Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 39

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SUHA AMIN ABDULLAH ABUSHAMMA,
Petitioner,
-againstDONALD TRUMP, President of the United
States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY (“DHS”); U.S.
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
(“CBP”); JOHN KELLY, Secretary of DHS;
KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting
Commissioner of CBP; and JAMES T.
MADDEN, New York Field Director, CBP,

No. 1:17-cv-00488-CBA

Respondents.

AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 40

INTRODUCTION
1.

Petitioner, Dr. Suha Abushamma, is a Sudanese national who was granted a H-1B

visa in order pursue a three-year medical residency program at the Cleveland Clinic. She is in
the midst of her first year of the program and focuses on internal medicine. She lives and works
in Cleveland, Ohio. She has a fiancé in the United States, who is also a doctor and lives in
Michigan. They plan to be married this summer in the United States.
2.

On the morning of January 28, 2017 at approximately 11 A.M., Dr. Abushamma

arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport (“JFK”) on Saudi Airlines (“SVA”) flight 21.
Dr. Abushamma was returning to the United States from a short visit with her family in Saudi
Arabia; she intended to catch a connecting flight at JFK to her home in Cleveland.
3.

Instead of being allowed to transit to her connecting flight, Dr. Abushamma was

detained for roughly nine hours during which time she was not given anything to eat and not
permitted to speak with her lawyer. She was then denied entry to the United States pursuant to
President Donald Trump’s January 27, 2017, Executive Order titled, “Protecting the Nation from
Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” Kroman Decl. Ex. 11 (the “EO”).
4.

While she was detained, Dr. Abushamma was misled and coerced by Customs

and Border Patrol (“CBP”) agents into signing a form the agents described as requiring her to
return to Saudi Arabia. The CBP agents did not tell her and she did not understand that she was
actually signing a Form I-275, Withdrawal of Application for Admission/Consular Notification
(“Form I-275”). No one told her that upon signing the form, her valid H-1B visa would
purportedly be cancelled.

1

References to “Kroman Decl. Ex. __” are exhibits appended to the Declaration of Jennifer L. Kroman (“Kroman
Decl.”), dated January 31, 2017.

 Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 41

5.

Instead, CBP agents falsely told Dr. Abushamma that if she did not sign the form,

she would be forcibly removed from the United States and banned from re-entry for five years.
6.

During this time, despite her repeated requests, Dr. Abushamma was not allowed

by CBP agents to speak with her lawyer. Nor would CBP speak with her lawyer who was ready
and willing to speak to CBP. Dr. Abushamma, who knew that lawyers were working to secure
her release, was further denied additional time to wait for any news from her lawyers. Instead,
CBP Agents falsely told Dr. Abushamma that her lawyers could not help her and that she would
have to leave the United States absent an order from the Supreme Court of the United States.
7.

While Dr. Abushamma was detained at JFK, her lawyers filed a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus on her behalf. The writ was emailed to the Judge for the Eastern District of
New York who was on duty for emergency applications at that time (Judge Donnelly) at 7:42
P.M. It was subsequently filed with the Court electronically, Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus and
Compl. for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Jan. 28, 2017), ECF No.1.
8.

It was only after Dr. Abushamma signed the Form I-275 at approximately 7:50

P.M. that she was allowed to make one phone call. Even after she signed the Form, CBP agents
continued to discourage Dr. Abushamma from calling her lawyers, advising her that it was
useless. She therefore called a friend to let him know she was being forced back to Saudi
Arabia.
9.

At approximately 8:45 P.M., in a case that challenged the legality of the EO on

behalf of two arriving aliens and a class of all others similarly situated, Judge Donnelly issued an
order that prohibited the removal of, among other persons, any “holders of valid immigrant and
non-immigrant visas. . . from Sudan . . . legally authorized to enter the United States.” See

2

 Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 42

Kroman Decl. Ex. 2, Decision and Order, Darweesh v. Trump, No. 17 Civ. 480 (AMD)
(E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2017), ECF No. 8 (the “Darweesh Order”).
10.

Even prior to the issuance of the Darweesh Order, Judge Donnelly ordered on the

record: “I’m going to direct you, if there’s somebody right now who is in danger of being
removed, I am going to direct you to communicate that I have imposed a stay. Nobody is to be
removed in this class, okay?” Kroman Decl. Ex. 3, Tr. of Civil Cause for Emergency Motion for
Stay of Removal at 19:12-16.
11.

The Darweesh Order applied to Dr. Abushamma and protected her from removal.

12.

Nonetheless, CBP agents improperly placed Dr. Abushamma on SVA flight 20 to

Saudi Arabia, which took off just before 9:00 P.M., after the Darweesh Order was issued.
13.

Dr. Abushamma was improperly removed from the United States in contravention

of the Darweesh Order.
14.

Moreover, had Dr. Abushamma not been wrongfully coerced into signing the

Form I-275 and improperly forced onto the flight to Saudi Arabia (SVA 20), she would still be in
the United States, protected by the Darweesh Order. Additionally, Dr. Abushamma would have
had the protection of a subsequent order issued in the District of Massachusetts, which prohibited
both the detention and removal of “holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas . . . from
Sudan . . . legally authorized to enter the United States.” Kroman Decl. Ex. 6, TRO, Tootkaboni
v. Trump, No. 17-cv-10154 (D. Mass. Jan. 29, 2017) (Burroughs, J.), ECF No. 6 (the
“Tootkaboni Order”). Dr. Abushamma should not lose the protections of the Darweesh and
Tootkaboni Orders because of Respondents’ wrongful conduct.
15.

Dr. Abushamma is currently in Saudi Arabia anxiously awaiting the opportunity

to return to the United States and resume her life.

3

 Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 43

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16.

Jurisdiction is conferred on this court by 28 U.S.C. sections 1331, 1361, 1651,

2241, and 2243, and the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Const.
art. I, § 9, cl. 2. This court has further remedial authority pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment
Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02.
17.

Venue properly lies within the Eastern District of New York because a substantial

part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in the District. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b).
18.

No petition for habeas corpus has previously been filed in any court to review Dr.

Abushamma’s case, with the exception of the petition filed by counsel on January 28, 2017.
This pleading amends and supersedes the January 28, 2017 Habeas Petition.
PARTIES
19.

Dr. Abushamma is a twenty-six-year-old doctor of internal medicine and a

Sudanese national. She is employed as a resident of internal medicine at the Cleveland Clinic in
Cleveland, Ohio and has been living and working pursuant to a H-1B visa in Cleveland since last
summer.
20.

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

the United States federal government with the primary mission of securing the United States.
21.

CBP is an agency within DHS with the primary mission of detecting and

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

4

 Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 44

22.

Respondent John Kelly is the Secretary of DHS. Secretary Kelly had immediate

custody of Dr. Abushamma. He is sued in his official capacity.
23.

Respondent Kevin K. McAleenan is the Acting Commissioner of CBP, which had

immediate custody of Dr. Abushamma. He is sued in his official capacity.
24.

Respondent James T. Madden is the Director of the New York Field Office of

CBP, which had immediate custody of Dr. Abushamma. He is sued in his official capacity.
25.

Respondent Donald Trump is the President of the United States. He is sued in his

official capacity.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order
26.

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

of the United States. Throughout his campaign, he made repeated and specific promises to enact
a “Muslim ban” once elected.
27.

One week later, on January 27, President Trump signed the EO entitled,

“Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” Kroman Decl. Ex.
1.
28.

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

variety of changes to the manner and extent to which non-citizens may seek and obtain
admission to the United States.
29.

Most relevant to the instant action is Section 3(c) of the EO, which provides “that

the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to

5

 Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 45

in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of
the United States,” and therefore “suspend[s] entry into the United States, as immigrants and
nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order,” with narrow exceptions
not relevant here. Kroman Decl. Ex. 1 (emphasis added)
30.

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

Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. According to the terms of the EO, therefore, the
“entry into the United States” of non-citizens from those countries is “suspended” from 90 days
from the date of the EO.
Dr. Abushamma
31.

Dr. Abushamma is a citizen of Sudan who currently lives and works in Cleveland,

Ohio. She was born in 1990 in Saudi Arabia, and her family currently lives in Saudi Arabia.
32.

Dr. Abushamma is an internal medicine resident in a three-year residency

program at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, where she has been employed since July
2016. She graduated at the top of her class in medical school and was selected for her current
residency position from a pool of approximately 5,000 applicants, among whom she was ranked
as one of the top candidates. As a result of Dr. Abushamma’s outstanding credentials and offer
of employment with the Cleveland Clinic, she was eligible for a nonimmigrant H-1B visa for
individuals in specialty occupations.
33.

Before the United States government issued Dr. Abushamma her H-1B visa, the

government performed extensive administrative processing and security checks. Based on these
checks, the government determined Dr. Abushamma to be admissible to the United States as a

6

 Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 46

nonimmigrant visa holder, and on April 28, 2016, she received her H-1B visa, effective June 20,
2016.
34.

At no time did any grounds of inadmissibility under the Immigration and

Nationality Act apply to Dr. Abushamma.
35.

At the Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Abushamma sees about ten patients each day. She

serves as the primary care physician for a number of patients who depend on her to prescribe and
refill their medications, check their labs, coordinate specialty care when needed, and speak with
them about their medical conditions and discuss next steps. She is described by the Program
Director of the Internal Medicine Residency Program at the Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Abby Spencer,
as “integral in the care of these patients,” and a “stand-out physician and colleague” who has
“repeatedly and consistently demonstrated the utmost ethical standards.” Decl. of Abby Spencer,
M.D. ¶ 3 (Jan. 31, 2017).
36.

Despite working incredibly long hours as a medical resident, Dr. Abushamma has

built a life for herself in the United States. She is engaged to a doctor of internal medicine at the
Detroit Medical Center in Michigan, and they are planning to get married in the United States
this summer.
Respondents’ Unlawful Detention and Unlawful Removal of Dr. Abushamma
37.

On January 23, 2017, Dr. Abushamma flew from Cleveland, Ohio to Jeddah,

Saudi Arabia for a visit with her family, who lives in Saudi Arabia. On January 28, 2017, Dr.
Abushamma took a flight from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia with a final destination of Cleveland, Ohio.
Upon her arrival at JFK at approximately 11 A.M., she was detained by CBP agents and was not

7

 Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 47

permitted to board her connecting flight to Cleveland. CBP agents confiscated her passport and
threatened to take away her phone. She was not told why her passport was being held and
received no information about how long she would be detained.
38.

Dr. Abushamma was detained for about six hours before she told that she was

being refused entry to the United States. Growing increasingly concerned and not permitted to
make any telephone calls, Dr. Abushamma reached out to her immigration attorney, David
Leopold (“Attorney Leopold”) via text message.
39.

At approximately 6 P.M., a female CBP agent briefly spoke to Dr. Abushamma

and told her that she was being detained because of the EO and because she was a visa holder
from Sudan. Dr. Abushamma was given no further information. Dr. Abushamma asked to speak
to her immigration attorney—Attorney Leopold—and was told she was not permitted to do so.
That female CBP agent then left and did not return again.
40.

Via text, Attorney Leopold advised Dr. Abushamma that lawyers were working

on her behalf so that she could return home to Ohio.
41.

A second CBP agent came to speak with Dr. Abushamma. His identification tag

read “T. Lam”. He told her that she would not be permitted to enter the United States. Dr.
Abushamma again asked to speak with her immigration attorney by phone, but Agent Lam
refused. During this time, Agent Lam’s supervisor was close by.
42.

Attorney Leopold told Dr. Abushamma by text message that he would speak to

CBP to explain the situation and Dr. Abushamma relayed that to Agent Lam and his supervisor,
but both Agent Lam and his supervisor refused to speak with Attorney Leopold.

8

 Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 48

43.

Agent Lam told Dr. Abushamma that the only way she would leave detention was

if she signed a form agreeing to return to Saudi Arabia. He showed her what she now knows to
be a Form I-275, although at the time she had no knowledge of what the form was, its purpose,
or its consequences. Agent Lam told her that she should sign it.
44.

Agent Lam told Dr. Abushamma that there was a flight back to Saudi Arabia that

was leaving at 8:30 P.M. He told her that if she did not sign the Form I-275 right away, she
would be forced onto the plane and would be barred for five years from returning to the United
States. Dr. Abushamma was not permitted to call Attorney Leopold to ask him questions about
the Form I-275 or Agent Lam’s explanations, despite having told Agent Lam and his supervisor
that she had an attorney.
45.

Dr. Abushamma was terrified because she wanted to finish her residency at the

Cleveland Clinic and because she was afraid of being removed by force.
46.

At 6:48 P.M., Dr. Abushamma texted Attorney Leopold, “I’m going. I don’t have

a choice.” Decl. of David Wolfe Leopold ¶ 11 (Jan. 31, 2017) (“Leopold Decl.”).
47.

Attorney Leopold informed Dr. Abushamma that there would be a hearing in an

hour (in the Darweesh case) and that attorneys also were working on filing a habeas petition for
her. Dr. Abushamma told Agent Lam and his supervisor that there were attorneys working on
her behalf.
48.

At 7:17 P.M., Dr. Abushamma texted Attorney Leopold, “I do not have the option

to stay. They are NOT giving me that option. It’s leave voluntarily or by force that’s all.”
Leopold Decl. ¶ 15.

9

 Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 49

49.

Dr. Abushamma repeatedly begged Agent Lam and his supervisor to give her

more time because there were attorneys working to have her released. Her pleas were ignored.
50.

Instead, Agent Lam’s supervisor told her that she would need an order from the

Supreme Court to help her, which would never happen. Agent Lam and his supervisor told Dr.
Abushamma that her lawyers could not do anything to help her in her situation and so she should
sign the Form I-275. These false statements were designed to and had the effect of coercing Dr.
Abushamma into signing the Form I-275 quickly in order for CBP to remove Dr. Abushamma on
SVA flight 20.
51.

Forbidden from calling her attorney despite repeated requests and scared of being

removed by force and barred from the United States for five years, Dr. Abushamma felt like she
had no choice and signed the Form I-275.
52.

Had Dr. Abushamma been permitted to call her attorney or had Attorney Leopold

or any of Dr. Abushamma’s other attorneys working at JFK been permitted to speak with CBP
agents on her behalf, she would not have signed the Form I-275.
53.

Dr. Abushamma was detained at JFK for roughly nine hours before she signed the

Form I-275. During that entire time, she was not given anything to eat and CBP agents refused
to allow her make any phone calls.
54.

Agent Lam stamped Dr. Abushamma’s visa with the words “Cancelled – NYC”

but did not return her passport to her or give her a copy of the Form I-275 that she was made to
sign. Instead, Agent Lam gave these documents and her boarding pass to a flight attendant on
the flight back to Saudi Arabia.

10

 Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 50

55.

Only after signing the Form I-275 was Dr. Abushamma offered food and

permitted to make one phone call.
56.

Dr. Abushamma wanted to call her attorney, but Agent Lam told that it would be

pointless to use her one phone call to call her lawyer since he could not help her. Agent Lam
told her to call a family member or friend to tell them that she was going back to Saudi Arabia.
Dr. Abushamma called a friend to advise him that she was being sent back to Saudi Arabia.
57.

Dr. Abushamma was then fingerprinted and made to sign another form. No one

explained the second form to her and she still does not know what it was that she signed. She
does not believe she was ever given a copy of that second form.
58.

Dr. Abushamma was then escorted onto the airplane by two CBP agents. One

stood in front of her and the other stood behind her. Dr. Abushamma felt like they were trying to
make sure that she did not escape, as though she was a criminal in custody.
59.

The plane pulled away from the gate at JFK at approximately 8:30 P.M. The

flight remained on the ground at JFK for approximately another 25 minutes until it finally took
off shortly a few minutes before 9 P.M.
60.

After Dr. Abushamma was finally given back her passport and other documents

that had been given to the flight attendant by the CPB agents, she saw that there was a document
labeled “Notice To Detain, Remove, or Present Alien” (the “Notice Form”), that stated that the
reason for her removal was because she was an “Inadmissible Alien.” At the time she arrived in
the United States and throughout her detention until she was coerced into signing the Form I275, she had held a valid H-1B visa.

11

 Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 51

61.

The Notice Form also incorrectly states that Dr. Abushamma was born in Sudan.

Dr. Abushamma was born in Saudi Arabia, which is what she told Agent Lam when he asked her
where she was born, but when he filled out the Notice Form, he wrote Sudan.
62.

Although Dr. Abushamma is currently in Saudi Arabia, she continues to be

significantly impacted by her removal by Respondents, primarily because she maintains her
employment as an internal medicine resident, a position that she worked very hard to obtain and
that she cares about deeply, in Cleveland, Ohio. She has similarly built a life for herself in
Cleveland and as such has important property interests in the areas, such as her apartment and
car. Finally, Dr. Abushamma has also been separated from her fiancé who is a doctor in the
United States.
63.

Dr. Abushamma is anxiously awaiting an opportunity to return home to the

United States as soon as possible to resume her life, including to continue her residency and to be
reunited with her community and her fiancé.
Order of Judge Donnelly Violated by Respondents’ Removal and Other Federal
Court Decisions Enjoining and Restraining Respondents’ Enforcement of the EO
The Darweesh Order
64.

On January 28, at approximately 8:45 P.M., Judge Donnelly the Darweesh Order

that prohibited Respondents from removing individuals who had arrived in the United States
with proper documentation:

12

 Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 52

ITS IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondents, their officers,
agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all members and
persons acting in concert or participation with them, from the date
of this Order, are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from, in any
manner or by any means, removing individuals with refugee
applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders
of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals
from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally
authorized to enter the United States.
Kroman Decl. Ex. 2 at 2.
65.

Even prior to the issuance of the Darweesh Order, Judge Donnelly ordered from

the bench: “I’m going to direct you, if there’s somebody right now who is in danger of being
removed, I am going to direct you to communicate that I have imposed a stay. Nobody is to be
removed in this class, okay?” Kroman Decl. Ex. 3 at 19:12-16.
66.

Because Dr. Abushamma was still in the United States at JFK at the time the

Darweesh Order was issued (and continued to be constructively in custody even after takeoff of
the plane while her passport and other documents were withheld by the flight attendants at the
direction of CBP), the Darweesh Order applied to Dr. Abushamma and prevented her removal.
67.

After the Darweesh Order issued, many individuals being detained at JFK and

airports throughout the United States were released and permitted entry to the United States.
68.

Indeed, undersigned counsel filed three other petitions for habeas relief with

Judge Donnelly on Saturday, January 28.

Each petitioner was similarly situated to Dr.

Abushamma and was ultimately released by CBP.
69.

Upon information and belief, at least one other plane carrying an individual

seeking admission to the United States who had been detained and scheduled to be removed
pursuant to the EO, that would have taken off after the Darweesh Order was issued, was recalled
13

 Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 53

to the gate so that the individual could be deplaned and not removed, consistent with the
Darweesh Order.
70.

CBP did not take such action with respect to Dr. Abushamma and instead caused

her removal from the United States in violation of the Darweesh Order.
Other Federal Orders
71.

In addition to the Darweesh Order, four other federal district courts issued orders

enjoining the enforcement of the EO:
a. Temporary Restraining Order, Tootkaboni v. Trump: finding that “[a]bsent a stay
of removal, petitioners and others similarly situated, including . . . visa-holders
[like Dr. Abushamma]” subject to the EO “are likely to suffer irreparable harm,”
the federal court for the District of Massachusetts ordered a seven-day nationwide
stay of detention and removal proceedings for all individuals legally authorized to
enter the United States and limited secondary screenings to compliance with the
regulations and statutes in effect prior to the EO. Kroman Decl. Ex. 6.
b. Order, Vayeghan v. Trump, No. CV 17-0702 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2017) (Gee, J.),
ECF No. 5 (Kroman Decl. Ex. 7): finding that a valid visa-holder who, like Dr.
Abushamma, was coerced into signing Visa Withdrawal Form or substantively
similar form, and was removed from the United States “demonstrated a strong
likelihood of success in establishing that removal violates the Establishment
Clause, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and his rights of Equal Protection
guaranteed by the United States Constitution,” and ordering the Government to

14

 Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 54

transport the petitioner back to the United States and admit him under the terms of
his previously approved visa.
c. Temporary Restraining Order, Aziz v. Trump, No. 17-cv-116 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28,
2017) (Brinkema, J.), ECF No. 3 (Kroman Decl. Ex. 4): ordering that the
Government permit attorneys to access to all legal permanent residents detained at
Dulles International Airport and prohibiting the removal from the United States of
such individuals for a period of seven days.
d. Order Granting Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal, Doe v. Trump, No. C17126 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 28, 2017) (Zilly, J.), ECF No. 5 (Kroman Decl. Ex. 5):
ordering a stay of removal and enjoining the Government from removing
petitioners pending a further order of the court.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT ONE
FIFTH AMENDMENT – PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
DENIAL OF RIGHT TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES AND UNLAWFUL
REMOVAL
72.

Dr. Abushamma repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
73.

First, the Darweesh Order created a due process right for Dr. Abushamma. The

Darweesh Order prohibited the removal of, among other persons, any “holders of valid
immigrant and non-immigrant visas . . . from Sudan . . . legally authorized to enter the United
States.” Kroman Decl. Ex. 2. Judge Donnelly’s verbal order from the bench did the same.
Accordingly, Dr. Abushamma, a Sudanese national legally authorized to enter the United States
15

 Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 17 of 22 PageID #: 55

pursuant to her H-1B visa, had a legally cognizable interest that guaranteed her due process in
the event that Respondents decided to try and remove her from the United States. Therefore,
when Dr. Abushamma’s flight took off at 9:00 P.M., and Dr. Abushamma was removed from the
United States without any process, Respondents violated not only the Court’s order, but also Dr.
Abushamma’s due process rights.
74.

Second, Dr. Abushamma has a due process interest in the statutory rights granted

by Congress; that is, “constitutionally protected liberty . . . interests” may arise from statutory
rights, to which “limited due process rights attach.” Augustin v. Sava, 735 F.2d 32, 37 (2d Cir.
1984). United States law, including federal statutes and regulations, obligate the United States to
allow immigrant visa holders admission into the United States, unless those individuals are for
some reason inadmissible.

Dr. Abushamma was not inadmissible and in denying Dr.

Abushamma’s admission to the United States, Respondents violated Dr. Abushamma’s
procedural and substantive due process rights.
75.

Third, the grant of the H-1B visa to Dr. Abushamma created an entitlement to Dr.

Abushamma that could not be revoked without due process of law.
76.

Finally, Dr. Abushamma was denied her due process rights in various other ways,

including but not limited to:
a. Denial of Access to Legal Counsel: Respondents prohibited Dr. Abushamma
from conferring with her attorney by telephone despite Dr. Abushamma’s
repeated requests. Moreover, attorneys working on behalf of Dr. Abushamma
were present at JFK in order to advise and represent her on a pro bono basis, but
they were not permitted access to her.
16

 Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 18 of 22 PageID #: 56

b. Misstatements and Coercion: Respondents used misstatements and coercion to
force Dr. Abushamma to sign the Form I-275. As a result, in no way was the
signing of the Form I-275 a voluntary action by Dr. Abushamma. Among other
wrongful acts, Respondents:
•

did not provide Dr. Abushamma any food for roughly nine hours, until
she signed the Form I-275 purportedly withdrawing her visa;

•

did not allow her to use the telephone until she signed the Form I-275
purportedly withdrawing her visa;

•

told her only the Supreme Court of the United States could stop her
from being removed;

•

told her that her lawyers could not do anything to help her;

•

told her she would be “forcibly removed” if she did not sign the Form
I-275; and

•

told her that if she did not sign the Form I-275, she would not be
allowed to return to the United States for five years.
COUNT TWO

THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1201, 1125
77.

Dr. Abushamma repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
78.

The Immigration and Nationality Act and implementing regulations entitle

Petitioner to lawful entry to the United States in accordance with her H-1B visa.

17

 Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 19 of 22 PageID #: 57

79.

Respondents’ actions in sending Dr. Abushamma to Saudi Arabia, deprive Dr.

Abushamma of her statutory and regulatory rights and an opportunity to receive regular removal
proceedings in the event that entry is denied.
80.

In particular, because Dr. Abushamma had a valid H-1B visa, denial of admission

into the United States violated 8 U.S.C. sections 1151, 1201, and 1125, and accompanying
regulations.
COUNT THREE
THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, 8 U.S.C. § 1152
81.

Dr. Abushamma repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
82.

Respondents’ action in sending Dr. Abushamma to Saudi Arabia also violates 8

U.S.C. § 1152 and accompanying regulations. This statute prohibits discrimination against
individuals on the basis of nationality, without sufficient justification.

COUNT FOUR
FIFTH AMENDMENT – EQUAL PROTECTION
83.

Dr. Abushamma repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
84.

The EO discriminates against Dr. Abushamma on the basis of her country of

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

18

 Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 20 of 22 PageID #: 58

COUNT FIVE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
85.

Dr. Abushamma repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
86.

Respondents detained and mistreated Dr. Abushamma solely pursuant to the EO,

which expressly discriminates against Dr. Abushamma and others on the basis of their country of
origin and was substantially motivated by animus toward Muslims. See supra Count Three.
87.

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

to other religious faiths, principally Christianity.
88.

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

nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A).
89.

The INA and implementing regulations entitle Dr. Abushamma to enter the

United States pursuant to her H-1B visa.
90.

Respondents’ actions in detaining and mistreating Dr. Abushamma were arbitrary,

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, in violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); contrary to constitutional right,
power, privilege, or immunity, in violation of APA § 706(2)(B); in excess of statutory
jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right, in violation of APA § 706(2)(C);
and without observance of procedure required by law, in violation of APA § 706(2)(D).

19

 Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 21 of 22 PageID #: 59

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Dr. Abushamma prays that this Court grant the following relief:
(1)

Issue an injunction ordering Respondents to:

(a) invalidate the improperly

coerced Form I-275, (b) reinstate Dr. Abushamma’s H-1B visa, and (c) immediately return Dr.
Abushamma to JFK Airport, and admit her into the United States, subject to the laws and
regulations existing prior to January 17, 2017.

See Kroman Decl. Ex. 7 (ordering the

Government to permit a valid visa-holder, who had been removed pursuant to the EO, to return
to the United States pending the Court’s determination as to the legality of his removal);
(2)

Enter a judgment declaring that any detention by Respondents of Dr. Abushamma

pursuant to the EO was, is, and will be unauthorized by statute and contrary to law;
(3)

Issue such order as may be necessary or appropriate in aid of this Court’s

jurisdiction;
(4)

Award Dr. Abushamma her costs and reasonable attorney’s fees; and

(5)

Grant any other and further relief that this Court may deem fit and proper. Dr.

Abushamma demands a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable.

20

 Case 1:17-cv-00488-CBA Document 7 Filed 01/31/17 Page 22 of 22 PageID #: 60

Dated: January 31, 2017
Brooklyn, New York

Respectfully submitted,
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP

By: /s/ Jennifer L. Kroman
Attorney Name
One Liberty Plaza
New York, New York 10006
T: 212-225-2000
F: 212-225-3999
(jkroman@cgsh.com)
Of Counsel
Robert Lawner

Attorneys for Petitioner
SUHA AMIN ABDULLAH ABUSHAMMA

21