000 children and teenagers apprehended after crossing the border are
currently housed in up to 100 government-contracted facilities across the country. Their
numbers have grown in recent weeks as the Trump administration has imposed a “zerotolerance” policy on border enforcement, purporting to end the strategy of “catch and
release” under which migrants were often allowed to go free pending hearings in the
immigration courts.
Under the most controversial part of the new strategy, more than 2,300 children were
separated from their families and placed in shelters occupied mainly by young people
who had made their way across the border alone. President Trump relented last week
and ordered that families be kept together whenever possible, but authorities now are
struggling to process the estimated 2,000 separated children still remaining in federal
facilities.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement, which has official custody of migrant children under
detention and establishes conditions for releasing them, has made it clear that the
requirements are intended to make sure children are not released to traffickers, and will
be well cared for in their new homes.
In testimony to the Senate in late April, Steven Wagner, the acting assistant secretary of
health and human services, said that in assessing a sponsor’s suitability, the agency
“evaluates the sponsor’s ability to provide for the child’s physical and mental well-being,
but also the sponsor’s ability to ensure the child’s presence at future immigration
proceedings.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/us/migrant-children-families.html
7/13/2018
Sponsors of Migrant Children Face Steep Transport Fees and Red Tape - The New York ... Page 3 of 7
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 44 of 107
Marlon Parada with Anyi at the Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project in Los Angeles.
Rozette Rago for The New York Times
The requirement for sponsors to pay transportation costs has long been part of the
agency’s procedures and was not initiated by the Trump administration, officials said.
Immigrant advocates say that migrant families often have spent their entire savings to
reach the United States border, and their relatives in the United States may not have
much money, either.
One potential sponsor was rejected recently because authorities decided she could not
afford the child’s medication, Ms. Desai said. A mother of two was told that her house
was not large enough to accommodate a third child. Another was told that she had to
move to a better neighborhood if she wanted to be approved.
A new condition requires that all adults in the household where a migrant child will
reside submit fingerprints to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Such a
requirement has intimidated many undocumented immigrants, who represent the
majority of sponsors but fear being targeted for deportation themselves.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/us/migrant-children-families.html
7/13/2018
Sponsors of Migrant Children Face Steep Transport Fees and Red Tape - The New York ... Page 4 of 7
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 45 of 107
“Previously, people readily identified themselves” to sponsor a child, said Lisa Rivera,
managing attorney at the New York Legal Assistance Group. But, she added, “This is not
an environment where someone is going to call and say, ʻI want to take my child, niece or
nephew.’ They have to find someone who has legal status.”
A Guatemalan immigrant in New York dreaded submitting her fingerprints in order to
sponsor two teenage family members being detained at a shelter in Texas, but felt she
had no choice.
“I wouldn’t even be able to ask someone else to be their sponsor. All my family and
friends are undocumented and afraid,” said the woman, who declined to be identified by
name because she fears attracting the attention of authorities.
The last straw: She had to borrow money to pay the $2,500 to fly them earlier this year
from Texas to New York, where she lives.
“It was a nearly impossible amount for a single mother earning $200 a week,” said
Crystal Fleming, the lawyer at the Legal Assistance Group representing the teenagers.
Brenda, a Salvadoran migrant who was separated from her 7-year-old son Kevin at the
border on May 27, was charged $576.20 to cover the boy’s airfare from Miami to Virginia.
His escort collected the money order at Washington Dulles airport on Friday upon
handing over the child to his mother.
“I was shocked that they had to pay for the boy’s airfare,” said Astrid Lockwood, the
lawyer for the mother and child, who had been held at a shelter in Florida. Ms. Lockwood
said that in a decade of practicing immigration law she had never seen this requirement,
but noted that she also had not encountered children placed in facilities thousands of
miles from their ultimate destination, as has occurred in recent weeks.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/us/migrant-children-families.html
7/13/2018
Sponsors of Migrant Children Face Steep Transport Fees and Red Tape - The New York ... Page 5 of 7
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 46 of 107
Brenda Garcia and Kevin leave Dulles Airport with their family on Friday.
Ryan Christopher Jones for The New York Times
Under the policy manual of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, sponsors are responsible
for paying transportation costs for both the child and any escort, along with fees charged
by airlines for handling transport of unaccompanied minors.
The payment requirement was also in place during the Obama administration, though in
2016, when a surge of families crossing the border created large populations in migrant
shelters, it was waived. Shelter operators were instructed to pay for transportation to
enable families to reunite more quickly, and were then reimbursed by the government,
said Bob Carey, who led the refugee resettlement office during the Obama
administration.
The thinking was, “It’s counterintuitive to keep a child in care,” he said.
“The human cost incurred aside,” he added, “the financial cost for the government is
significant. One day of care could cover transportation costs.”
Each day that a child remains in a facility costs the government upwards of $600 a day,
and costs can rise to as much as $1,000 daily if a provider has to absorb new children on
short notice, Mr. Carey said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/us/migrant-children-families.html
7/13/2018
Sponsors of Migrant Children Face Steep Transport Fees and Red Tape - The New York ... Page 6 of 7
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 47 of 107
On a case-by-case basis, immigrant families sometimes get help with transport costs.
Nonprofits may help cover the airfare. Sometimes lawyers and other advocates convince
a child’s case manager to reduce the travel fee or waive it altogether due to hardship.
A shelter in South Texas asked a Salvadoran woman for $4,000 to fly her niece, 12, and
nephew, 10, with an escort to California. They were there a month, until she convinced
them that she could not pay, said Fred Morris, president of the San Fernando Valley
Refugee Children Center, a nonprofit that helped her locate the children. The siblings
arrived in Los Angeles on Saturday.
It took Oscar Garcia of Anaheim, Calif., a month to complete the paperwork to sponsor
his nephew, Diego, 11, who was held at a facility in southern Texas after crossing the
border from El Salvador. As part of the process, Mr. Garcia, a father of three who does
remodeling work on homes, sent pictures of his two-bedroom house to the case manager
via Whatsapp. He also submitted fingerprints for a background check.
“When everything was done, they told me it would cost $1,400 to bring the boy here,” he
recalled. He borrowed $900 from his brother-in-law and depleted his $500 in savings to
afford tickets for the boy and an escort. The child landed in Los Angeles in May.
“I didn’t want to leave him stuck there,” said Mr. Garcia.
In the case of the Parada family in Los Angeles, Mr. Parada said both Anyi and her
mother had been through a lot in their journey and subsequent detention, and he knew it
was important to get the girl out of the shelter as quickly as he could.
Mother and daughter had traveled over land by bus and car to reach the southwest
border in early May. After wading through the Rio Grande to reach Texas, they were
promptly intercepted by the Border Patrol, Anyi told her family. They were then
separated: Anyi’s mother was transferred to a detention center in Seattle; the girl was
transported to Casa Quetzal, a shelter for minors in Houston that is operated by
Southwest Key, one of the country’s largest shelter operators for minors.
The separation prompted Anyi’s father in Honduras to reach out to his cousin in
California.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/us/migrant-children-families.html
7/13/2018
Sponsors of Migrant Children Face Steep Transport Fees and Red Tape - The New York ... Page 7 of 7
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 48 of 107
After compiling dozens of documents and submitting his fingerprints for a background
check, Mr. Parada learned that he would have to pay the $1,800 in airfare: one way for
the girl, round trip for her escort.
“They notified me a day before her release,” he said. “I had no choice.”
A version of this article appears in print on June 30, 2018, on Page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: To Retrieve Detainee, Enter
Mess of Red Tape And Buy $2,500 Flight
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/us/migrant-children-families.html
7/13/2018
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 49 of 107
Exhibit KK
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 104 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2056 107 1 of 17
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 50 of Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney
General
SCOTT G. STEWART
Deputy Assistant Attorney
General
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
Director
Office of Immigration Litigation
U.S. Department of Justice
WILLIAM C. SILVIS
Assistant Director
Office of Immigration Litigation
SARAH B. FABIAN
Senior Litigation Counsel
NICOLE MURLEY
Trial Attorney
Office of Immigration Litigation
U.S. Department of Justice
Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20442
Telephone: (202) 532-4824
Fax: (202) 616-8962
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ADAM L. BRAVERMAN
United States Attorney
SAMUEL W. BETTWY
Assistant U.S. Attorney
California Bar No. 94918
Office of the U.S. Attorney
880 Front Street, Room 6293
San Diego, CA 92101-8893
619-546-7125
619-546-7751 (fax)
Attorneys
for
Federal
Respondents-Defendants
Lee Gelernt*
Judy Rabinovitz*
Anand Balakrishnan*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
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
Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280)
Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 343-1198
F: (415) 395-0950
skang@aclu.org
samdur@aclu.org
Attorneys for PetitionersPlaintiffs
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 104 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2057 107 2 of 17
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 51 of Page
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2
3
Case No. 18cv428 DMS MDD
MS. L, et al.,
4
Petitioners-Plaintiffs,
5
JOINT STATUS REPORT
REGARDING REUNIFICATION
vs.
6
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et
al.,
7
8
9
Respondents-Defendants.
10
11
On July 10, 2018, this Court held a status conference, and ordered the
12
parties to file a joint report on July 112, 2018 regarding the ongoing
13
14
reunification process. The parties submit this joint status report in accordance
15
with the Court’s instruction.
16
17
18
19
I.
DEFENDANTS’ POSITIONS
A. Defendants are in Compliance With The Court’s Order
Defendants are in compliance with the Court’s order. Defendants have now
20
21
reunified 57 children identified by Defendants and this Court as eligible for
22 reunification at the status conference on July 10, 2018. Of the 63 identified by the
23
Court, 6 were ultimately determined not to be eligible for reunification after further
24
25
information was obtained regarding either parentage or the criminal background of
26 the parent. Additionally, Defendants identified one additional family with a child
27
28
1
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 104 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2058 107 3 of 17
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 52 of Page
1
under age 5 that was eligible for reunification, and was able to reunify that family
2 as well.
3
For these children, cases were resolved as follows:
4
11
• 6 were determined not to be eligible for reunification following completion
of parentage and background checks:
o 3 had parents with serious criminal history
o 1 was excluded because the accompanying adult was not the parent of
that child
o 1 was excluded on suspicion of not being the parent or of posing a risk
to the child, because the accompanying adult presented a false birth
certificate
o 1 had a parent who was determined to be in the custody of the U.S.
Marshals, not in ICE custody as previously believed
12
• 38 were reunified on or before July 10, 2018
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
• 19 were reunified on July 11, 2018 (this number includes one additional child
who was identified by Defendants since their last submission to this Court)
• 1 was reunified by 6:00 a.m. local time on July 12, 2018.
For the 20 children who were reunified on July 11 and 12, 2018,
transportation arrangements had been made on July 10, but could not be completed
19
20
for logistical reasons specific to each case until July 11 and July 12. Defendants
21 detail below the reasons for any delay in reunification, as well as the reasons why
22
21 of the parents of children originally believed to be class members were
23
24
ultimately determined not to be members of the class due to criminal history,
25 danger to the child, or not being the parent.
26
27
28
2
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 104 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2059 107 4 of 17
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 53 of Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Criminal background of adults excluded from the class:
1. Warrant for murder in Guatemala
2. Child cruelty and narcotics convictions
3. Suspected transnational criminal organization involvement and human
trafficking
4. Outstanding criminal warrant in El Salvador
5. 2 DUI convictions
6. Significant criminal history including assault conviction
7. Outstanding warrant in Florida for DUI
8. DUIs, assault, stolen vehicle
9. Robbery conviction
10.Wanted by El Salvador
11.Criminal charges including assault
Not a parent or parentage in question:
12.Adult said he is uncle, not father
13.Negative DNA match, adult indicated he is not the child’s father
14.Adult said she is grandmother, not mother
15.During DNA testing, adult disclosed she is not the child’s mother
16.Negative DNA match, still under investigation
17.Adult disclosed that she is grandmother, not the parent
18.Adult presented false birth certificate, still under investigation
Release presents danger to the child:
19.Before court order, adult was required to submit information and fingerprints
of other adults in household where she will live with the child; background
check on adult male in household shows an active warrant for aggravated
criminal sexual assault of a 10-year-old female.
20.Child made allegations of abuse against adult
Communicable Disease
22
23
24
25
26
27
21.Parent is being treated for communicable disease in ICE custody
Reunifications completed on July 11 and 12:
1. Reunification in ICE custody completed at midnight Pacific time on 7/10,
3:00 a.m. Eastern on 7/11
2. Reunification was scheduled for 10:30 p.m. Pacific time on 7/10, 12:30 am
Central time on 7/11
28
3
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 104 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2060 107 5 of 17
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 54 of Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3. Reunification was scheduled for 10:30 p.m. Pacific time on 7/10, 12:30 am
Central time on 7/11
4. Parental verification was not complete; adult and child were in distant
locations in New York state, reunification occurred before noon on 7/11.
5. Reunification was scheduled for 10:30 p.m. Pacific time on 7/10, 12:30 am
Central time on 7/11
6. Reunification was scheduled for 10:30 p.m. Pacific time on 7/10, 12:30 am
Central time on 7/11
7. Reunification in ICE custody completed at midnight Pacific time on 7/10,
3:00 a.m. Eastern on 7/11
8. Reunification was scheduled for 10:30 p.m. Pacific time on 7/10, 12:30 am
Central time on 7/11
9. Parental verification was not complete; child placed on flight at 9:55 p.m.
Pacific time 7/10, reunification occurred at 5:35 a.m. Eastern 7/11
10.Parental verification was not complete; Texas, reunification complete 7/11
11.Parental verification was not complete; adult was in Texas and child was in
Maryland, reunification completed on 7/11
12.Parental verification was not complete; Texas, reunification complete 7/11
13.Parental verification was not complete; Texas, reunification complete 7/11
14.Parental verification was not complete; parent was in Louisiana and child in
New York, reunification completed 6:00 a.m. on 7/12
15.Parental verification was not complete; parent was in Texas and child in
Arizona, reunification completed on 7/11
16.Parental verification was not complete; child was in New York and parent
was released to the interior, reunification in Georgia complete 7/11
17.Parental verification was not complete; discharge was coordinated with
discharge of sibling 5 years of age or older, reunification completed on 7/11
18.Parental verification was not complete; child was in New York and parent
was released to the interior, reunification in Georgia complete 7/11
19.Parental verification was not complete; child was in New York and parent
was released to the interior in Texas, reunification complete in Texas 7/11
20.Parental verification was not complete; child was in Illinois and parent was
released to the interior, reunification in Texas complete 7/11
The 23 remaining children aged 0–4, who HHS originally listed as possible
25 candidates for reunification under the Court’s order, cannot currently be reunified
26 with their parents because: their parents are in criminal custody (11), or their
27
28
4
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 104 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2061 107 6 of 17
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 55 of Page
1
parents have been removed (12) and they will be considered for reunification on a
2 timetable to be determined as Plaintiffs and Defendants work together to locate
3
those parents and determined if they wish to be reunified. One child on the original
4
5 list has a parent who may or may not be a United States citizen (insufficient
6 information is available to make this determination, and the parent and others are
7
not available to provide that information). The child was separated from her parent
8
9 in 2015 when her parent was arrested on an outstanding warrant by the U.S.
10 Marshals Service. Defendants have not been aware of the parent’s location since
11
then and they remain unable to locate that parent. Because the parent is not
12
13 available, it is not possible to reunite the child with the parent. Unless the parent is
14 located, HHS will provide care and seek placement for the child using its ordinary
15
programs and procedures.
16
17
B. HHS Truncated Processes to Comply With the July 10, 2018 Order
18
In its July 10, 2018 ruling and order, the Court instructed Defendants to
19
release children on Defendants’ list who Defendants associated with adults in ICE
20
21 custody, and whose affirmative parental verification, including DNA testing, had
22 not yet been completed. The Court also instructed that reunification should not be
23
delayed for HHS to affirmatively verify parental status.
24
There were 16 such adults in ICE custody. Of those: 1 was found to be in
25
26 Marshal’s custody, not in ICE custody; 1 DNA test result came back negative prior
27
28
5
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 104 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2062 107 7 of 17
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 56 of Page
1
to the Court’s deadline, causing good faith concern about parentage and risk to the
2 child; and 1 was found to have presented a false birth certificate, also causing good
3
faith concern about parentage and risk to the child. For the other 13 adults, HHS
4
5 transferred the children to ICE for reunification with those adults without further
6 parental verification process.
7
The Court’s order also required Defendants, by the Court’s deadline, to
8
9 reunify 8 children who Defendants had associated with adults previously released
10 to the interior of the United States. At the time of the Court’s order, HHS had not
11
yet completed parental verification of those purported parents, nor had HHS
12
13 received all biographical or fingerprint information that it requested for any other
14 adults who would be living in the same household upon release of the child.1 HHS
15
was able to confirm parentage of 1 of the 8 adults prior to the deadline. For the
16
17 remaining 7 of the 8 adults, in compliance with the Court’s order, HHS released
18 the children to the adults despite not having completed its affirmative verification
19
that those adults were the parents. HHS also did not complete any background
20
21 checks on other adults living in the same households as the children upon release.
22
C. Reunification With Removed Parents
23
24
25
1
In at least one instance where background investigations of cohabitants were
26 completed prior to the Court’s deadline, HHS found that an adult in the household
had an outstanding warrant for aggravated sexual abuse of a 10-year-old child.
27
28
6
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 104 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2063 107 8 of 17
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 57 of Page
1
With regard to those children whose parents are removed, Defendants are
2 working with Plaintiffs’ counsel to locate those parents and to provide them notice
3
to determine if they wish to be reunified with their children. It is difficult to
4
5 determine how much time will be necessary for those reunification until the
6 parents are contacted and it can be determined what those reunifications would
7
entail. Defendants ask the Court to allow those reunifications to occur on a flexible
8
9 schedule, and propose that for each such child for whom reunification is requested,
10 once the parent is located and the request for reunification is made, Defendants
11
will work with Plaintiffs’ counsel to identify the steps that need to be taken for
12
13 reunification and determine a reasonable amount of time to complete that process.
14 If the Court is inclined to set a definitive timeframe, Defendants request that any
15
deadline begin on the date that Defendants receive travel documents for the child.
16
17
18
19
C. Individuals in State Custody
Defendants understand that Plaintiffs will reach out to class members in state
criminal custody to ensure that they contact ORR following their release if they
20
21 wish to be reunified with their child. Defendants will provide Plaintiffs with any
22 information they have about class members who are sent to state criminal custody
23
to assist in these communications.
24
25
26
27
28
7
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 104 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2064 107 9 of 17
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 58 of Page
D. Reporting:
1
Defendants agree that no later than July 13, 2018, they will provide
2
3 Plaintiffs’ counsel with a list of identified class members in ICE custody.
4
Defendants also agree that no later than July 13, 2018, they will provide Plaintiffs’
5
6 counsel with a list of identified children of class members. Defendants agree to
7 meet and confer with Plaintiffs about the provision of additional information.
8
Defendants are aware that Plaintiffs are requesting to receive a chart with the level
9
10 of detail that was provided regarding the minors under-age-5, however the
11 compilation of that information took a significant amount of time on the part of
12
operators whose time would be better spent facilitating reunification and
13
14 production of the same level of detail on a much larger scale is not operationally
15 feasible under the current timeframes. Defendants request the opportunity to
16
continue to meet and confer with Plaintiffs to see if there is an option that would
17
18 provide Plaintiffs with the information that they need while minimizing demands
19
on the part of agency operators.
20
21
II.
PLAINTIFFS’ POSITIONS
22
A. Reunifications of Children Under Five
23
1. As of today, Defendants represent that they have reunified 58 Class
24 Members. Of the 103 Class Members Defendants initially identified, apparently
25 10 remain in criminal custody, 12 were deported, and 23 have apparently dropped
26 out of the class or are not eligible for reunification at this time, either because they
27
28
8
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 10427-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 59 ofPage 10 of 17
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2065 107
1 had criminal histories, evidence of abuse, communicable diseases, or they were not
2 actually the parents.
3
2. Plaintiffs have not yet received any specific information about most of
4 the 23 individuals who Defendants claim have dropped out of the class or are
5 ineligible for reunification. Plaintiffs have therefore not been able to verify
6 whether those parents are, indeed, Class Members eligible for reunification at this
7 time. Plaintiffs have also not been able to determine whether any criminal
8 convictions those parents have render them a danger to their children—and
9 therefore not entitled to reunification at all—or merely not Class Members.
10
3. As for the 58 parents whom Defendants have apparently reunified,
11 Plaintiffs have no independent verification that these 58 parents have in fact been
12 reunited with their children. During the meet and confer process leading up to July
13 10, Defendants claimed that they would provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with notice of
14 the time and place for each reunification, so that Plaintiffs’ counsel could arrange
15 for private and NGO service providers to assist the families and verify
16 reunification. This did not happen. Defendants did not provide specific time and
17 place information for a single Class Member. Instead, Defendants only provided a
18 general prediction about how most Class Members would be reunified.
19
Defendants’ lack of communication about reunification logistics caused
20 significant problems over the last three days. Plaintiffs are now hearing about a
21 number of troubling situations from service providers and attorneys for Class
22 Members and their children. These problems include:
23
• ICE left one Class Member alone at a bus stop with her children, one of
24
whom was six months old. Through a series of phone calls between the
25
Class Member, her attorney, and another advocate, the Class Member
26
finally obtained a bus ticket on Tuesday around midnight.
27
28
9
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 10427-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 60 ofPage 11 of 17
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2066 107
1
• One Class Member was transported through a series of ICE facilities in
2
New Jersey and Michigan in a matter of days, with no prior notice to his
3
counsel. ICE refused access to his counsel while he was detained in
4
Michigan. Despite repeated requests by both the Class Member and his
5
lawyer, ICE did not allow his counsel to be present at the point of
6
reunification.
7
• A Class Member was kept in an ICE office for most of the day of her
8
originally-scheduled reunification. ORR had processed her children for
9
release that day. ICE officers attempted to process her for release on an
10
ankle monitor. Due to an apparent computer malfunction, the officers
11
were unable to complete the process. At the end of the business day, the
12
ICE officers ceased their attempts and told the mother that she would be
13
sent back to detention without her children.
14
B. Parents Deported Without Their Children
15
1. Twelve Class Members with children under 5 remain separated, because
16 they have already been deported. Plaintiffs and their NGO partners are in the
17 process of trying to contact these parents. For those deported Class Members who
18 choose to be reunited with their children, Plaintiffs propose that the Court order
19 Defendants to reunify them within 7 days after the parent obtains travel documents
20 for the child. This deadline will ensure that these Class Members are promptly
21 reunified, and that any delay in obtaining travel documents does not affect
22 Defendants’ obligations.
23
2. Defendants have represented that case-specific complications might
24 necessitate further delay. In that situation, Plaintiffs propose that the parties meet
25 and confer about any individual case where the government presents specific,
26 concrete reasons why 7 days is not sufficient. If any disputes remain, the parties
27 can submit the dispute to the Court for a ruling. But the Court should reject any
28
10
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 10427-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 61 ofPage 12 of 17
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2067 107
1 request from Defendants to extend or avoid setting a deadline, which may lead to
2 indefinite delay. Indeed, to date, Plaintiffs are not aware of any specific steps
3 Defendants have taken even to locate these 12 Class Members.
4
C. Costs of Reunification
5
Plaintiffs’ counsel have heard reports that some Class Members have been
6 asked to pay for the costs of reunification, such as transportation costs (and
7 possibly DNA testing). For example, Plaintiffs’ counsel was informed that one
8 Class Member was initially told to wire around $1,900 to Western Union to pay for
9 reunification; another Class member arranged to pay for a plane ticket before being
10 told to cancel the ticket because someone else was purchasing a flight for the child.
11
It is not acceptable for Defendants to make compliance with this Court’s
12 injunction contingent on Class Members paying thousands of dollars to reunify
13 with their children. Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to order Defendants not to
14 charge Class Members for any of the costs of reunification, including DNA testing
15 and air travel, and to reimburse any individuals who were in fact charged.
16
D. Remedies for Non-Compliance
17
Defendants claim that only 58 parents were eligible for reunification as of
18 the July 10 deadline. As noted above, Plaintiffs have not been given sufficient
19 information to verify the accuracy of that eligibility number.
20
In any event, Defendants concede that they did not meet the July 10 deadline
21 even for these 58 Class Members. This morning, Defendants informed Plaintiffs’
22 counsel that only 38 Class Members were reunified by the Court’s deadline. The
23 other 20 children were not returned to their parents until after July 10. In light of
24 this non-compliance, Plaintiffs propose specific remedies in order to ensure that
25 Defendants do not miss future deadlines. See infra Section E.
26
E. Class Members with Children 5 and Older
27
28
11
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 10427-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 62 ofPage 13 of 17
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2068 107
1
As noted above, Plaintiffs believe that open communication and planning in
2 advance are critical to ensure that Defendants do not miss the future deadlines
3 ordered by the Court.
4
The past week has highlighted these concerns. Plaintiffs wrote to
5 government counsel on July 2 to ask for a list of class members and reunification
6 plans. The government did not provide any of this information before the July 6
7 status conference, when the Court ordered Defendants to produce the list the next
8 day. That list, however, did not contain the parents’ names or A numbers.
9 Defendants did not provide that critical information necessary to locate and track
10 Class Members until the next day—two days before the deadline.
11
When the deadline arrived, Defendants had not completed parentage
12 verification or background checks for many of the class members with children
13 under 5. The failure to complete these steps in advance delayed reunification for
14 more than a dozen class members until after the deadline. And despite promising
15 to provide advance notice of the time and place for each reunification, Defendants
16 provided no specific information to Plaintiffs’ counsel. As a result, Class
17 Members’ individual lawyers and service providers were left frantically scrambling
18 to find their clients and provide support.
19
The following seven (7) steps are designed to address each of these failures:
20
1. Defendants must provide Plaintiffs with a Class List for the remaining
21 Class Members by Monday, July 16, with all of the information that Defendants
22 provided for the children under 5. To ensure that reunification plans are not
23 formulated haphazardly at the last minute, this Class List should also contain
24 complete information regarding Defendants’ plans for reunifying each Class
25 Member, which was not provided for the children under 5.
26
2. Defendants must complete all parentage verifications and background
27 checks by Thursday, July 19. These steps, which must be completed prior to
28
12
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 10427-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 63 ofPage 14 of 17
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2069 107
1 reunification, should already be in progress or completed. One week from today
2 should be more than enough time to complete them.
3
3. Starting Tuesday, July 17—the day after Defendants must provide the
4 Class List (see above, item 1)—Defendants should file with the Court a daily
5 report regarding the number of reunifications that have occurred that day.
6
4. Defendants must provide Plaintiffs’ counsel, as well as Class Members’
7 immigration lawyers (if any), with at least 24 hours advance notice of the time,
8 place, and location of reunification. Defendants should also allow Class Members’
9 immigration counsel access to the site of reunification.
10
5. For separated parents whom Defendants determine are not Class
11 Members, Defendants must provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with detailed reasons why a
12 putative Class Member was excluded from the Class List, including, at a
13 minimum: any criminal convictions or charges; any allegations of abuse or
14 unfitness; or the specific reasons why parentage could not be verified.
15
6. If Defendants choose to reunite Class Members in family detention
16 facilities, they should provide immediate access to immigration lawyers who can
17 advise the Class Members of their rights. DHS facilities frequently place
18 unwarranted restrictions on counsel access, such as limiting the rooms available to
19 meet with lawyers, or adopting restrictive phone policies. Any lawyer seeking to
20 meet with a Ms. L. Class Member should be provided immediate access to a
21 private facility where the Class Member can be counseled on his or her rights.
22 This is particularly important if that Class Member has received a removal order.
23
7. Defendants must establish a fund to pay for professional mental health
24 counseling, which will be used to treat children who are suffering from severe
25 trauma as a result of their forcible separation from their parents. The amount can
26 be set at a later time, subject to further negotiations between the parties and rulings
27 from the Court. Although many medical professionals have graciously offered pro
28
13
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 10427-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 64 ofPage 15 of 17
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2070 107
1 bono services for the children, who plainly are in desperate need of counseling,
2 these medical professionals should not have to assume the costs associated with the
3 government’s policy, especially not their out-of-pocket expenses.
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
14
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 10427-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 65 ofPage 16 of 17
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2071 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
DATED: July 13, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Lee Gelernt
Lee Gelernt*
Judy Rabinovitz*
Anand Balakrishnan*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
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
11
12
13
14
15
16
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
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280)
Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 343-1198
F: (415) 395-0950
skang@aclu.org
samdur@aclu.org
Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice
27
28
15
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 10427-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 66 ofPage 17 of 17
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2072 107
1
2
3
4
5
CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
SCOTT G. STEWART
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
Director
WILLIAM C. SILVIS
Assistant Director
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
/s/ Sarah B. Fabian
SARAH B. FABIAN
Senior Litigation Counsel
NICOLE MURLEY
Trial Attorney
Office of Immigration Litigation
Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
(202) 532-4824
(202) 616-8962 (facsimile)
sarah.b.fabian@usdoj.gov
ADAM L. BRAVERMAN
United States Attorney
SAMUEL W. BETTWY
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Attorneys for Respondents-Defendants
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 67 of 107
Exhibit LL
Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is budgeting for a surge in child separations.
Page 1 of 10
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 68 of 107
Peter Strzok
Trump in U.K.
Alex Kozinski
Sacha Baron Cohen
Brett Kavanaugh
News Quiz
Search
News & Politics
Culture
Technology
Business
Sign In
Human Interest
A MEAT-AND-POTATOES BANQUET
FOLLOW US
$135.99
JURISPRUDENCE
Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement Is Budgeting for a
Surge in Child Separations
The agency is planning to move funds for refugees and HIV/AIDS patients to cover the possible costs.
By MARK JOSEPH STERN
JULY 10, 2018 • 2:57 PM
TWEET
SHARE
COMMENT
View of a temporary detention center for illegal underage immigrants in Tornillo, Texas, on June 18.
Herika Martinez/AFP/Getty Images
The Office of Refugee Resettlement is preparing for the possibility of another surge in family separations. Internal
documents obtained by Slate show that ORR has modeled a scenario in which the Trump administration’s border policies
could require the detention of thousands more immigrant children.
ORR—an agency within the Administration for Children and Families, which is itself a division of the Department of Health
and Human Services—was caught off guard by the family separation policy, the documents reveal. In April, Attorney
General Jeff Sessions announced that the Department of Justice would henceforth have “zero tolerance” for immigrants
who cross the border without authorization. He expanded the policy in May by partnering with the Department of Homeland
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budg... 7/13/2018
Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is budgeting for a surge in child separations.
Page 2 of 10
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 69 of 107
Security to prosecute immigrants for unlawful border crossing, a misdemeanor. Under zero tolerance, parents are
imprisoned, and children are placed in ORR shelters, sometimes far from the border.
There are currently about 11,800 children in ORR’s care. Alex Azar, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services, has stated that somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 of those children were separated from their parents at the
border. The remaining children in ORR custody are unaccompanied minors—children who crossed the border without a
parent or guardian.
ADVERTISEMENT
In the documents obtained by Slate, ORR officials describe the budget implications of a potential surge in immigrant minors
over the next three months. The ORR’s budgeting exercise is premised on the possibility that the agency could need as
many as 25,400 beds for immigrant minors by the end of the calendar year. The documents do not indicate that ORR
officials have specific knowledge that family separations will increase but do show that the agency is preparing for the
possibility.
The internal documents estimate that if 25,400 beds are needed, ORR would face a budget shortfall of $585 million for
ORR in fiscal year 2018, which ends on Sept. 30. Under this scenario, that shortfall would increase to $1.3 billion in the first
quarter of fiscal year 2019, adding up to a total shortfall of $1.9 billion for the period between Oct. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31,
2018. The documents stress that these budget estimates represent maximum possible expenditures and that actual
expenses may be lower. The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to multiple requests for comment
about these figures or anything else relating to the documents.
ADVERTISEMENT
inRead invented by Teads
To help cover these potential costs, the documents say, HHS will seek supplemental appropriations from Congress. The
documents also indicate that HHS plans to pay for child separation by reallocating money from the Ryan White HIV/AIDS
Program, which, according to its website, “provides a comprehensive system of care that includes primary medical care
and essential support services for people living with HIV who are uninsured or underinsured.” Per the documents, the
process of transferring those HIV/AIDS funds has already begun.
In addition, HHS plans to reallocate $79 million from programs for refugee resettlement, a move that could imperil social
services, medical assistance, and English language instructions for refugees in the U.S., as well as programs for torture
survivors.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budg... 7/13/2018
Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is budgeting for a surge in child separations.
Page 3 of 10
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 70 of 107
ORR’s budgeting exercise does not account for a federal court decision ordering the administration to reunify separated
parents and children within 30 days, or within 14 days if those children are younger than 5 years old. Azar has stated
publicly that he will attempt to comply with these deadlines.
The documents do, however, take into account the executive order that Trump signed on
June 20 that purports to end family separation—and reveal that ORR does not seem to be
ADVERTISEMENT
operating on the assumption that the separation policy has truly ended. The budgeting
exercise assumes that Trump’s order created a 20-day pause on family separations and that referrals would increase after
that 20-day period—that is, after July 10—to 325 immigrant children per day for four weeks. If that estimate is correct, that
means an additional 9,100 immigrant children would be detained and housed by the U.S. government in the four weeks
beginning Tuesday.
At the end of those four weeks, the agency documents assume, the deterrent effect of family separation would again
reduce referrals—that is, the number of immigrant children in government detention. There is no evidence that a
resumption of family separation will deter parents from crossing the border with their children; the number of families
apprehended at the border stayed flat between May and June as the U.S. government implemented the zero-tolerance
policy.
The timeline laid out in these internal documents reflects a debatable reading of Trump’s executive order. ORR officials
appear to think that the order allowed families and children to be detained together temporarily but that under the Flores
settlement these children must be transferred to ORR’s custody after 20 days. Under this interpretation of the executive
order, all children who are separated from a parent or guardian from this point forward must first be detained with that
parent or guardian for 20 days.
ADVERTISEMENT
inRead invented by Teads
While the executive order is ambiguous on this point, ORR’s interpretation is plausible. Moreover, not all of the
referrals—ORR’s term for minors placed in its care—that are accounted for in ORR’s budgeting exercise would be children
separated from their parents. Some of the additional beds would presumably go to minors who arrive at the border
unaccompanied by a parent or guardian. But given the claim in the documents that referrals would increase after a pause
on family separations, it appears ORR believes a substantial number of those beds would indeed go to children separated
from their parents.
Mark Greenberg, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute who led the Administration for Children and Families—the
division of HHS that includes the Office of Refugee Resettlement—from 2013 to 2015, told Slate the plans indicate an
“enormous increase” in the number of minors that will be held in custody. “This envisions having further family separation
cases coming to HHS—a lot of them,” he said. Greenberg also noted that the documents suggest the possibility of a vast
expansion of federal expenditures on unaccompanied minors. “The entire appropriation for unaccompanied alien children
this year was $1.3 billion,” he said. Now ORR is “seeking an additional $1.3 billion” for just the last three months of 2018.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budg... 7/13/2018
Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is budgeting for a surge in child separations.
Page 4 of 10
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 71 of 107
ADVERTISEMENT
Bob Carey, who served as director of ORR under President Barack Obama, told Slate that the documents also reflect the
possibility that the agency may “keep children for much longer periods of time.” Under Obama, the average minor in federal
custody remained in ORR’s care for 33 days before being released to a sponsor, usually a family member. Under Trump,
that average has increased to 55 days, and stints in detention could grow longer as the administration creates higher
barriers to sponsorship. Carey said the Trump administration has implemented processes that have a “deterrent effect” on
sponsors. For instance, ORR now shares information about potential sponsors with Immigration and Customs
Enforcement. That policy could dissuade undocumented family members from sponsoring minors, potentially keeping
children languishing in ORR’s care for months.
“That tactic represents muddying of mission,” Carey said. “ORR shelters were not established to care for children on a
long-term basis. They were set to keep kids for as short a period of time as possible until the child could be released to a
parent or other sponsor. Clearly [the agency] is creeping away from that.”
One more thing
The Trump administration poses a unique threat to the rule of law. That’s why Slate has stepped up our legal coverage—watchdogging Jeff
Sessions’ Justice Department, the Supreme Court, the crackdown on voting rights, and more.
Our work is reaching more readers than ever—but online advertising revenues don’t fully cover our costs, and we don’t have print subscribers to
help keep us afloat. So we need your help.
If you think Slate’s work matters, become a Slate Plus member. You’ll get exclusive members-only content and a suite of great benefits—and you’ll
help secure Slate’s future.
Join Slate Plus
Tweet
Children
Share
Immigration
Comment
Refugees
ADVERTISEMENT
inRead invented by Teads
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budg... 7/13/2018
Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is budgeting for a surge in child separations.
Page 5 of 10
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 72 of 107
ADVERTISEMENT
MOST RECENT
VIEW ALL
14M AGO
JOSHUA KEATING
Schumer Calls on Trump to Cancel Putin Summit. Good Luck With That.
1H AGO
APRIL GLASER
We Wouldn’t Need Facebook to Ban Infowars if We Hadn’t Let Facebook Get So Massive
1H AGO
BEN MATHIS-LILLEY
Mueller Indicts Twelve Russians for Hacking Democrats Just Days Before Scheduled Trump-Putin Meeting
1H AGO
CARMEN RUSSO
Watch Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie Battle in New Mary Queen of Scots Trailer
1H AGO
MATTHEW DESSEM
Ted Koppel Escaped His Sacha Baron Cohen Interview Just by Knowing Night From Day
1H AGO
CARMEN RUSSO
The Big Bang Theory Gets Belated Emmy Nomination Thanks to New Rule
2H AGO
SOFIE WERTHAN
Black Resident Ordered to Leave Pool at His Own Apartment Complex for No Apparent Reason
2H AGO
FRANK BOWMAN
Trump’s Foreign Policy Carnage Is an Impeachable Offense
2H AGO
JOSHUA KEATING
Trump Has All But Pledged Allegiance to the European Far Right
2H AGO
BEN MATHIS-LILLEY
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budg... 7/13/2018
Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is budgeting for a surge in child separations.
Page 6 of 10
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 73 of 107
Trump Denounces His Own Attack on Theresa May as, Yes, “Fake News”
2H AGO
FELIX SALMON
Kylie Jenner Isn’t a Billionaire but Isn’t Not a Billionaire Because “Billionaire” Has Lost All Meaning
2H AGO
JEAN-MARIE POTTIER
What a World Cup Win Would Mean for France
ADVERTISEMENT
MOST READ
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budg... 7/13/2018
Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is budgeting for a surge in child separations.
Page 7 of 10
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 74 of 107
JEREMY STAHL
The Peter Strzok Hearing Was a Total Fiasco, but One Moment Was Particularly Unreal
GRAHAM STARR
I Made a Don Jr. Shadow Instagram Account to Mimic What He Likes and Follows. It Was Scary.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budg... 7/13/2018
Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is budgeting for a surge in child separations.
Page 8 of 10
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 75 of 107
ISAAC CHOTINER
We’re Not Headed for Nazi Germany, but We’re Also Not Headed Anywhere Good
CHRISTINA CAUTERUCCI
How the Trump Administration Deploys Female Pain as Punishment
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budg... 7/13/2018
Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is budgeting for a surge in child separations.
Page 9 of 10
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 76 of 107
BEN MATHIS-LILLEY
Facebook Says InfoWars, Which Reported That NASA Has a Slave Colony on Mars, Is a Valid Source of “Opinion and Analysis”
JOSHUA KEATING
Trump Contradicts His Entire Worldview in Weird Remark About Africa
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budg... 7/13/2018
Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is budgeting for a surge in child separations.
Page 10 of 10
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 77 of 107
FOLLOW US
Reprints
About us
Advertise: Site / Podcasts
Work with us
Facebook
Commenting
User agreement
Twitter
Contact / Feedback
Privacy policy
Pitch guidelines
AdChoices
Slate is published by The Slate Group, a Graham Holdings Company.
All contents © 2018 The Slate Group LLC. All rights reserved.
Instagram
Corrections
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budg... 7/13/2018
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 78 of 107
Exhibit MM
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 8527-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 79 ofPage 1 of 19
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1749 107
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 Petitioner-Plaintiff
*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
Petitioner-Plaintiff,
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: July 3, 2018
SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CLASS ACTION
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 8527-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 80 ofPage 2 of 19
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1750 107
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
Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280)
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
skang@aclu.org
samdur@aclu.org
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 8527-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 81 ofPage 3 of 19
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1751 107
1
2
3
INTRODUCTION
1.
This case challenges the United States government’s forcible
4
separation of parents from their young children for no legitimate reason and
5
notwithstanding the threat of irreparable damage that separation has been
6
universally recognized to cause young children.
7
2.
Plaintiff Ms. L. is the mother of a seven (7) year-old daughter, who
8
was ripped away from her, and then sent halfway across the country to be detained
9
alone. Plaintiff Ms. C. is the mother of a fourteen (14) year-old son, who was also
10
forcibly separated from his mother and detained more than a thousand miles away.
11
3.
Ms. L. and Ms. C. bring this action on behalf of themselves and
12
thousands of other parents whom the government has forcibly separated from their
13
children. Like Ms. L. and Ms. C., many of these individuals have fled persecution
14
and are seeking asylum in the United States. Without any allegations of abuse,
15
neglect, or parental unfitness, and with no hearings of any kind, the government is
16
separating these families and detaining their young children, alone and frightened,
17
in facilities often thousands of miles from their parents.
18
4.
Forced separation from parents causes severe trauma to young
19
children, especially those who are already traumatized and are fleeing persecution
20
in their home countries. The resulting cognitive and emotional damage can be
21
permanent.
22
5.
Defendants have ample ways to keep Plaintiffs together with their
23
children, as they have done for decades prior to their current practice. There are
24
shelters that house families (including asylum-seekers) while they await the final
25
adjudication of their immigration cases. If, however, the government lawfully
26
continues detaining these parents and young children, it must at a minimum detain
27
them together in one of its immigration family detention centers.
28
1
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 8527-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 82 ofPage 4 of 19
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1752 107
1
6.
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not permit the
2
government to forcibly take young children from their parents, without justification
3
or even a hearing. That separation also violates the asylum statutes, which
4
guarantee a meaningful right to apply for asylum, and the Administrative Procedure
5
Act (APA), which prohibits unlawful and arbitrary government action.
6
JURISDICTION
7
7.
This case arises under the Fifth Amendment to the United States
8
Constitution, federal asylum statutes, and the APA. The court has jurisdiction under
9
28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (habeas
10
jurisdiction); and Art. I., § 9, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution (“Suspension
11
Clause”). Plaintiffs are in custody for purposes of habeas jurisdiction.
12
VENUE
13
8.
Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because Ms. L. was
14
detained in this District when this action commenced, Defendants reside in this
15
District, and a substantial portion of the relevant facts occurred within this District,
16
including the Defendants’ implementation of their practice of separating immigrant
17
parents from their children for no legitimate reason.
18
PARTIES
19
20
9.
(the “Congo” or “DRC”). She is the mother of 7 year-old S.S.
21
22
23
24
25
Plaintiff Ms. L. is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
10.
Plaintiff Ms. C. is a citizen of Brazil. She is the mother of 14 year-old
11.
Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has
J.
responsibility for enforcing the immigration laws of the United States.
12.
Defendant U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) is the
26
sub-agency of DHS that is responsible for carrying out removal orders and
27
overseeing immigration detention.
28
2
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 8527-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 83 ofPage 5 of 19
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1753 107
1
13.
Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) is the sub-
2
agency of DHS that is responsible for the initial processing and detention of
3
noncitizens who are apprehended near the U.S. border.
4
14.
Defendant U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is a
5
department of the executive branch of the U.S. government which has been
6
delegated authority over “unaccompanied” noncitizen children.
7
15.
Defendant Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”) is the component
8
of HHS which provides care of and placement for “unaccompanied” noncitizen
9
children.
10
16.
11
12
13
14
Defendant Thomas Homan is sued in his official capacity as the
Director of ICE, and is a legal custodian of Plaintiffs.
17.
Defendant Greg Archambeault is sued in his official capacity as the
ICE San Diego Field Office Director, and is a legal custodian of Plaintiff Ms. L.
18.
Defendant Joseph Greene is sued in his official capacity as the ICE
15
San Diego Assistant Field Office Director for the Otay Mesa Detention Center, and
16
is a legal custodian of Plaintiff Ms. L.
17
18
19
19.
Defendant Adrian P. Macias is sued in his official capacity as the ICE
El Paso Field Office Director, and is a legal custodian of Plaintiff Ms. C.
20.
Defendant Frances M. Jackson is sued in his official capacity as the
20
ICE El Paso Assistant Field Office Director for the West Texas Detention Facility,
21
and is a legal custodian of Plaintiff Ms. C.
22
21.
Defendant Kirstjen Nielsen, is sued in her official capacity as the
23
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. In this capacity, she directs
24
each of the component agencies within DHS: ICE, USCIS, and CBP. As a result,
25
Respondent Nielsen has responsibility for the administration of the immigration
26
laws pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1103, is empowered to grant asylum or other relief, and
27
is a legal custodian of the Plaintiffs.
28
3
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 8527-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 84 ofPage 6 of 19
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1754 107
1
22.
Defendant Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is sued in his official
2
capacity as the Attorney General of the United States. In this capacity, he has
3
responsibility for the administration of the immigration laws pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
4
1103, oversees the Executive Office of Immigration Review, is empowered to grant
5
asylum or other relief, and is a legal custodian of the Plaintiffs.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
23.
Director of USCIS.
24.
Defendant Kevin K. McAleenan is sued in his official capacity as the
Acting Commissioner of CBP.
25.
Defendant Pete Flores is sued in his official capacity as the San Diego
Field Director of CBP.
26.
Defendant Hector A. Mancha Jr. is sued in his official capacity as the
El Paso Field Director of CBP.
27.
Defendant Alex Azar is sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of
the Department of Health and Human Services.
28.
Defendant Scott Lloyd is sued in his official capacity as the Director of
the Office of Refugee Resettlement.
18
19
Defendant L. Francis Cissna is sued in his official capacity as the
FACTS
29.
Over the past year, the government has separated thousands of migrant
20
families for no legitimate purpose. The government’s true purpose in separating
21
these families was to deter future families from seeking refuge in the United States.
22
30.
Many of these migrant families fled persecution and are seeking
23
asylum. Although there are no allegations that the parents are unfit or abusing their
24
children in any way, the government has forcibly separated them from their young
25
children and detained the children, often far away, in facilities for “unaccompanied”
26
minors.
27
28
31.
There is overwhelming medical evidence that the separation of a
young child from his or her parent will have a devastating negative impact on the
4
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 8527-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 85 ofPage 7 of 19
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1755 107
1
child’s well-being, especially where there are other traumatic factors at work, and
2
that this damage can be permanent.
3
32.
The American Association of Pediatrics has denounced the
4
Administration’s practice of separating migrant children from their parents, noting
5
that: “The psychological distress, anxiety, and depression associated with
6
separation from a parent would follow the children well after the immediate period
7
of separation—even after the eventual reunification with a parent or other family.”
8
9
10
33.
Prior Administrations detained migrant families, but did not have a
practice of forcibly separating fit parents from their young children.
34.
There are non-governmental shelters that specialize in housing and
11
caring for families—including asylum seeking families—while their immigration
12
applications are adjudicated.
13
35.
There are also government-operated family detention centers where
14
parents can be housed together with their children, should the government lawfully
15
decide not to release them. The government previously detained, and continues to
16
detain, numerous family units at those facilities.
17
36.
In April 2018, the New York Times reported that more than “700
18
children have been taken from adults claiming to be their parents since October [of
19
2016], including more than 100 children under the age of 4.” Caitlin Dickerson,
20
Hundreds of Children Have Been Taken from Parents at U.S. Border, N.Y. Times,
21
Apr. 20, 2018.
22
37.
On May 7, 2018, Defendant Sessions announced “a new initiative” to
23
refer “100 percent” of immigrants who cross the Southwest border for criminal
24
immigration prosecutions, also known as the “zero-tolerance policy.” Defendant
25
Sessions stated that as part of that prosecution, all parents who are prosecuted
26
would be separated from their children. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Attorney General
27
Sessions Delivers Remarks to the Association of State Criminal Investigative
28
Agencies 2018 Spring Conference (May 7, 2018). The purpose of this new policy
5
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 8527-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 86 ofPage 8 of 19
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1756 107
1
was to separate families in the hope that it would deter other families from seeking
2
refuge in the United States.
3
38.
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in May, a deputy chief of
4
Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection testified that between May 6 and
5
May 19 alone, a total of 658 children were separated from their family members
6
pursuant to this policy. The Washington Post reported that in the city of McAllen,
7
Texas, 415 children were taken from their parents during a two week period. 1 And
8
in June 2018, the Department of Homeland Security reported that in the six weeks
9
between April 19 and May 31, the administration took almost 2,000 children away
10
from their parents.2
11
39.
Defendant Sessions and other government officials, including
12
Defendant Nielsen, have repeatedly defended the separation of children from their
13
parents in speeches and interviews with various media outlets. Among other
14
justifications for the practice, they have stated that separating families would be a
15
way to “discourage parents from bringing their children here illegally,” 3 and that it
16
would help “deter more movement” to the United States by asylum seekers and
17
other migrants. 4 Administration officials told the New York Times in May, “[t]he
18
president and his aides in the White House had been pushing a family separation
19
policy for weeks as a way of deterring families from trying to cross the border
20
illegally.” 5
21
22
23
1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-zero-toleranceat-the-border-is-causing-child-shelters-to-fill-up-fast/2018/05/29/7aab0ae4-636b11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?utm_term=.d52d94c37d05.
24
2
https://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN1JB2SF-OCATP.
25
3
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1801/16/cnr.04.html.
26
4
27
28
https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/john-kelly-separating-children-fromparents-immigration-border/
5
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/us/politics/trump-homeland-securitysecretary-resign.html
6
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 8527-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 87 ofPage 9 of 19
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1757 107
1
2
40.
Even if the separated child is released from custody and placed in a
community setting or foster care, the trauma of the ongoing separation continues.
3
41.
By taking away their children, Defendants are coercing class members
4
into giving up their claims for asylum and other legal protection. Numerous class
5
members have been told by CBP and ICE agents that they will see their children
6
again sooner if they withdraw their asylum applications and accept earlier
7
deportation. 6
8
9
42.
Many class members have given up their asylum claims and stipulated
to removal as a way to be reunited with their children faster.
10
43.
For class members who have not been coerced into giving up their
11
asylum claims, separation from their children has made those applications much
12
more difficult. Separation prevents parents from helping their children apply for
13
asylum and navigate removal proceedings. Separation also makes it harder for
14
parents to present facts involving their children which support their own asylum
15
claims.
16
44.
The trauma of separation also renders asylum-seeking class members
17
too distraught to effectively pursue their asylum applications. See, e.g., Angelina
18
Chapin, Separated Parents Are Failing Asylum Screenings Because They’re So
19
Heartbroken, Huffington Post (June 30, 2018).7
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
This practice has been widely reported. See, e.g., Dara Lind, Trump Will Reunite
Separated Families—But Only if They Agree to Deportation, Vox.com (June 25,
2018), https://www.vox.com/2018/6/25/17484042/children-parents-separatereunite-plan-trump; Jay Root & Shannon Najmabadi, Kids in Exchange for
Deportation: Detained Migrants Say They Were Told They Could Get Kids Back on
Way Out of U.S., Texas Tribune (June 24, 2018),
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/24/kids-exchange-deportation-migrantsclaim-they-were-promised-they-could/?utm_campaign=tribsocial&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=1529859032.
7
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/separated-parents-too-grief-stricken-toseek-asylum-experts-say_us_5b379974e4b08c3a8f6ad5d9.
7
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 85 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 88 of 107 10 of 19
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1758 Page
1
45.
Defendants have deported class members without their separated
2
children. Their children are now stranded in the United States alone. Many of these
3
parents are now struggling to make contact with their children, who are being
4
detained thousands of miles away across multiple international borders. See Miriam
5
Jordan, “I Can’t Go Without My Son,” a Mother Pleaded as She Was Deported to
6
Guatemala, N.Y. Times (June 17, 2018). 8
7
46.
On June 20, 2018, President Trump signed an Executive Order (“EO”)
8
purporting to end certain family separations going forward.9 The EO directs DHS to
9
“maintain custody of alien families during the pendency of any criminal improper
10
entry or immigration proceedings.”
11
47.
The EO directs DHS to separate families any time DHS determines
12
that separation would protect “the child’s welfare.” It does not, however, set forth
13
how that standard will be applied. In prior cases the government has applied that
14
standard in a manner that is inconsistent with the child’s best interest, including in
15
Ms. L’s case.
16
17
48.
who were separated prior to its issuance.
18
19
49.
The EO makes no provision for returning separated children to parents
who have been already been deported without their children.
20
NAMED PLAINTIFFS
21
22
The EO makes no provision for reunifying the thousands of families
50.
Ms. L. and her daughter S.S. are one of the many families that have
recently been separated by the government.
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/us/immigration-deported-parents.html. See
also Nelson Renteria, El Salvador Demands U.S. Return Child Taken from
Deported Father, Reuters (June 21, 2018), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usaimmigration-el-salvador/el-salvador-demands-us-return-child-taken-from-deportedfather-idUSKBN1JH3ER.
9
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/affording-congress-opportunityaddress-family-separation/.
8
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 85 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 89 of 107 11 of 19
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1759 Page
1
51.
Ms. L. and her daughter are seeking asylum in the United States.
2
52.
Ms. L. is Catholic and sought shelter in a church until she was able to
3
4
escape the Congo with S.S.
53.
Upon reaching the United States, Ms. L. and S.S. presented themselves
5
at the San Ysidro, California Port of Entry on November 1, 2017. Although their
6
native language is Lingala, they were able to communicate to the border guards that
7
they sought asylum.
8
54.
Based on her expression of a fear of returning to the Congo, Ms. L.
9
was referred for an initial screening before an asylum officer, called a “credible fear
10
interview.” She subsequently passed the credible fear screening but, until March 6,
11
2018, remained detained in the Otay Mesa Detention Center in the San Diego area.
12
55.
On or about November 5, immigration officials forcibly separated
13
then-6 year-old S.S. from her mother and sent S.S. to Chicago. There she was
14
housed in a detention facility for “unaccompanied” minors run by the Office of
15
Refugee Resettlement (ORR).
16
56.
When S.S. was taken away from her mother, she was screaming and
17
crying, pleading with guards not to take her away from her mother. While detained,
18
Ms. L. spoke to her daughter approximately 6 times by phone, never by video. For
19
months she was terrified that she would never see her daughter again. The few
20
times Ms. L. was able to speak to her daughter on the phone, her daughter was
21
crying and scared.
22
23
24
57.
In December, S.S. turned 7 and spent her birthday in the Chicago
facility, without her mother.
58.
In detention, Ms. L. was distraught and depressed because of her
25
separation from her daughter. As a result, she did not eat properly, lost weight, and
26
was not sleeping due to worry and nightmares.
27
28
59.
In one moment of extreme despair and confusion, Ms. L. told an
immigration judge that she wanted to withdraw her application for asylum,
9
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 85 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 90 of 107 12 of 19
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1760 Page
1
realizing her mistake only a few days later. She is seeking to reopen her case before
2
the Board of Immigration Appeals.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
60.
The government had no legitimate interest in separating Ms. L. and her
61.
There has been no evidence, or even accusation, that S.S. was abused
child.
or neglected by Ms. L.
62.
There is no evidence that Ms. L. is an unfit parent or that she is not
acting in the best interests of her child.
63.
After Ms. L. filed this lawsuit and moved for a preliminary injunction,
10
Defendants abruptly released her from custody on March 6, 2018, due to the filing
11
of the lawsuit. Defendants informed her that she would be released mere hours in
12
advance, with no arrangements for where she would stay. S.S. was released to Ms.
13
L.’s custody several days later. Both are now pursuing their claims for legal
14
protection.
15
64.
Ms. C. and her 14 year-old son, J., are another one of the families who
16
have been separated by the government. Like Ms. L. and her daughter, Ms. C. and
17
her son are seeking asylum in the United States.
18
65.
Ms. C. and J. fled Brazil and came to the United States to seek asylum.
19
A few feet after Ms. C. entered the United States, a border guard approached her,
20
and she explained that she was seeking asylum. Ms. C. subsequently passed a
21
credible fear interview, and was put in removal proceedings, where she is applying
22
for asylum.
23
66.
Despite having communicated her fear of persecution to border guards,
24
the government prosecuted Ms. C. for entering the country illegally, took her son J.
25
away from her, and sent him to a facility for “unaccompanied” children in Chicago.
26
67.
The government continued to separate Ms. C. from her son even after
27
she completed serving her criminal misdemeanor sentence on September 22, 2017,
28
and was sent to an immigration detention facility, the El Paso Processing Center. In
10
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 85 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 91 of 107 13 of 19
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1761 Page
1
early January 2018, she was transferred again, to another immigration facility, the
2
West Texas Detention Facility (also known as Sierra Blanca), but still was not
3
reunited with her son. Even after Ms. C was released from immigration detention
4
on April 5, 2018, the government did not reunify her with her son for another two
5
months, until June 9.
6
68.
While separated from J., Ms. C. was desperate to be reunited with him.
7
She worried about him constantly and did not know when she would be able to see
8
him. They spoke on the phone only a handful of times while they were separated by
9
Defendants.
10
69.
11
from his mother.
12
70.
13
14
15
16
17
J. had a difficult time emotionally during the months he was separated
The government had no legitimate interest for the separation of Ms. C.
and her child.
71.
There is no evidence, or even accusation, that J. was abused or
neglected by Ms. C.
72.
There is no evidence that Ms. C. is an unfit parent or that she is not
acting in the best interests of her child.
18
19
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
73.
Plaintiffs bring this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
20
23(b)(2) on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of all other persons
21
similarly situated.
22
23
24
25
26
27
74.
Plaintiffs seek to represent the following class:
All adult parents who enter the United States at or between designated ports
of entry who (1) have been, are, or will be detained in immigration custody
by the DHS, and (2) have a minor child who is or will be separated from
them by DHS and detained in ORR custody, ORR foster care, or DHS
custody, absent a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to
the child.
28
11
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 85 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 92 of 107 14 of 19
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1762 Page
1
2
3
75.
Ms. L. and Ms. C. are each adequate representatives of the proposed
76.
The proposed class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a)(1) because
class.
4
the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. There are at a
5
minimum hundreds of parents who fit within the class.
6
77.
The class meets the commonality requirements of Federal Rule of
7
Civil Procedure 23(a)(2). The members of the class are subject to a common
8
practice: forcibly separating detained parents from their minor children absent any
9
determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child. By definition,
10
all class members have experienced that practice, and none has been given an
11
adequate hearing regarding the separation. The lawsuit raises numerous questions
12
of law common to members of the proposed class, including: whether Defendants’
13
family separation practice violates class members’ substantive due process right to
14
family integrity; whether the practice violates class members’ procedural due
15
process rights; whether the practice violates the federal asylum statute; and whether
16
these separations are unlawful or arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
17
78.
The proposed class meets the typicality requirements of Federal Rule
18
of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3), because the claims of the representative Plaintiffs are
19
typical of the claims of the class. Ms. L., Ms. C., and the proposed class members
20
are all individuals who have had or will have their children forcibly taken away
21
from them despite there being no proven allegations of abuse, neglect, or any other
22
danger or unfitness. Plaintiffs and the proposed class also share the same legal
23
claims, which assert the same substantive and procedural rights under the Due
24
Process Clause, the asylum statute, and the APA.
25
79.
The proposed class meets the adequacy requirements of Federal Rule
26
of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4). The representative Plaintiffs seek the same relief as the
27
other members of the class—namely, an order that they be reunified with their
28
children, whether through release or in family detention facilities. In defending their
12
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 85 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 93 of 107 15 of 19
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1763 Page
1
own rights, Ms. L. and Ms. C. will defend the rights of all proposed class members
2
fairly and adequately.
3
80.
The proposed class is represented by counsel from the American Civil
4
Liberties Union Immigrants’ Rights Project and the ACLU of San Diego and
5
Imperial Counties. Counsel have extensive experience litigating class action
6
lawsuits and other complex cases in federal court, including civil rights lawsuits on
7
behalf of noncitizens.
8
9
10
81.
The members of the class are readily ascertainable through
Defendants’ records.
82.
The proposed class also satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
11
23(b)(2). Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class by
12
unlawfully separating parents from their young children. Injunctive and declaratory
13
relief is thus appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.
14
CAUSES OF ACTION
15
COUNT I
16
(Violation of Due Process: Right to Family Integrity)
17
18
19
83.
All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as though
fully set forth herein.
84.
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to all
20
“persons” on United States soil and thus applies to Ms. L., Ms. C., their children
21
S.S. and J., and all proposed class members.
22
23
24
85.
Plaintiffs, their children, and all class members have liberty interests
under the Due Process Clause in remaining together as families.
86.
The separation of the class members from their children violates
25
substantive due process because it furthers no legitimate purpose and was designed
26
to deter.
27
28
87.
The separation of the class members from their children also violates
procedural due process because it was undertaken without any hearing.
13
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 85 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 94 of 107 16 of 19
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1764 Page
1
COUNT II
2
(Administrative Procedure Act: Arbitrary and Capricious Practice)
3
88.
4
5
6
7
All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as though
fully set forth herein.
89.
The APA prohibits agency action that is arbitrary and capricious or
violates a person’s legal or constitutional rights.
90.
Defendants’ separation practice is final agency action for which there
8
is no other adequate remedy in a court. Defendants’ decision to separate parents is
9
not tentative or interlocutory, because Defendants have already separated thousands
10
of families and continue to do so, and the policy was announced by high-level
11
officials. And Defendants’ decision to separate gravely impacts class members’
12
rights to remain together as families.
13
91.
Defendants’ separation of Ms. L., Ms. C., and the other class members
14
from their children without any explanation or legitimate justification is arbitrary
15
and capricious and accordingly violates the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 706.
16
92.
Among other things, Defendants failed to offer adequate reasons for
17
adopting their unprecedented new separation practice; they failed to explain why
18
they were not using alternatives to separation, including supervised release and
19
family detention; and for parents like Ms. L., Defendants have never explained why
20
they cannot verify parentage before imposing traumatic separation on both parent
21
and child.
22
COUNT III
23
(Violation of Right to Seek Protection Under the Asylum and Withholding of
24
Removal Statutes, and the Convention Against Torture)
25
26
27
28
93.
All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as though
fully set forth herein.
94.
Under United States law, noncitizens with a well-founded fear of
persecution shall have the opportunity to apply for asylum in the United States. 8
14
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 85 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 95 of 107 17 of 19
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1765 Page
1
U.S.C. § 1158(a). In addition, noncitizens have a mandatory statutory entitlement to
2
withholding of removal where they would face a probability of persecution if
3
removed to their country of nationality, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), or withholding or
4
deferral of removal where they would face a probability of torture. Foreign Affairs
5
Reform and Restructuring Act (“FARRA”), Pub. L. No. 105-277, Div. G.,
6
Title XXII, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681-822 (Oct. 21, 1998) (codified as Note to 8
7
U.S.C.§ 1231).
8
95.
9
Class members have a private right of action to challenge violations of
their right to apply for asylum under § 1158(a). That right is not barred by 8 U.S.C.
10
§ 1158(d)(7), which applies to only certain procedural requirements set out in
11
Section 1158(d).
12
96.
Defendants’ separation of families violates federal law that provides
13
for asylum and other protection from removal, as well as their due process right to
14
seek such relief. Separation severely impedes their ability to pursue their asylum
15
and other protection claims in a number of ways, including by denying them the
16
ability to coordinate their applications with their children, present facts related to
17
their children, and creating trauma that hinders their ability to navigate the complex
18
process.
19
97.
The government is also using the trauma of separation to coerce
20
parents into giving up their asylum and protection claims in order to be reunited
21
with their children.
22
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
23
Plaintiffs request that the Court enter a judgment against Defendants and
24
25
award the following relief:
A. Certify a class of all adult parents nationwide who enter the United States
26
at or between designated ports of entry who (1) have been, are, or will be detained
27
in immigration custody by the DHS, and (2) have a minor child who is or will be
28
separated from them by DHS and detained in ORR custody, ORR foster care, or
15
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 85 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 96 of 107 18 of 19
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1766 Page
1
DHS custody, absent a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to
2
the child.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
B. Name Ms. L. and Ms. C. as representatives of the class, and appoint
Plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel;
C. Declare the separation of Ms. L., Ms. C., and the other class members
from their children unlawful;
D. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from continuing to
separate the class members from their children;
E. Order Defendants either to release class members along with their
children, or to detain them together in the same facility;
F. Enjoin Defendants from removing any class members from the country
12
who have received final removal orders until they are reunited with their children,
13
unless the class members knowingly and voluntarily decide that they do not want
14
their children removed with them;
15
G. Enjoin Defendants from removing any class member who received a final
16
removal order prior to the issuance of this Court’s preliminary injunction on June
17
26, 2018, or prior to receiving notice of their rights under the injunction, until they
18
have had an opportunity to consult with class counsel, or a delegate of class
19
counsel, to insure that these class members have knowingly and voluntarily chosen
20
to forego any further challenges to removal, rather than feeling coerced into doing
21
so as a result of separation from their children.
22
H. Require Defendants to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs;
23
I. Order all other relief that is just and proper.
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: July 3, 2018
Respectfully Submitted,
Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783)
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN
DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES
P.O. Box 87131
San Diego, CA 92138-7131
/s/Lee Gelernt
Lee Gelernt*
Judy Rabinovitz*
Anand Balakrishnan*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
16
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 85 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 97 of 107 19 of 19
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1767 Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
T: (619) 398-4485
F: (619) 232-0036
bvakili@aclusandiego.org
Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280)
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
skang@aclu.org
samdur@aclu.org
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
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 98 of 107
Exhibit NN
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 105 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.2073 107 1 of 6
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 99 of Page
1 CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
2 SCOTT G. STEWART
3 Deputy Assistant Attorney General
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
4
Director
5 Office of Immigration Litigation
U.S. Department of Justice
6
WILLIAM C. SILVIS
7 Assistant Director
Office of Immigration Litigation
8
SARAH B. FABIAN
9 Senior Litigation Counsel
NICOLE N. MURLEY
10
Trial Attorney
11 Office of Immigration Litigation
U.S. Department of Justice
12
Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
13 Washington, DC 20442
Telephone: (202) 532-4824
14
Fax: (202) 616-8962
15
ADAM L. BRAVERMAN
16
United States Attorney
17 SAMUEL W. BETTWY
Assistant U.S. Attorney
18
California Bar No. 94918
19 Office of the U.S. Attorney
20 880 Front Street, Room 6293
San Diego, CA 92101-8893
21 619-546-7125
22 619-546-7751 (fax)
23 Attorneys for Federal Respondents24 Defendants
25
26
27
28
Lee Gelernt*
Judy Rabinovitz*
Anand Balakrishnan*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
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
Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280)
Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 343-1198
F: (415) 395-0950
skang@aclu.org
samdur@aclu.org
Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 105 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.2074 107 2 of 6
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 100 of Page
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2
3
4
Petitioners-Plaintiffs,
5
6
Case No. 18cv428 DMS MDD
MS. L, et al.,
JOINT MOTION REGARDING
SCOPE OF THE COURT’S
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
vs.
7 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, et al.,
8
Respondents-Defendants.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
In accordance with the Court’s orders and with the Court’s July 10, 2018
status conference, the parties respectfully jointly move the Court to enter the
attached Order Regarding Scope of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction. This
Proposed Order addresses compliance with this Court’s preliminary injunction. It
would provide that the Court’s preliminary injunction order in this case, or
subsequent orders implementing that order, does not limit the Government’s
authority to detain adults in the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”)
custody. Accordingly, when DHS would detain a Class Member together with his or
her child in a facility for detaining families, consistent with its constitutional and
legal authorities governing detention of adults and families, but the child may be
able to assert rights under the Flores Settlement Agreement to be released from
custody or transferred to a “licensed program” pursuant to that Agreement’s terms,
then this Court’s preliminary injunction and implementing orders permit the
Government to require Class Members to select one of the following two options:
First, the Class Member may choose to remain in DHS custody together with his or
her child, subject to any eligibility for release under existing laws and policies, but
28
1
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 105 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.2075 107 3 of 6
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 101 of Page
1 to waive, on behalf of the child, the assertion of rights under the Flores Settlement
2 Agreement to be released, including the rights with regard to placement in the least
3 restrictive setting appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs, and the right to
4 release or placement in a “licensed program.” By choosing this option, the class
5 member is waiving the child’s right under the Flores Settlement Agreement to be
6 released, including the rights with regard to placement in the least restrictive setting
7 appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs, and the right to release or
8 placement in a “licensed program.” Second, and alternatively, the Class Member
9 may waive his or her right not to be separated from his or her child under this Court’s
10 preliminary injunction and assert, on behalf of the Class Member’s child, any such
11 right under the Flores Settlement Agreement for the child to be released from
12 custody or transferred to a “licensed program” pursuant to that Agreement’s terms—
13 in which circumstance the child would, consistent with this Court’s orders, be
14 separated with the parent’s consent. In implementing this release or transfer, the
15 government could transfer the child to HHS custody for placement and to be
16 otherwise treated as an unaccompanied child. See 6 U.S.C. 279(g)(2).
17
The Proposed Order provides that in neither circumstance do this Court’s
18 orders create a right to release for a parent who is detained in accordance with
19 existing law. If a Class Member is provided these two choices and does not select
20 either one, the Government may maintain the family together in family detention
21 and the Class Member will be deemed to have temporarily waived the child’s release
22 rights (including the rights with regard to placement in the least restrictive setting
23 appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs, and the right to release or
24 placement in a “licensed program”) under the Flores Settlement Agreement until the
25 Class Member makes an affirmative, knowing, and voluntary decision as to whether
26 he or she is waiving his or her child’s rights under the Flores Settlement Agreement.
27
28
2
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 105 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.2076 107 4 of 6
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 102 of Page
1
The parties further agree that the Court’s orders in this case, and the Flores
2 Settlement Agreement, do not in any way prevent the Government from releasing
3 families from DHS custody. No waiver by any Class Member of his or her rights
4 under this Court’s orders, or waiver by the Class Member of his or her child’s rights
5 under the Flores Settlement Agreement, shall be construed to waive any other rights
6 of the Class Member or Class Member’s child to challenge the legality of his or her
7 detention under any constitutional or legal provisions that may apply.
8
The parties agree a Class Member’s waiver under the Flores Settlement
9 Agreement or this Court’s injunction can be reconsidered after it is made, but
10 disagree about whether there are circumstances when such a waiver cannot be
11 reconsidered. The parties propose to meet and confer regarding this issue, and
12 provide a joint statement to the Court addressing the results of the meet and confer
13 and, if necessary, providing statements of their respective positions – by 3:00 p.m.
14 on July 20, 2018.
15 DATED: July 13, 2018
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Lee Gelernt
Lee Gelernt*
Judy Rabinovitz*
Anand Balakrishnan*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
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
28
3
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 105 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.2077 107 5 of 6
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 103 of Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
P.O. Box 87131
San Diego, CA 92138-7131
T: (619) 398-4485
F: (619) 232-0036
bvakili@aclusandiego.org
Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280)
Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 343-1198
F: (415) 395-0950
skang@aclu.org
samdur@aclu.org
Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
SCOTT G. STEWART
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
Director
WILLIAM C. SILVIS
Assistant Director
/s/ Nicole N. Murley
NICOLE N. MURLEY
Trial Attorney
SARAH B. FABIAN
Senior Litigation Counsel
Office of Immigration Litigation
Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
28
4
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 105 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.2078 107 6 of 6
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 104 of Page
1
2
(202) 532-4824
(202) 616-8962 (facsimile)
sarah.b.fabian@usdoj.gov
3
4
5
6
7
ADAM L. BRAVERMAN
United States Attorney
SAMUEL W. BETTWY
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Attorneys for Respondents-Defendants
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 105-1 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.2079 107 1 of 3
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 105 of Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MS. L, et al.,
Petitioners-Plaintiffs,
12
13
Case No. 18cv428 DMS MDD
vs.
14 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, et al.,
15
Respondents-Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION
REGARDING SCOPE OF THE
COURT’S PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion Regarding Scope of the Court’s
Preliminary Injunction. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s preliminary injunction
order in this case, or subsequent orders implementing that order, does not limit the
Government’s authority to detain adults in the Department of Homeland Security’s
(“DHS”) custody. Accordingly, when DHS would detain a Class Member together with his
or her child in a facility for detaining families, consistent with its constitutional and legal
authorities governing detention of adults and families, but the child may be able to assert
rights under the Flores Settlement Agreement to be released from custody or transferred to
a “licensed program” pursuant to that Agreement’s terms, then this Court’s preliminary
injunction and implementing orders permit the Government to require Class Members to
select one of the following two options: First, the Class Member may choose to remain in
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 105-1 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.2080 107 2 of 3
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 106 of Page
1 DHS custody together with his or her child, subject to any eligibility for release under
2 existing laws and policies, but to waive, on behalf of the child, the assertion of rights under
3 the Flores Settlement Agreement to be released, including the rights with regard to
4 placement in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs,
5 and the right to release or placement in a “licensed program.” By choosing this option, the
6 class member is waiving the child’s right under the Flores Settlement Agreement to be
7 released, including the rights with regard to placement in the least restrictive setting
8 appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs, and the right to release or placement in a
9 “licensed program.” Second, and alternatively, the Class Member may waive his or her
10 right not to be separated from his or her child under this Court’s preliminary injunction and
11 assert, on behalf of the Class Member’s child, any such right under the Flores Settlement
12 Agreement for the child to be released from custody or transferred to a “licensed program”
13 pursuant to that Agreement’s terms—in which circumstance the child would, consistent
14 with this Court’s orders, be separated with the parent’s consent. In implementing this release
15 or transfer, the government could transfer the child to HHS custody for placement and to be
16 otherwise treated as an unaccompanied child. See 6 U.S.C. 279(g)(2).
17
In neither circumstance do this Court’s orders create a right to release for a parent
18 who is detained in accordance with existing law. If a Class Member is provided these two
19 choices and does not select either one, the Government may maintain the family together in
20 family detention and the Class Member will be deemed to have temporarily waived the
21 child’s release rights (including the rights with regard to placement in the least restrictive
22 setting appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs, and the right to release or
23 placement in a “licensed program”) under the Flores Settlement Agreement until the Class
24 Member makes an affirmative, knowing, and voluntary decision as to whether he or she is
25 waiving his or her child’s rights under the Flores Settlement Agreement.
26
The parties further agree that the Court’s orders in this case, and the Flores Settlement
27 Agreement, do not in any way prevent the Government from releasing families from DHS
28 custody. No waiver by any Class Member of his or her rights under this Court’s orders, or
Ex Parte Motion to File Exhibits as Restricted
1
18cv428 DMS MDD
Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 105-1 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.2081 107 3 of 3
Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 107 of Page
1 waiver by the Class Member of his or her child’s rights under the Flores Settlement
2 Agreement, shall be construed to waive any other rights of the Class Member or Class
3 Member’s child to challenge the legality of his or her detention under any constitutional or
4 legal provisions that may apply.
5
The parties agree a Class Member’s waiver under the Flores Settlement Agreement
6 or this Court’s injunction can be reconsidered after it is made, but disagree about whether
7 there are circumstances when such a waiver cannot be reconsidered. They are directed to
8 meet and confer regarding this issue, and provide a joint statement to the Court addressing
9 the results of the meet and confer and, if necessary, providing statements of their respective
10 positions – by 3:00 p.m. on July 20, 2018.
11
Dated:
12
13
Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
14
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ex Parte Motion to File Exhibits as Restricted
2
18cv428 DMS MDD
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?