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)

Exhibit EE

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
[phone]

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
[phone]

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
[phone]

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

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

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

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

Exhibit FF

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
[phone]

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
[phone]

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

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

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

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

Exhibit GG

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
[phone]

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
[phone]

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

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

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

Exhibit HH

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
[phone]

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
[phone]

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

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

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

Exhibit II

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
[phone]

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
[phone]

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

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

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

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

Exhibit JJ

Exhibit JJ

Sponsors of Migrant Children Face Steep Transport Fees and Red Tape - The New York ...

Page 1 of 7

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

“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

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

“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

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

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

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

Exhibit KK

Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 104 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2056 Page 1 of 17

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783)
ACLU FOUNDATION OF
SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL
COUNTIES
P.O. Box 87131
San Diego, CA 92138-7131
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]
Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280)
Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for PetitionersPlaintiffs
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 104 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2057 Page 2 of 17

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 Page 3 of 17

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 Page 4 of 17

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 Page 5 of 17

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 Page 6 of 17

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 Page 7 of 17

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 Page 8 of 17

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 Page 9 of 17

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 104 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2065 Page 10 of 17

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 104 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2066 Page 11 of 17

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 104 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2067 Page 12 of 17

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 104 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2068 Page 13 of 17

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 104 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2069 Page 14 of 17

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 104 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2070 Page 15 of 17

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 104 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2071 Page 16 of 17

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: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]

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: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice

27
28
15

18cv428 DMS MDD

Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 104 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.2072 Page 17 of 17

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
[phone]
[phone] (facsimile)
[e-mail]
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

Exhibit LL

Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is budgeting for a surge in child separations.

Peter Strzok

Trump in U.K.

Alex Kozinski

Sacha Baron Cohen

Brett Kavanaugh

Page 1 of 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibit MM

Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 85 Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1749 Page 1 of 19

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: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783)
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN
DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES
P.O. Box 87131
San Diego, CA 92138-7131
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]

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 85 Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1750 Page 2 of 19

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: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 85 Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1751 Page 3 of 19

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 85 Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1752 Page 4 of 19

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 85 Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1753 Page 5 of 19

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 85 Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1754 Page 6 of 19

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 85 Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1755 Page 7 of 19

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 85 Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1756 Page 8 of 19

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 85 Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1757 Page 9 of 19

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 Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1758 Page 10 of 19

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 Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1759 Page 11 of 19

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 Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1760 Page 12 of 19

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 Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1761 Page 13 of 19

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 Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1762 Page 14 of 19

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 Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1763 Page 15 of 19

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 Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1764 Page 16 of 19

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 Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1765 Page 17 of 19

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 Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1766 Page 18 of 19

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 Filed 07/03/18 PageID.1767 Page 19 of 19

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

T: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]
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: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
125 Broad St., 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17

Exhibit NN

Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 105 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.2073 Page 1 of 6

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: [phone]
14
Fax: [phone]
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: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783)
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN
DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES
P.O. Box 87131
San Diego, CA 92138-7131
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]
Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280)
Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 105 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.2074 Page 2 of 6

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 Page 3 of 6

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 Page 4 of 6

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: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
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 Page 5 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

P.O. Box 87131
San Diego, CA 92138-7131
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]
Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280)
Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
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 Page 6 of 6

1
2

[phone]
[phone] (facsimile)
[e-mail]

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 Page 1 of 3

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 Page 2 of 3

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 Page 3 of 3

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