IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PARS EQUALITY CENTER PO. Box 1383 Menlo Park, CA 94026 IRANIAN AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 5185 MacArthur Boulevard NW Suite 624 Washington, DC 20016 . NATIONAL IRANMN AMERICAN COUNCIL I41 1 K. Street NW #250 Washington, DC 20005 PUBLIC AFFAIRS ALLIANCE OF IRANIAN AMERICANS, INC, 1001 Connecticut Avenue NW #745 Washington, DC 20036 ALI ASAEI 2200 North Central Road, Apt 78, Fort Lee, NJ 07024 SHIVA HISSONG 401 West Ist Avenue Apt. #1 Spokane, WA 99201 OMID II Marsten Lane, Unit #30, En?eld, NH 03748 OHN DOE JOHN DOE JOHN DOE JOHN DOE JOHN DOE on behalf of himself and his minor child BABY DOE JOHN DOE JOHN DOE JOHN DOE JANE DOE . JANE DOE - Case: 1:17?cv?00255 Assigned To Chutkan, Tanya S. Assign. Date 2/8/2017 Description: JANE DOE JANE DOE JANE DOE JANE DOE and 3ANE DOE Plaintz?is, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his of?cial capacity as President of the United States *1600 Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 3801 Nebraska Ave. NW DC 20016 U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION 1300 Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004 US. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 220} Street, NW Washington, DC 20520 US. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 JOHN KELLY, in his of?cial capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security 3801 Nebraska Ave. NW Washington, DC 20016 KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, in his of?cial capacity as Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection 1300 Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004 REX W. TILLERSON, in his of?cial capacity as Secretary of State 2201 Street; NW Washington, DC 20520 and DANA J. BOENTE, in his of?cial capacity as Acting Attorney General of the United States 950 Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 De?ndants. COMPLAENT FOR BECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffsmindividual lranian nationals and four irenian-American organizationwmhave brought this case to challenge i?resident Donald J. Trump?s Executive Order 13,769, ?Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States." in an attempt to ban Muslims from the United States, the Executive Order temporarily bars nationals ofseven Muslim-majority countriesWineluding Iranmfrom entering the United States, temporarily suspends the US. Refugee Admission Program, and inde?nitely suspends entry of all Syrian refugees. This lawsuit seeks to protect and defend the Iranian-American community in the United States and abroad from the hann?il and discriminatory effects of the Executive Order and its implementation. The individnal Plaintiffs? stories bring to life the extraordinary harm the Executive Order has in?icted on this community. 2. The United States has a long history of welcoming Iranians who, like so many others from around the world, hope to share in the promise and opportunity that this nation embodies. Many as dissidents or members of religious communities sought shelter in the United States. Many others have come here on student, work, and other visas, or as permanent residents through normal channels. For decades, this country has made a commitment to lranian immigrants and their families to allow them to live free from fear and political repression and allow them to contribute to American society. These immigrants and visitors have ?ourished on American soil and contributed immensely to our society: Iranian funericans today include doctors, mathematicians, diplomats, artists, scientists, lawyers, journalists, athletes, professors, and entrepreneurs. They exempliiy the vitality of this nation of immigrants, a?nation bound together not by a common ethnicity or religion, but by the democratic principle of equality before law. 3. President Donald J. Trump betrayed this principle at the stroke of a pen. The Executiye Order on ?Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States? bars entry to the United States of nationals from seven majority?Muslim countries, including Iran. The sweeping Executive Order, and its unsparing application by the departments and agencies charged with administering the immigration laws, has separated families, jeopardized careers, and placed lives on holdmand some in danger. Many thousands of members of the Iranian American community have found their world suddenly upended by executive ?at. 4. The devastating actions that the Executive Order commands re?ect invidious discrimination that President Trump and his advisers have scarcely bothered and utterly failed to conceal. President Trump has effectively accused every Iranian citizen, religious or secular, .. Muslim or non-Muslim, of belonging to so~calied ?radical lslarn? and of harboring terrorist ambitions against the United States. This stereotyping is baseless. From 39754015, there was not a single case of an American being killed in a terrorist attack in this country by a person born in lran, or any of the other six countries speci?ed in the Executive Order. 5. The irrationality of categorically identifying all Iranians for exclusion from the United States in furtherance of an anti-Muslim agenda is only magni?ed by the reckless disregard for the law that Defendants have displayed in issuing and implementing the Executive Order. Defendants summarily revoked tens of thousands of visas and refused entry to Iranian nationals and Iranian-American green card holders without providing any of the process that the immigration laws and regulations require, effectively repealing statutes and regulations along the 6. It is dif?cult to overstate the disastrous consequences of Defendants? implementation of the Executive Order for countless Iranian Americans and Iranian nationals, within U.S. borders and beyond. The Executive Order shunts aside the intricate matrix of statutes and regulations that govern the US. immigration system, and casts many thousands of families adrift without so rnuch as a passing glance at the Constitution. The harm to Plaintiffs from the Executive Order is certain, imminent, and irreparable. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against its enforcement and implementation. JURISBICTION AND VENUE 7. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331. 8. The Court may award declaratory and injunctive relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201-02, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706. 9. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. l391(b)(2) and 1) because Defendants are United States agencies or of?cers sued in their of?cial capacities; a Substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in this district; and multiple Plaintiffs reside in this district. PARTIES A. Plaintiffs 10. Plaintiff Pars Equality Center (?Pars?) is a nonpro?t organization dedicated to helping all members of the Iranian?American community to help realize their foil potential as infonned, selforeliant, and responsible members of American society. Pars believes that learning and teaching the rights and responsibilities of citiienship in a democracy as well as the rules and rewards of entrepreneurship are necessary ingredients for success, and achieves its mission primarily by providing extensive social and legal services. The organization?s Persian-speaking staff advocates for families and individuals in need with a strong focus on re?igees, asylees, and those newcomers to the United States living in poverty. Pars is headquartered in Menio Park, . California and has centers located in San Jose, Los Angeles, andOrange County. 1 1. Plaintiff lranian American Bar Association is an independent, apolitical 501(c)(6) nonpro?t professional association of attorneys, judges and law students. it seeks to educate the Iranian-American community in the United States about legal issues of interest, advance legal rights of the community, and ensure that government of?cials and the public at large are fully and accurately informed on legal matters of concern to the Iranian American community. IABA also seeks to foster and promote the achievements of Iranian American lawyers and other legal professionals. LABA has over 1500 members and chapters in the Sistrict of Coluinbia, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, Northern California, Orange County, Phoenix, and 'San Diego. - i 12. Plaintiff National Iranian American Council is a nonpartisan, nonpro?t 501(c)(3) organization based in Washington, DC. NIAC also has a sister organization, NIAC Action, which operates under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4). seeks to strengthen the voice of Iranian Americans by promoting greater understanding between the Iranian and American people, and seeks to advance the interests of the harden-American community on civic, cultural and political issues. NIAC defends Iranian-American interests against corporate and media bias, discrimination, and govermnent neglect; and monitors and shapes national legislation affecting lranian Americans. its constituents number in the tens of thousands, comprised mostly of those of lranian heritage. 13. Plaintiff Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans, Inc. is a nonpro?t, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) and organization based in Washington, DC. PAALA, 'Inc. is a 501(c)(4) bipartisan, non~sectarian, national membership organization with an af?liated 501(c)(3), LIX-100, Inc. PAALA serves the interests of Iranian Americans and represents the Iranian-American community before US. poiicymakers and the American public at large. PAAIA works to foster greater understanding between the people of Iran and the United States, expand opportunities for the active participation of Iranian Americans in the democratic process at all levels ofgovernment and in the public debate, and provide opportunities for advancement for the next generation of lranian Americans. 14. The four organizational Plaintiffs are the largest and most prominent iranianI- American organizations in the United States. The Executive Order has profoundly banned and undermined the missions of these four organizations. They have diverted enormous resources to mitigate the adverse consequences of the Executive Order on the Iranian-American community. 15. Plaintiff Ali Asaei is an Iranian citizen who entered the United States with an F-l student visa and is currently on Optional Practical Training (OPT) status that permits him to work in the United States until June 2018. Plaintiff Asaei is currently residing at 2200 N. Central Road, Apt. '75, Fort Lee, New Jersey 07024. 16. Plaintiff Shiva Hissong is a citizen of iran and a law?rl permanent resident of the United States. She currently resides at 401 West Avenue Spokane, Washington, 99201. 17. Plaintiff Omid Moghimi is a dual citizen of the United States and Iran. He currently resides at 11 Marsten Lane, Unit #30, Eo?eid, New Hampshire 03 748. 18. Plaintiff John Doe #1 is an Iranian citizen who entered the United States on an F-l student visa. He currently resides in New York City, New York. 19. Plaintiff John Bee #2 is a dual citizen of Iran and the United States. He currently resides in northern Virginia. 20. Plaintifi?John Doc #3 is an lranian citizen currently residing in Tehran, Iran with an approved .i-l visa to enter the United States. 21. Plaintiff John Doe #4 is an iranian citizen currently located in Istanbul, Turkey, awaiting safe passage to the United States with his mother, Plaintiff Jane Doe 7, and his two sisters, Plaintiffs Jane Does #5 and The family are refugees who have been approved for resettlement through the US. Refugee Admissions Program and intend to reside in or near Seattle, Washington. 22. Plainti??lohn Doc #5 is an Iranian citizen who entered the United States on an F-i student visa. He is currently on OPT status, which pennits him to work in the United States. He resides in Buffalo, New York and is the father of Baby Doc a (1.8. citizen. 23. Plaintiff John Doc #6 is an Iranian citizen. He, his wife, and two sons recently . were selected to receive green cards through the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program. He is currently located on an oil rig approximately six hours off the southern coast of Iran. His wife and two sons are in Malaysia, and the family hopes to settle somewhere near Tampa Bay, Florida, if they are able to enter the United States. 24. Plaintiff John Doc #7 is an Iranian citizen currently residing with his partner, John Doe in southwest Turkey. They have had their refugee status determined by the Of?ce of the UN. High Commissioner for Refugees following its and thorough vetting process John Doc #7 hopes to resettie in the United States, and his application is pending with the S. Refugee Admissions Prograrn. 25. Plaintiff John Doc #8 is an iranian citizen currently residing with his partner, John Doe in southwest Turkey. "they have had their refugee status determined by the Of?ce of the UN. High Commissioner for Refugees following its and thorough vetting process. John Doe #8 hopes to resettle in the United States, and his application is pending with the US. Refugee Admissions Program. 26. Plaintiff Jane Doe #l is a dual citizen of Iran and the United States. She currently resides in San Diego, California. 27. Plaintiff Jane Doc #2 is a dual citizen of the United States and Iran. She currently resides in Phoenix, Arizona. 28. Plaintiff Jane Doe it 3 is adual citizen of the United States and Iran. Shecurrently resides in Irvine, California. 29. Plaintifflane Doe #4 IS an iranian citizen who was granted asylum' in the United States in 20l 6 She currently resides in San Francisco, California. 30. - Plaintiff Jane Doc #5 is an Iranian citizen currently located in Istanbul, Turkey. She, her son, Plaintiff John Doe 4, and her two daughters, Plaintiffs Jane Does #6 and are awaiting safe passage to the United States. The family are refugees who have been approved for resettlement in the United States through the US. Refugee Admissions Program. They intend to reside in or near Seattle, Washington. 31. Plaintiffiane Doe #6 is an Iranian citizen currently located in Istanbul, Turkey, awaiting safe passage to the United States with her brother, Plaintiff John Doe sister, Piaintiff Jane Bee and mother, Plaintiff Jane Doe The family are refugees who have been approved for resettiement in the United States through the US. Refugee Admissions Program. They intend to reside in or near Seattle, Washington. 32. Plaintiff Jane Doe #7 is an Iranian citizen currently located in Istanbul, Turkey, awaiting safe passage to the United States with her brother, Plaintiff John Doc sister, Piainti?? Jane Doe and mother, Plaintiff Jane Bee The family are refugees who have been approved for resettlement in the United States through the US. Refugee Admissions Program. They intend to reside in or near Seattle, Washington. 8. Defendants 33. Defendant Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States and sued in his official capacity. President Trump issued the Executive Order that is the subject of this action. 34. Defendant Department of Homeland Security is an executive department of the United States Government. DHS is headquartered in Washington, DC. 35. Defendant US Customs and?Border Patrol is an administrative agency within DHS. CBP is headquartered in Washington, DC. i 36. Defendant Department-of State is an executive department of the United States government. The State Department is headquartered in Washington, DC. The State Department is responsible for issuing visas and implementing the Executive Order. 37. Defendant Department of Justice is an executive department of the United States. is headquartered in Washington, DC. if} 38. Defendant John Kelly is Secretary of Homeland Security and sued in his of?cial capacity Secretary Kelly 15 responsible for DHS administration of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 39. Defendant Kevin McAleenan is the Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection Acting Commissioner McAleenan 18 directly responsible for implementation of the immigration and Nationality Act. 40. Defendant Rex W. Tillerson is the Secretary of State and sued in his of?cial capacity. Secretary Tillerson oversees the State Department?s activities with respect to the Immigration and Nationality Act. 4i. Defendant Dana Boente is the Acting Attorney General of the United States and sued in his of?cial capacity. Defendant Boente oversees the D01 5 activities with respect to the immigration and Nationality Act. 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The Iranian?American Community in the United States 42. The [racism-American community is, on the whole, a deeply-rooted, well- integrated, high-achieving, and thriving population within the United States. There are approximately one million Iranian Americans in the United States. This community includes United States citizens; dual citizens of Iran and the United States; law?? permanent residents; holders of various types of student, work, and other visas; applicants for suCh visas; asylum grantees and applicants; refugees; and temporary protected status holders and applicants. 43. Defendants? enforcement of the policies set forth in the Executive Order has caused, and will continue to cause, great harm to the Iranian~American community. 44. Many Iranian immigrants within the last ?fty years identify as refugees ?eeing political oppression in Iran. While the ?rst 'wave of Iranian immigration to the United States occurred in the 19505, most Iranian Americans arrivedin the United States during the second wave of migration from 1979 to 2003 and, were more likely to identify themselves as exiles or political refugees. 45. Iranians arriving in the United States quickly assimilated into and thrived in American culture. In 2011, about 50% of all working Iranian Americans were in professional and managerial occupations, greater than any other group at the time. in 2015, the median household income for Iranian American families was $68,260, over 20% higher than the median household income for all American families in 2015. 46. The Iranian-American community values education; According to 2015 statistics published by the United States Census Bureau, 87% of Iranian Americans have graduated ?om high school, 30% have obtained a bachelor?s degree, and over I 1% hold a graduate or other professional degree. 47. As individuals and as a community, Iranian Americans have actively participated in and enriched all levels of American coiture and society. Iranian Americans have made important contributions to the public sector, technology, business, and the arts. To provide just a handful of examples, an Iranian American, Pierre Omidyar, founded eBay; an Iranian American, Farzad Nazern, also known as Zod Nazem, was Yahooi?s chief technology of?cer and one of its longest-serving executives; an Iranian American, Salar Kamangar, is a senior executive at Google and former CEO of Google?s You'l?nbe brand; and an Iranian American Omid Kordestani is the Executive Chairman of Twitter. Cyrus Amir~Mokri served as the Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions at the United States Treasury; Faryar Shirzad served on the staff of the 1,2 Educational and Cultural Affairs under the George W. Bush administration; and Azita Raji was nominated by President Obama to serve as United States Ambassador to Sxyeden. irouz Naderi is the former director of Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Shohreh Aghdashioo is an award? winning Iranian-American actress. Nasser Ovisi is an internationally acclaimed artist. Christiane Amanpour, CBE, is the Chief International Correspondent for CNN. 48. While assimilating into American society, Iranian Americans maintain close ties to their family in Iran: 84% of respondents to a recent survey report having family in Iran, and approximately one-third are in contact with their family or ??iends in lran at least several times 'per week. Thirty percent of respondents traveled to [ran once every two or three years. B. Trump?s Campaign Pledge to Ban Muslims from the Uniteri States 49. On December 7, 2015, in the wake of the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, Mr. Trump?s presidential campaign issued a written statement that ?Donald J. Trump calls for a total and complete shutdown on Muslims entering the United States until our country?s representatives can ?gure out what is going on.? Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim immigration, Dec. 7, 2015. 50. This proposed ?Muslim ban? became a signature promise of the Trump campaign. On the trail, Mr. Trump and his top advisors and surrogates repeated his call for such a ban time and again. Mr. Trump read or paraphrased the December 7, 2015 statement at numerous campaign appearances. In a television ad released by the Trumpcampaign on January 4, 2016, the narrator says that Mr. Trump is ?calling for a temporary shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until we can ?gure out what?s going on.? Press Release, ?Donald J. Trump Unveils First Campaign Television Ad with Signi?cant Buy in Early States? (Ian. 4, 2016). I3 During a January l4, 2016 televised debate, when asked whether-he had rethought his ?comments about banning Muslims from entering the country,? Mr. Trump responded, ?No. Look, we have to stop with political correctness.? Republican Candidates? Debate in North Charleston, S.C. (Jan. 14, 2016). On March 9, 2016, Mr. Trump said in a televised interview, think Islam hates us.? Anderson Cooper, 360 Degrees (Mar. 9, 2m 6). 51. Amid widespread objection that a Muslim ban would be tin-American and nnconstitutional, Mr. Trump and his advisers and surrogates shifted their rhetoric. On June 13, 2016, after a terror attack in Orlando, Florida, Mr. Trump said in a speech: ?1 called for a ban after San Bemardino, and was met with great scorn and anger, but now many are saying I was right to do so.? He then speci?ed that the shutdown would be ?temporary,? and, rather than target Muslims per so, would apply to certain ?areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies, until we understand how to and these threats.? Politico, Transcript: Donald Trump?s National Security Speech (Jane 13, 2016). 52. Soon after, in a July 17, 2016 televised interview, when confronted with his running mate Mike Pence?s statement calling a Muslim ban unconstitutional, Mr. Trump responded: ?So you call it territories, okay? We?re gonna do territories.? 60 Minutes, CBS, The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence, July 17, 2016. A week later, in an interview on July 24, 2016, Mr. Trump was asked if his recent remarks signi?ed a ?rollback? ?om his proposal for a ?Muslim ban.? He answered: don?t think so. I actually don?t think it?s a rollback. In fact, you could say it?s an expansion. I?m looking new at territories. People were so upset when I used the worried Muslim. Oh, you can?t use the word Muslim. Remember this. And i?m okay with that, because I?m talking territory instead of Muslim.? Meet the Press, NBC, July 24, 2016. And on October 9, 2016, during a televised presidential debate, Mr. Trump said, ?The Muslim ban is 14 something that in some form has morphed into a[n] extreme vetting from certain areas of the world". Presidential Debate at Wash. Univ. in St. Louis, Oct. 9, 2016. C. The Executive Order 53. On January 27, 2017, one week after the inauguration, President Trump ful?lled his campaign promise to ban Muslims from entering the United States. He signed Executive Order 13,769, entitled ?Protecting the Nation ??om Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.? At the signing ceremony, after reading the titie of the Order aloud, President Trump remarked, ?We all know what that means.? 54. Among other things, the Executive Order temporarily bars entry of all nationals i from seven majority~Muslim countries, temporarily suspends the entire US. Refugee Admissions Program, establishes a policy of prioritizing Christian re?igees upon resuming the program, and inde?nitely bars entry of Syrian re?igees. 55._ Invoking 212{t) of the INA, 3(a) of the Executive Order ?proclaim[s] that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(l 2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(2), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,? and ?suspend[s] entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this Order? (with enumerated csceptions not relevant here). 56. Section 217(a)( 12) of the INA refers directly or indirectly to seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia. All seven are majority-Muslim countries. Under ?the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and . when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration bene?ts to nationals of countries for which visas and bene?ts are otherwise blocked? under 3(a) of the Order. 13 57. Section 5(a) of the Order directs the Secretary of State to ?suspend the Executive Order U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days.? 58. Section 503) directs the Secretary of State, in consultation with Secretary of Homeland Security, ?[u]pon the resumption of USRAP admissions,? to ?prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis ofreligious~based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual?s country of nationality,? 59. Again invoking 212(f) of the INA, 5(c) of the Executive Order ?lproclaim{s] that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States? and thus ?suspend[s] any such entry? inde?nitely. 60. Under during the temporary suspension of USRAP, ?the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case~hy-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interestmincluding when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religions persecution . . . 61. President?l?rump has made clear that the purpose of these provisions is to favor Christian rethgees. In an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network, just hours before he signed the Executive Order, President Trump was asked the following question about his impending new refugee policy, ?As it relates to persecuted Christians, do you see them as kind of a priority here?? President Trump replied, ?Yes.? He continued, ?Do you know if you were a "Christian in Syria it Was impossible, at least very tough to get into the United States? If you were a Mnslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible. . . . And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them." Dayid Brody, Brody File 15 Exclusive: President Trump Says Persecuted Christians Will Be Given Priority as Re?tgees, CBN News (Jan. 27, 2017). 62. Trump adviser and surrogate Rudy Giuliani made clear that the Executive Order is in fact the ?Muslim ban? that President Trump repeatedly promised during the campaign. On January 28, 2017, Giuliani stated: ?So when [Mn Trump] ?rst atmouneed it, he said, ?Muslim ban.? He called me up. He said, ?Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.? Giuliani therefore assembled a large team that came up with a Muslim ban by another name, focusing on places that just happened to be majority Muslim, ?where there are {sic} substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.? Amy B. Wang, Trump asked for a ?Mzisiim ban, Giuliani says - and ordered a commission to do it "legally Wash. Post (January 29, 2017). 63. On the same day as President Trump signed the Executive Order, the Department of Justice Of?ce of Legal Counsel issued a one-page memorandum that describes the terms of the Executive Order and concludes, in a single sentence without articulating any legal analysis or support, ?The proposed Order is approved with respect to form and legality.? I). The Irrational and Prejudicial Basis for the Executive Order 64. According to a study conducted by the CATO Institute that reviewed data from 1975-20l 5, there was not a single case of an American being killed in a terrorist attack in this country by a person born in iron, or any of the other six countries speci?ed in the Executive Order. No individuals from trad?or any of the other six speci?ed countriesmparticipated in the four major terrorist attacks in recent US. history that have been used at various times to justify the Executive Order?the September 1 l, 2001 terrorist attack, the 20l 3 Boston Marathon bombing, the December 20l 5 San Bernardino attack, or the one 2016 Orlando mass shooting. The initial ?rst responder to the San Bernardino tragedy was an iranian?American medic. 65. 0f the seven countries speci?ed in the'Executive Order, Iran had the largest total number of legal entrants into the United States (310,l82) between 2006 and 2015. Two~thirds of those entrants arrived in the United States on temporary visas. Of the estimated 90,000 visas . isSued in 2015 to nationals of the seven countries singled out by the Executive Order, almost half are to iranian nationals. 66. The burden of the Executive Order will fall heavily on the shoulders of iranian students in the United States. Of the seven countries speci?ed in the Executive Order, Iran sends the largest number of students to the United in the last academic year. Iran is ranked 1 among all countries in the world in the number of students that it sends to the United States. 67. Many have argued that enforcing the Executive Order is bad for business in the United States. The (3505 of companies including Google, Microso?, Uher, Apple, and AianB have all denounced the Executive Order?s policy. 68. The Executive Order is contrary to longstanding U.S. policy of distinguishing the acts of the Iranian government from the Iranian people at large and of encouraging democracy. 69. The United States has found ?signi?cant human rights problems in Iran,? including ?severe restrictions on civil liberties, including the freedoms of assembly, association, speech (including via the internet), religion, and press.? U.S. Dep?t of State, Iran 2015 Human Rights Report, at 1, in Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2015 (2015). 70. All agencies engaged in refugee admissions have agreed that ?rigorous security measures? and multi-step screening processes are employed to subject all refugees ?to lg the highest level of security checks for any category of traveler to the United States,? and ?protect against threats to our national security.? U.S. Dep?t of State, US. Dep?t of Homeland Security, 0.3. Dep?t of Health and Human Serve, Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2017: Report to the Congress (Sept. 15, 2016), at v. 71. The Executive Order?s arbitrary exclusion of all Iranian nationals, regardless of personal circumstances, including Iranian dissidents, religious minorities facing persecution, and those seeking to exercise their rights of free speech, contradicts the recommendations of those agencies directly responsible for making policy decisions that balance the nation?s foreign policy objectives with national security threats. 72. The categorical ban on Iranian nationals is inconsistent with Congress?s longstanding recognition that granting protection to vulnerable lranians in the United States would advance the nation?s foreign policy objectives. 73, The Executive Order has sown fear and anxiety in the community. it has ampli?ed stigma and discrimination and will exacerbate the challenges that immigrant groups, especially immigrants from primarily Muslim countries like Iran, already face in the United States. E. Dcfendants? Chaotic implementation of the Executive Order 74. The announcement of the Executive Order late in the a?ernoon on Friday, January 27, 2017 set off immediate chaos and confusion around the world, as senior of?cials responsible for the nation?s defense, homeland security, and control of the nation?s borders denied having been adequately informed or consulted about the Order. - 75. The same day, at the request of DHS, and ?in implementation of section 3(0) of the Executive Order,? the State Department issued a one-page document ?provisionally lg revok?ng} all valid nonimmigrant and immigrant visas of nationals of? the seven countries speci?ed in the Executive Order. U.S. Dep?t of State, Letter from Edward Ramotowski Deputy Assistant Secretary of State (Jan. 27, 201 7) The revocation affected tens of thousands of valid visas held by students, spouses, workers, and numerous others who were already present in the United States. The State Department has declined to explain the effect of a ?provisional revocation." 76. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol of?cials blocked visa holders and lawful pennanent residents from entering the United States. 77. The next day, the US. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a temporary stay on the detention or deportations of holders, of valid visas who had arrived at US. airports. Dar-macs}: v. Tmmp, Case No. l7-cv?480, slip. op. at 2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2017). Despite the stay, Customs and Border Patrol personnel reportedly failed to comply with the court?s ruling, and the Commonwealth of Virginia moved to hold DHS employees in contempt of court. Br. in Support of Commonwealth of Va.?s Mot. for the Issuance ot?a Rule to Show Cause at 1, Asia v. Tam-2p, Case No. l:l7-cv-l 16 (ED. Va. Feb. 1, 2017), ECF No. 19; 78. The hasty implementation of the Executive Order and the policies it sets forth sparked dissent across the federal government. 0n ianuary 29, 2017, US. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham stated, ?it is clear horn the confusion at our airports across the nation that President Trump?s executive order was not properly vetted. We are particularly concerned by reports that this order went into effect with little to no consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security.? The senators continued, ?This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is Why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve 2Q our security." Statement by Senators McCain Graham on Executive Order on Immigration (Jan. 29, 2017). 79. On Monday, January 30, 2017, Sally Yates, thenwacting Attorney General, issued a letter directing attorneys not to defend the Executive Order during her remaining time at the department. Yates stated, am responsible for ensuring that the positions take[s] in court remain consistent with this institution?s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present 1 am not convinced that the defense of the Executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am i convinced that the Executive Order is law?il.? In response, President Trump fired Yates and appointed Defendant Dana .I. Boente as acting Attorney General. Michael D. Shear et?ai., Trump Fires Acting Attorney General Who De?ed Him, NY. Times, Jan. 30, 2017. 80. At the State Department, approximately 1000 of?cials and employees signed a memorandum circulated through the Department?s internal ?Dissent Channel,? protesting that policy which closes Our doors to over 200 million legitimate travelers in the hopes of preventing a small number of travelers who intend to harm Americans from using the visa system to enter the United States will not achieve its aim of making our country Safer. Moreover, such a policy runs counter to core American values of nondiscrimination, fair play, and extending a warm welcome to foreign visitors and immigrants.? Dissent Channel: Alternatives to Closing Doors in Order to Secure Our Borders; see Jeffrey Gettieman, State Dept. Dissent Cable on Trump '5 Ban Draws 1. 000 Signatures, N.Y. Times (Jan. 31, 2017). 81. Meanwhile, the chaotic implementation of the Executive Order continued. Defendants changed positions multiple times about the effect and interpretation of the Executive 21 Order. For example, on the question whether the Executive Order applies to law?il pennanent residents, the Administration?s views bounced around incessantly: a. The morning after President Trump issued the Executive Order, a DHS spokesperson stated that the 0rder ?will bar green card hoiders.? b. A day later, on January 29, 201?, the White House offered a different interpretation that afforded DHS discretion, on a case~by?case basis, to admit lawful permanent residents to the United States. c. Also On January 29, 2017, DHS stated: ?in applying the provisions of the president?s executive order, I hereby deem the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest. Accordingly, absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status yvill be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case detenninations.? d. On February l, 2017, White House Counsel Donald McGahn issued ?authoritative guidance." Acknowledging that ?there has been reasonable uncertainty about whether [Sections 3(0) and apply to law?ii permanent residents of the United States,? McGahn stated that, ?to remove any con?rsion, I now clarify that Sections 3(0) and 3(e) (lo-not apply to such individuals.? 82. On February 4, 2017, the,U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington temporarily enjoined enforcement key aspects of the Executive Order nationwide, including 3(c) and 503), and 83. in response to the court?s order, a State Department spokesperson announced, ?We have reversed the provisional revocation of visas? under the Executive Order, unless they were ?physically canceled." State Department reverses visa ban, aliows travelers will: visas into US: o?ciai, Reuters (Feb. 4, 2017). DHS announced that it had ?suspended any and all actions implementing the affected sections of the Executive Order? and would ?resume inspection of travelers in accordance with standard policy and procedure.? DHS Statement on Compliance with Recent Court Order (Feb. 4, 2017). I 84. The Ninth Circuit denied the government?s request for an emergency stay. 85. The Executive Order took effect immediately upon signing, with no notice, grace period, or even a delay for people already in transit. Individuals who had legal permission to work or study in the United States, and who happened to be out of the country for work, conferences, family visits, or other reasons, were instantly prevented from returning to their homes, families, classes, and jobs. 86. The State Department has not provided any of?cial notice to these visa holders of their change in status, contributing to the continuing chaos and con?ision both at US. points of entiy and abroad. The State Department?s letter revoking all immigrant and nonimmi grant visas of persons from the seven countries speci?ed in the Executive Order is dated Friday, January 27, 2017. Its existence was not revealed until ?ve days later?won Wednesday, February 1, 2017m when the Department of Justice ?led a copy of the document in one of the pending legal challenges to the Executive Order. 87. The White House failed to provide any guidance or training or even basic information to the government personnel responsible for implementing the Executive Order, including any guidelines for implementing additional screening or case-by?case exceptions the Executive Order contemplated. Further, by signing the Executive Order late on a Friday afternoon, the President ensured that the full impact at US. borders and points of entry came 23 over the weekend when many federal of?ces are generally closed and higher-level managers are unavailable. 88. Members of the public and individual ls affected by the Executive Order could not obtain any meaningful information over the course of the weekend after it was signed Not until hours after the President signed the Executive Order did the White House release the text of the Order. Websites for the White House, DHS, or the State Department contained contradictory information about the Executive Order, or no information at all. 89. At least as of February 7, 2017, the White House Counsel memo clarifying the Executive Order does not appear to be published on any government website, even though it was issued on February 1,2017 DHS did not clarify on its website that the Executive Order does not apply to pennanent residents and dust citizens until Friday, February 3, 2m 7. 90. A 001 attorney stated in a February 3, 2017 hearing before the 8. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that 100 ,000 visas have been revoked pursuant to the Executive Order The State Department disputed that ?gure, stating that 60,000 visas have been revoked. DOJ Lawyers Says More than 100, 000 visas have been revoked; State Department says number is 60,000, ABA Journal (Feb. 3, 2017). 91. As a result of the Executive Order and the State Department memorandum, any visa holder or permanent resident from Iran or the six other affected countries who is presently in the United States will be unable to travel outside the United States without being potentially barred from re-entry. 92. Further, many Iranian nationals currently abroad, along with nationals of the other six affected countries, were denied pennission to board ?ights to the United States because of the 2d Executive Order and its implementation, despite multiple court orders that temporarily enjoined enforcement. 93. Although Defendants have stated their intent to comply with court orders, the lack of orderly process or guidance to date means that individuals affected by the Executive Order do not know from one day to the next whether they will be barred from entry or re-entry. 94. To date, Plaintiff has received at least 150 reports of Iranian individuals denied entry to the United States, including individuals who were not permitted to board ?ights at?all despite having valid visas or other authorization to enter the United States, and indiiriduals who arrived at U.S. airports and were turned back and put on ?ights out of the country. Almost 50 other lawful permanent residents and visa holders reported delays, more intrusive qoestioning or other hurdles upon arrival. Several dual citizens were denied entry. At least ten lawful permanent residents reported being re?ised entry into the United States altogether. F. Harm Caused to Plaintiffs by the issuance and Implementation of the Executive Order 1. Organizational Plaintiffs 95. Defendants have ?'ustrated the organizational Plaintiffs? missions. Pars, NIAC, and have each been forced to divert a signi?cant proportion of their resources to respond to the effects of the Executive Order and its implementation and enforcement. See Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 US. 363 (1982). 96. The Executive Order has ?'ustrated the missions of Plaintiffs Pars, NIAC, and PAAIA and forced these organizations to divert a signi?cant proportion of their resources. to coping with the effects of the Executive (?nder and its implementation and enforcement. 1d. 97. The legal team at Pars has been inundated with telephone calls, emails, and messages from individuals posing questions and expressing concerns about the Executive Order: 25 Individuals of all legal statuses?dual citizens, lavvful permanent residents, visa holders, asylees, refugees, those seeking protected status, Iranian asylum applicants outside the United States who are unable to enterras well as those who have been granted refugee status in the United States but whose families remain abroadmhave called Pars with anxious questions about themselves or their loved ones. The Senior Director of the Legal Department alone has been forced to devote dozens of hours of her time in just the first week dealing solely to Executive Ordeorelated issues in the past week. Pars staff members outside of the legal team have also expended substantial time on responding to the Executive Order. Instead of preparing and giving panel presentations or advising community members in other areas, Pars legal staff have been forced to present almost exclusively on the Executive Order and its impact on the Iranian-?American community. Pars attorneys have spent most of their time researching applicable law, speaking and meeting with other organizations, re?igee forums, preparing panels regarding the new laws, and constantly keeping up to date on changes to the Executive Order and preparing social media information to keep the community up to date. 98. The Executive Order and its enforcement have also undermined many of the central tenets of Pars? mission. The Executive Order con?icts with Pars? efforts to elevate individuals in the [remiss-American community to their highest career potential, and irnpedes Pars? ability to provide social services and classes to achieve this goal. Implementation of the Executive Order further hampers Pars? ability to assist Iranian Americans who have left Iran in search of more stable employment or reuni?cation with their families in the United States. It is likely that the enforcement and implementation of the Executive Order will affect the decisions of employers who may be unable tohire or sponsor Iranian visa holders, and may cautiously prefer not to hire Iranian legal permanent residents and dual citizens. In addition, the Executive 25 Order and its enforcement will cause individuals with high levels of educational attainmentw Master?s degree and holders who are applying for HIE, or other business or student visas, to have their visas denied or not renewed. 99. The Executive Order and its implementation have also undermined Pars? goal to effectively use the immigration laws to advocate on hehalfof immigrants and to guide individuals through the immigration process. The Executive Order?s ambiguity and the chaos it has caused has prevented Pars attorneys from being able to provide concrete legal advice. Further, whereas Pars seeks to facilitate the social, economic and cultural integratidn of lranians into their communities in the. United States, the stigma and discrimination that is caused by the Executive Order has sown fear and anxiety in the Iranian-American community and will exacerbate challenges that immigrants, especially those from primarily Muslim countries, already face in the United States. The uncertainty and feeling among many that they are new second- class citizens, has undermined Pars? citizenship curriculum and instilled fear endless of faith in the system among the participants, making it dif?cult to continue this vital work. 100. Since President Trump signed the Executive Order, has diverted its resources to primarily providing legal assistance and support to the human-American community and Iranian nationals harmed by the Executive Order. The Executive Order and its . implementation have created chaos and legal challenges, and have required IABA to answer hundreds of inquiries about whether individuals can legally travel to or outside the United States, or to provide guidance and assistance to those who were detained in airports in and outside of the United States. This has completely overwhelmed the organization?s limited resources and forced to defer all other work and all existing plans to respond to the crisis. 101. has devoted resources to assisting Plaintiffs John Doc #4 and Jane Does Iranian refugees stranded by the Executive Order in a remote town in Turkey after they were prevented from boarding a ?ight on January 30, 2017. An IABA staff member spoke with the refugees; used IABA funds to purchase accommodation in Istanbul; arranged for bus transportation for the refugees to Istanbul; and purchased plane tickets for the refugees to come to the United States. 102. The IABA President and Board members are all personally devoting all their available time to responding to the Executive Order, answering calls and emails, developing materials, taking reports and maintaining a database on individuals affected by enforcement of the Executive Order; providing guidance and assistance to those affected by it, connecting individuals with attorneys, coordinating the organization?s response to the Executive Dolor across the country, and working with and coordinating efforts with other bar associations, professional organizations, and state and local authorities. IABA has ?elded over 300 reports in less than a week. It has had to spend money to develop and update its website to respond and defer scheduled fundraising plans. does not know when it will be able to resume its regular activities in support of its members. 103. The Executive Order stands for everything NIAC stands against. There is a direct conflict between enforcement of the Executive Order, which imposes a blanket ban on visa- issuance to immigrants from majority-Muslim countries, including Iran, and mission of defending Iranian-American interests against corporate and media bias, discrimination, and government neglect, and monitoring, in?uencing and shaping national legislation affecting Iranian Americans. The Executive Order casts a negative pail on the Iranian?American community as a whole, singling out iron as a source of ?foreign terrorists,? when in fact, from 1975-2015, there was not a single case of an American being killed in a terrorist attack in this country by a person born in Iran, or any ofthe other six countries speci?ed in the Executive Order. - 104. Defendants? issuance, implementation, and enforcement of the Executive Order have harmed many individuals who havereaclied out to NIAC for assistance and guidance. Law?il permanent residents of Iranian heritage have been denied entry into the United States on the basis of the Executive Order and are unable to leave the United States, absent con?dence that they will be permitted reentry; immigrant and nondmmigrant of Iranian heritage, including, but not limited to, Iranian students studying and residing in the United States, have been unable to return to the United States; and Iranians abroad have been unable to prochre visas for travel to the United States. Even US. citizens of Iranian heritage have been harmed, as the Executive Order has separated them ?om their families with no warning. 105. Since President Trump signed the Executive Order, NIAC has had to expend a significant amount of resources to respond to media inquiries and requests about the impact of the Executive Order on Iranian Americans and their families, provide guidance and educate the public and its members of the immediate impacts of Defendant?s executive order on immigrants, lawful permanent residents, and US. citizens with non-citizen Iranian family members. Several members of staff and board of directors have been interviewed repeatedly and quoted in media reports discussing the Executive Order and have spent several hours on phone calls and meetings with constituents and others. NIAC will be required to continue expending time and resources to media requests and inquiries. 106. Due to the Executive Order and its implementation, NIAC has been ?ooded with calls and online inquiries directly related to the Executive Order. During this time period, NIAC received approximately 230 calls. 200 Two hundred of those calls were from constituents directly affected by the Executive Order seeking assistance; 39 calls were related to the Executive Order in other ways; only ?ve calls were unrelated to the Executive Order. lO7. During the same time period, a total of approximately 1 I NIAC stat? members were diverted,? with over 647 hours spent on tasks directly related to the Executive Order. These tasks included, but are not limited to: responding to media inquiries; preparing action alerts and social media postings; collecting stories and launching a webpage to share the stories of constituents impacted by the Executive Order; creating ?know your rights? graphics; updating petitions; media appearances and interviews; ?elding emails and phone calls ?'om concerned and impacted constituents; organizing a ?virtual protest? organizing and managing grassroots volunteers; holding strategic meetings centered around the Executive Order; contacting legislators and government agencies seeking clari?cation on behalf of constituents; issuing press releases; and drafting memorandums internally and to various legislators. 08. The Executive Order disrupts mission of encouraging constructive relations and enhancing mutual understanding between the peoples of the United States and Iran. PAAIA has been receiving inquiries from its membership and Iranian Americans throughout the United States as to whether the enforcement of the Executive Order will strain relations between the United States and Iran, thereby undermining mission of promoting greater understanding between the lranian and American people. Members are concerned that ?the Executive Order creates a negative stigma on Iranian Americans, directly conflicting with the missions and purposes of Which stands for the positive impact of Iranian Americans. 109. PAAIA has expended resources to assist its members who have been adversely affected by the issuance and implementation of the Executive Order. One member, an Iranian 3t} American, internationally renowned doctor who immigrated to the United States after the lranian government imprisoned him for several years for unjust and political reasons, sought help in ?nding legal assistance for his brother. His brother, despite having a valid visa and being a visiting scholar at an American university, was not allowed to reenter the United States this week after visiting their elderly father in Iran. 1 10. Enforcement of the Executive Order has already caused PAAIA to divert substantial resources to combating the Executive Order?s discriminatory effects, and will continue to do so. Since President Trump signed the Executive Order, PAALA has had to divert most of its resources to responding to media inquiries and requests about the impact of the Executive Order on Iranian Americans and their fainilies, providing guidance and educating the public on the impact of the Executive Order, and developing a strategy for how to respond to the Executive Order. As just one example, PAAIA scheduled an emergency telephone conference for concerned Iranian Americans with immigration and civil rights lawyers to provide its members and other Iranian Americans information about the Executive Order and how it might impact their lives. has also prepared several press releases and infonnational memoranda for its members concerned about the Executive Order. The day to day activities of PAAIA have shifted away from its regular programs and activities towards combating the negative and wrongful effects of the Executive Order on members and other Iranian Americans. 1 1 . Defendants? issuance and implementation of the Executive Order have forced . to divert its resources away from its nonnal programming and activities. For example, PAAIA was scheduled to launch a new fellowship program for lranianaAmerican youth, but was unable to do so. Similarly, the Executive Order forced PAAIA to postpone an event that was going to be hosted on behalf of an Iranian American running for local of?ce. PAAIA has also been unable to devote staff 31 time to activities such as planning for the organization?s upcoming annual event on Capitol Hill, fundraising for the organization, informational and networking events for members, and electioneering activities for the organization. 2. Individual Plaintiffs . 1 12. Ali Asaei is an Iranian citizen and has an F?l student visa with Optional Practical Training (OPT) status, which permits him to work in the United States until June 2018. Mr. Asaei has a master?s degree in electrical engineering and works at the Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene. He completes MRI processing of brains and works on a project ?inded by the National Institutes of Health that aims to learn enough about the brain to predict the occurrence of Alzheimer?s, Parkinson?s, and other diseases. He has not seen his mother and sister since 2014, or his brother or father since 2013. His parents petitioned for nonimmigrant visas to visit the United States and had a visa appointment at the U.S. Embassy in Dubai scheduled for February 15, 2017. As a result of the Executive Order, the U.S. Embassy in Dubai noti?ed Mr. Asaei?s parents that their visa appointment had been cancelled. Under the terms of the Executive Order, it is unlikely that Mr. Asaei will be able to extend or apply for a new work authorization when his current OPT status expires. If the Executive'Order continues to be enforced, he will be prevented from seeing his family, and will likely be forced to quit his job and leave the United States permanently upon the expiration of his OPT status or earlier. 113. Plaintiff Omicl Moghimi is a dual citizen of the United States and Iran, currently residing in En?eld, New Hampshire. His wife is currently living in Iran and has completed two years of her undergraduate studies in mechanical engineering at Tehran University in Karaj, Iran. Mr. Moghimi and his wife are both Muslim. Mr. Moghimi petitioned for an 1R1 visa for his wife to be able to permanently move to the United States to join him, and the petition was granted in 32 December 2015. In December 2016, Mr. Moghirni received an acknowledgment letter from the National Visa Center notifying him and his wife that a visa interview had, been scheduled at the US. Embassy or Consulate in Abu Dhabi on February 2, 2017. in reliance on the interview appointment, Mr. Moghimi purchased ?ights and made hotel reservations for his wife and mother-in~law to travel from Iran-to Abu Dhabi. Mr. Mcghimi?s wife dropped out of her undergraduate program in anticipation of moving to the United States. The day after the Executive Order was signed, Mr. Moghirni received an email from stating that his wife?s interview appointment had been cancelled. On January 29, 2017, Mr. Moghimi received another email stating in part, ?[ilt' you are a national or dual?national of one of these countries, please do not attempt to schedule a visa appointment, pay visa fees at this time, or attend your previously scheduled visa appointment.? Mr. Moghirni?s wife and mother-in-law have ?own back to Iran. If the Executive Order is enforced, Mr. Moghimi faces inde?nite separation from his wife. 114. Plaintiff Shiva Hissong is a citizen of iran and a law?il permanent resident of the United States. She is a Muslim. Her parents reside in Tehran, Iran. Her father has been ill with Parkinson?s disease for the past ten years, and his condition has signi?cantly deteriorated in the last three to four years. In October 20in, her parents were able to get a visa appointment at the United States Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia. The interviewing of?cer infomed Ms. Hissong?s parents that they had to undergo an administrative process that would take approximately three to six months. Ms. Hissong?s son was born on November 28, 20l6. A?er the signing of the Executive Order on January 27, 2017, Ms. Hissong?s parents? visa applications are on hold or may already have been denied, and they will not be able to meet their grandson as originally planned. Ms. Hissong has been instructed by her immigration attorney not to leave the country 33 due to the Executive Order. Given her father?s deteriorating health, Ms. Hissong is concerned that he and her mother will not be able to meet her son. In addition, due to the Executive Order, Ms. Hissong and her husband have cancelled a previously planned and purchased trip to visit Amsterdam, the Netherlands. US. Plaintiff John Doe #l is an iranian citizen who entered the United States on an F?l student visa and is currently residing in New York City. He is in his second year ofa program in ?nance and economics. His wife, who has a in electrical engineering, has an visa for spouses of students. John Doe #1 and his wife ?ew to has to visit family in December 2016. John Doe it] returned to the United States on or about January 22, 2016, and his wife purchased a ticket to ?y ?'oni Iran to New York on January 28, 20! 7. As a result of the Executive Order, John Doe #1 ?5 wife was prevented from boarding either her January 28, 2017 ?ight or a subsequent January 30, 2017 flight to the United States. His wife was not able to return to the United States until on or about February 4, 2017, but both of them are now unable to leave and are separated from their family. She will now be unable to ?nd employment because, due to the Executive Order, she cannot pursue work authorization or a path to citizenship. 16. Plaintifi?lohn Doe #2 is a dual citizen of Iran and the United States and works as a radiology technologist at an urgent care center in Virginia. His mother, who is a lawful permanent resident, and his father, who is a U.S. citizen, live in Tehran, lran. His father is unable to travel due to his poor health. John Doe #2?5 sister also lives in Tehran. She applied for a green card over eleven years ago and has been waiting for it to be approved. John Doe #2?5 mother-in-law and father-in-law received immigrant visas in December 2016 and were planning to move to the United States in March 2017. They are ?fty-nine and sixty-nine years old, respectively. When President Trump signed the Executive Order, John Doe #2 advised his 3% mother-inwlaw and father~in~law to drop everything and catch a ?ight to the United States. On January 28, 2017, John Doe #Z?s mother-inulaw and father?in?law boarded a ?ight from Tehran to the United States, with a layover in Amsterdam. Upon arrival in Amsterdam, his mother-low law and father~in-law were prevented ?'om hoarding their connecting flight to the United States due to the Executive Order. They slept in the Amsterdam airport for four nights. At the airport, they were put into contact with the MBA. The IABA staff helped them in multiple waysmfor example, by calling senators in Virginia and Maryland on their behalf After four days, John Doe #2?5 motherein-law and father-in-law were able to board a flight to Dulles airport. However, because they are visa holders, they will be unable to travel back to Iran to tend to business matters that they leit un?nished when they abruptly left the United States. In addition, due to the Executive Order, John Doe #2?3 sister?s green card application is likely on inde?nite hold or has already been denied and she will be unable to move to the United States. 1 17. Plaintiff John Doe #3 is an Iranian citizen who holds a Phi) in pharmacology as well as a from a leading university in Iran. His wife is also an tranian citizen. He was awarded a fellowship by his university to study at a top?ranked hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. The fellowship has a term of four years and allows John Doe #3 to conduct research diabetes on the heart. In connection with his fellowship, John Doe #3 petitioned for a .I- 1 visa, and petitioned for a 5-2 visa at the same time. Alter a visa interview, John Doe #3?5 visa was approved and he received an email instructing him to bring his passport to the US. Consulate in Dubai for his visa to be issued. However, when he travelled to the US. Consulate on February 1, 2017, consular of?cials told him that they were prohibited from issuing his visa due to the Executive Order. John Doe #3 travelled back to Tehran. He and his wife are still in Tehran. At present, the Executive Order makes it impossible for him to travel to the United 35 States and to participate in his fellowship. He has been in close contact with the physician who runs the lab in which he was planning to work, and has learned that they would have great dif?culty ?nding a suitable replacement on short notice. The physician is very eager for John Doe #3 to some to the United States and will consider it a great loss if he is. unable to do so. 118. Plaintiff John Doe #4 is an Iranian citizen. He and his familymlane Does and #7m?ed Iran three years ago due to fears of political persecution. They have been accepted to the US. Refugee Admissions Program and have been approved for resettlement in the United States. They are currently in Turkey awaiting safe passage to the United States. Arrangements were made to assist John Doe #4?5 family upon their arrival in the United States and to ?nd them a place to live in Seattle, Washington. John Doe #4?5 family was scheduled to ?y to the United States on January 30. 2017. However, as a result of the Executive Order, they were not permitted to ?y to the United States as planned. They are still stranded in Turkey and not scheduled to leave until Wednesday, February 8, 2017. If the Executive Order continues to be enforced, John Doe #4 and his family of re?lgees will be unable to come to the United States. 19. Jane Bee #5 is the sister of John Doe Her application to be admitted to the United States as a refugee has been approved by the US. government and she is awaiting safe passage to the United States. Due to the Executive Order she has been unable to enter. the United States. 120. Jane Doc #6 is the sister of John Doe Her application to be admitted to the United States as a refugee has been approved by the US. government and she is awaiting safe passage to the United States. Due to the Executive Order she is unable to enter the United States. 121. Jane Doe #7 is the mother of John Doe Her application to be admitted to the United States as a refugee has been approved by the US. government and she is awaiting safe 35 passage to the United States. Due to the Executive Order she has been unable to enter the United States. 122. Plaintifflohn Doe #5 is an Iranian citizen with a in mechanical engineering from the University of Buffalo. John Doe #5 entered the United States in September 2009 on an F?l visa. He is currently working as a postdoctoral fellow at a research foundation in New York. After he married his wife, an Iranian citizen, in 2013, she entered the United States on an visa for spouses ofF-l visa holders. John Doe son, Baby Doc was born in the United States in August 2016. Baby Bee #1 is a US. citizen. in January 2017, John Doe #5?5 wife and son travelled to iran to introduce Baby Doc #1 to his family in Iran. John Doc wife intended to stay in iron for a few months, and John Doc #5 purchased an April 4, 2017 plane ticket for her return to the United States with Baby Doc John Doc #5 stayed in the United States. Before his wife left for Iran, John Doc #5 scheduled an appointment at the US. consulate in Dubai for January 17, 2017, for her to apply for a new visa. The US. consulate approved her visa request the same day; however, the visa needed to go through administrative processing before it could be issued. On January 26, 2017, John Doe #5 received an email from the US. consulate stating that his wife?s F-2 visa was ready to be issued and asking his wife to bring her passport to the US. consulate. John Doe #5?3 wife made arrangements for an agency in Iran to take her passport to the consulate in Dubai and get her visawa process commonly used by individuals in Iran. However, because of the Executive Order, the U.S. consulate re?ised to issue. the ?2 visa to his wife. Although John Doc #5 and his wife have been in contact with the US. consulate, his wife?s visa has not yet been issued. 1f the Executive Order continues to be enforced, Baby Doc #1 and his mother will not be able to return to the United States. Baby Doc #1 is too young to travel on his own. In addition, John Doe #5 is unable to go to Iran and bring his son home because he has a substantial risk of being barred from reentry into the United States due to his status as a visa holder. if John Doc #5 does choose to leave the United States to reunite with his wife and Baby Doe he will risk losing his job. 123. Plaintiff John Doc #6 is an Iranian citizen. He, his wife, and two sons were recently selected for a diversity visa through the State Department lottery. On or about January 26, 2017, his family received visas to travel to the United States and booked ?ights to the United States on January 29, 2617, the earliest ?ight they were able to get The family intends to settle down near ?Tampa Bay, Florida, where they have close friends. Their visas are set to expire in July 2017. As a result of the Executive Order, John Doe #6 and his family had to cancel their January 29, 2017 ?ight to the United States, after learning that Iranian citizens were not being allowed to board planes even if they had a valid visa. John Doc #6 and his wife were also concerned that they would be stranded or detained in an airport with their two young children. John Doc #6 works in the oil and gas industry and was laid off in 2015. He was concerned about being able to continue to provide for his family and decided it would be best to continue working after the Executive?Order prevented him and his family from ?ying to the United States on January 29, 2017. John Doc #6 was sent for work to an offshore oil rig about 6 hours off the coast of Southern Iran. A fevv days later, he learned that the Executive Order had been temporarily stayed due to the emergency ruling of a federal court in the United States, and thus lranian citizens with valid visas were being allowed to enter the United States. He immediately quit his job, intending to meet his family in Iran so that they can travel together to the United States as soon as possible. However, because of the nature of his work, he cannot leave the oil rig until his replacement arrives. John Doc #6 and his wife do not want to be separated, and thus his wife and two sons are currently in Malaysia waiting for John Doc #6 to leave the oil rig so 38 Ke??gfi?? that they can all meet in Iran and travel to the United States. John Doe #6 and his family have sold their possessions, packed their belongings, and have beenilooking forward to creating a new - life in the United States; they will be devastated if they miss this opportunity. 124. Plaintiff John Doe #7 is an lranian citizen currently living in Turkey and seeking to be admitted to the United States as a refugee. He has been in a loving committed relationship with his male partner, John Doe for many years. John Doe #7 grew up in a Muslim household in Iran. However, the Muslim community has not been accepting of his sexual orientation. When they were living in Iran, John Doc #7 and John D06 #8 experienced harassment from the Iranian people stemming from religious intolerance from same-sex couples. On several occasions, their neighbors reported them to the Iranian police because they were two men living together. John Doc #7 had heard of Iranian homosexual men being arrested and beaten in hanian prisons. He and John Doc #8 were forced to move at least three different times because either the landlord or neighbors complained. Bee to the constant harassment and their resulting fear, John Doc #7 and John Doc #8 were forced to ?ee from iron to Turkey, where they have been living in exile for 27 months. They live in a small town where many people do not accept their relationship and they live in constant fear of violence against them. John Bee #7 and John Doe #8 applied for refugee status with the Office of the UN High Commissioner on Refugees. Alter a interview and vetting process, UNHCR determined their refugee status, gave them documentation of that determination, and referred them to the US. Refugee Admissions Program. Their applications are pending with the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. As a result of the Executive Order, it is less likely that John Doe #7 will be admitted to the US. Refugee Admissions Program. 39 125. Plainti?? John Bee #8 is the partner of John Doc Like John Doe he was raised in a Muslim family in Iran but was later rejected by the Muslim community due to his sexual orientation. John Doe #8 has been diagnosed in colitis and experiences signi?cant physical pain on a daily basis. Due to the sub-standard health conditions in which he and John Doe #7 live, his health condition is worsening. He needs to go to a country where he can receive adequate medical care. Since the Executive Quiet was signed, the anxiety and uncertainty experienced by John Doc #7 and John Doc #8 has caused John Doe #8?5 health to decline precipitously. As a resuit of the Executive Order, it is less likely that John Doc will be admitted to the US. Re?igee Admission Program. 126. Plaintiff Jane Doc #1 is a dual citizen of the United States and lran. She is a Muslim. She and her fiance, who is an Iranian nationai currently living in iron, got engaged in October 2015. With the assistance of an attorney, Jane Doe #1 and her fiance submitted a petition for a K?l visa and in October 2016, Jane Doc #1 and her ?ance traveled to Abu Dhabi for an immigrant visa interview. A Kai visa requires that a foreign national marry his or her U.S. citizen petitioner within ninety days ofentering the United States. The visa was approved, and Jane Doc #1 and her ?ance were advised that additional administrative processing could take up to six months. Prior to the Executive Order, Jane Doc #1 and her ?ance had been planning a wedding ceremony in the United States, and have Spent thousands of dollars to secure a wedding venue and vendors. If the Executive Order is enforced, Jane Bee #1 ?s ?ance will be unable to enter the United States and Jane Doe and her husband will be unable to get married as planned. 127. Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 is a dual citizen of Iran and the United States. In 2016, she petitioned for a student visa on behalf of her sister, who is currently in Iran. The visa issued 46 approximately four months ago. Jane Doe #2 purchased a ?ight for her sister to depart Iran on February 15, 2017, and spent time and resources preparing for her sister?s arrival in the United States. Under the terms of the Executive Order, Jane Doe #2?5 sister will be prevented ??om boarding ?ights departing Iran and/or will be prevented from entering the United States due to her status as a visa holder from iran and will be unable to join Jane Doc #2 in the United States. 128. Plaintiiflane Doc #3 is a dual citizen of iran and the United States. In December 2003, she petitioned for an immigrant visa on behalf of her only brother. Six years later, she and her brother received noti?cation that the petition had been approved and sent to the National Visa Center for further processing. His visa issued on December 19, 2016. Jane Doe #3?5 brother ended his lease in Iran and began living with a friend in preparation to move to the United States. Jane Doe #3 purchased a ?ight for her brother on Turkish Airlines to depart on March 5, 203 7. Alter the Executive Order was signed, Jane Doc #3 immediately purchased a ticket for her brother to depart Iran at 1:30 am on January 28, 2017, the day following the Executive Order. Upon arriving in Abu Dhabi, Jane Doe #3?5 brother and fellow visa holders and lawful permanent residents were informed that they were the ?rst group being detained under the terms of the Executive Order. They were escorted to a room and detained for 19 hours. They were subsequently instructed to make travel arrangements back to Iran and to contact the US. Embassy in about three months for any updates. Jane Doc #3 has been very depressed since her mother passed away last year, and the only thing she had been looking forward to was being reunited with her brother. When her brother was prevented from entering the United States, she became extremely anxious, stressed, unable to eat and sleep, and nervous. A?er the Executive Order'was temporarily stayed due to the emergency ruling of a federal court, Jane Doe #3 41 purchased yet another plane ticket for her brother. Her brother ?nally arrived at LAX on or about. February 5, 2017. 129. Plaintiff Jane Doc #4 is an Iranian citizen who was granted asylum in the United States in 2016. She is a member of E??an-e-Halgeh, also referred to as the circle of mysticism. She received asylum on the basis of fear of religious persecution; members of her spiritual group have been killed by Iranian of?cials and she is unable to return to Iran. Jane Doe #4 has no family in the United States and almost all of her family lives in iron. Before the Executive Order was signed, her parents applied for a tourist visa and were making travel arrangements to visit her in the United States. In addition, Jane Doe #4 was planning to travel to Amsterdam this year. The Executive Order has forced Jane Doe #43; parents to cancel their plans to visit her in the United States because they will no longer be able to obtain a tourist visa. Jane Doe #4 is unable to travel outside of the United States as a result of the Executive Qrder because she fears she will be unable to reenter. if the Executive Order is enforced, lane Doe #4 will be unable to travel outside the United States and she will be separated from her family inde?nitely. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT i (Violation of the First Amendment - Clause) (All Plaintiffs against all Qefendants) 130. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if hilly set forth herein. 131. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits?the government action that has the purpose of preferring one religion over another or discriminating on the basis of religion. McCreary Cry. v. ACLU of Ky, 545 U.S. 844, 860454 (2005). d2 132. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from enacting policies that ?differentiate[] among religions.? Hernandez v. C.I.R., 490 US. 680, 695 (1989) (citing Larson v. Variants, 456 US. 228 (1982)). 133. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from excessive entanglement with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US. 602, 61243 (1971). 134. Based on the language of the Executive Order and ?resident Trump?s own statements, 3 and 5 of the Executive Order seek to disfavor lslarn and favor Christianity. President Trump speci?cally stated that he would prevent Muslims from immigrating to the United States, and in this Executive Order, he did so. 135. Section 5 of the Executive Order ?differentiates among religions? on the basis of their relative size. Hernandez v. 490 US. at 695. 136. Section 5 of the Executive Order excessively entangles the government with religion by forcing the government to determine which religions or sects qualify as ?a minority religion in [a re?tgee?s] country of nationality.? 137. The Executive Order is not narrowly tailored to ?irther any compelling governmental interest. l38. The Executive Order, and the Defendants? implementation and enforcement of the order, violate the Plaintiffs? rights under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 139. This violation of Plaintiffs? First Amendment caused by the Executive Order and Defendants? implementation and enforcement of it, has harmed Plaintiffs. 140. The Executive Order, and Defendants? implementation and enforcement of it, have forced organizational Plaintiffs to divert resources from their regular activities and have undermined organizational Plaintiffs? ability to ful?ll their missions. 141. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief, the Plaintiffs will continue to suffer harm from the Executive Order and Defendants? implementation and enforcement of it. 142. Plaintiffs have no adequate or available administrative remedy; in the alternative, any effort to obtain an administrative remedy would be futile. 143. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. 144. As a result, the Executive Order violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US. Constitution and should be set aside. COUNT IE (Vieiation of the Fifth Amendment Equal Protection: Discrimination on the Basis of Religion) (All Plaintiffs against all Defendants) 145. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 146. Plaintiffs who have been granted lawful entry into the United States, including Plaintiffs Ali Asaei, Omid Moghimi, Shiva Hissong, John Doe John Bee John Bee Baby Doe #l Jane Doe Jane Doc Jane Bee Jane Doe are entitled to the protections of the Fifth Amendment. 147. Persons who seek to apply for asylum in the United States are entitled to the protections of the Fifth Amendment. 148. in enacting and implementing the Executive Order, Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of their religion in violation of the Equal Protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fi?h Amendment. 149. The Executive Order was substantially motivated by animus toward Muslims. 150. The Executive Order has a disparate impact on Muslims. The Executive Order is intended and designed to favor Christians. .44 152. Defendants? numerous pubiic calls fora ban on Muslim immigration demonstrate that the Executive Order is designed to have virtually exclusive impact on Muslims. 153. Defendants? overt statements singling out Muslims for exclusion ?irther reveal invidious discriminatory intent. I 154. Defendants? targeting of Plaintiffs based on religion is not narrowly tailored and serves no compelling state interest. 155. The Executive Order?s targeting of Plaintiffs based on religion is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. 156. Defendants? unconstitutional actions have caused and continue to cause Plaintiffs ongoing harm. 157. The Executive Order, and Defendants? implementation and enforcement of it, have forced organizational Plaintiffs to divert resources from their regular activities and have undermined organizational Plaintiffs? ability to ful?ll their missions. 158. Absent and declaratory relief, the Plaintiffs will continue to suffer harm frorn the Executive Order and Defendants? implementation and threatened enforcement of it. 159. Plaintiffs have no adequate or available administrative remedy; in the alternative, any effort to obtain an administrative remedy would be futile. 160. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. 161. As a result, the Executive Order violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the US. Constitution and should be set aside. 45 CGUNT ill (Violation of the Fifth Amendment - Equal Protection: Discrimination on the Basis of National Origin) (All Plaintiffs against all Defendants) 162. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 163. Plaintiffs who have been granted lawful entry into the United States, including Plaintiffs Ali Asaei, Omid Moghimi, Shiva Hissong, John Doc John Doe John Doe Baby Doc Jane Doc Jane Boo Jane Doc Jane Doc are entitled to the protections of the Filth Amendment. 164. PerSons who seek to apply for asylum in the United States are entitled to the protections of the Fifth Amendment. 165. Defendants? enactment, implementation, and threatened enforcement of the Executive Order discriminate against Plaintiffs on the basis of their national origin in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Filth Amendment. 166. The Executive Order singles out nationals of speci?c countries, including Iran, for exclusion from the United States, regardless of their individual attributes. Plaintiffs are excluded solely because they are Iranian nationals. 167. The Executive Order?s targeting of Plaintiffs based on national origin is not narrowly tailored to support a compelling government interest. 168. The Executive Order?s targeting of Plaintiffs based on national origin is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. . 169. Defendants? unconstitutional actions have caused and continue to cause Petitioners ongoing harm. on 170. The Executive Order, and Defendants? implementation and enforcement of it, have forced organizational Plaintiffs to divert resources from their regular activities and have undermined organizational Plaintiffs? ability to ful?ll their missions. 1?71 . Absent injunctive and declaratory relief, the Plaintiffs will continue to suffer harm from the Executive Order and Defendants? implementation and threatened enforcement of it. 172. Plaintiffs have no adequate or available administrative remedy; in the alternative, any effort to obtain an administrative remedy would be futile. 173. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. 174. As a result, the Executive Order violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and should be set aside. COUNT IV ("Violation of the Fifth Amendment - Due Process) (All Plaintiffs against all Befendants) 175. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 176. Plaintiffs who are US. citizens or who have been granted lawful entry into the United States, including Plaintiffs Ali Asaei, 0mid Moghimi, Shiva Hissong, John Doe John Doe John Doe Baby Doe Jane Doe Jane Doe Jane Doe Jane Doe #4,:and many of the organizational Plaintiffs? members, are entitled to the protections of the i?h Amendment. Persons who seek asylum in the United States are entitled to the protections of the Fifth Amendment. 178. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the Government from depriving Plaintiffs of their liberty interests without due process of law. 179. In issuing and implementing the Executive Order, Defendants have failed to provide constitutionally minimum notice and process, in violation of Plaintiffs? procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. 180. In issuing and implementing the Executive Order, Defendants have violated the statutory rights and procedures created by Congress for Plaintiffs. I 381. Defendants have acted without any reasonable justification in the service of a legitimate governmental objective, in violation of Plainti??s? due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. 182. in refusing to permit Plaintiffs who are visa holders or law?il permanent residents to travel abroad without a certain ability to re-enter the United States, the Executive Order deprives Plaintiffs of their protected liberty interest in travel without due process. 183. In preventing Plaintiffs who are (1.8. citizens or residents living in the United ?States and who have family in Iran from visiting their family or enabling their family to visit them, the Executive Order deprives Plaintiffs of their protected liberty interest in family integrity without due process. l84. In preventing Plaintiffs who are US. citizens married to Iranian nationals from having their spouses join them, the Executive Order infringes on the fundamental right to marry. l85. In refusing to permit Iranian nationals to apply for asylum before returning them to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing they would be subject to torture, Defendants have, without due process, deprived Plaintiffs of their protected rights under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, implemented in the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 8 U.S.C. 123] note and implementing regulations, sea 8 C.F.R. 208.30, 1003.42. 48 186. Defendants? unlawful actions have caused and continue to cause ongoing harm to all Plaintiffs. 187. The Executive Order, and Defendants? implementation and enforcement of it, have forced organizational Plaintiffs to divert resources from their regular activities and have undermined organizational Plaintiffs? ability to ?iifill their missions. 188. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief, the Plaintiffs will continue to suffer harm lions the Executive Order and Defendants? implementation and threatened enforcement of it. 189. Plaintiffs have no adequate or available administrative remedy; in the alternative, any effort to obtain an administrative remedy would be futile. 190. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. 191. As a result, the Executive Order violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the US. Constitution and should be set aside. COUNT (Violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. Z??ilbb} (Individual I?laintii?fs against all Defendants) 192. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 193. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides that the federal government ?shall not substantially burden a person?s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability? unless application of the burden to the person is ?in furtherance of a compelling govemrnental interest?; and (2) ?the least restrictive means of ?irthering that compelling governmental interest.? 42 U.S.C. . 194. RFRA applies to the Executive Order and its implementation. 49 195. Certain individual Plaintiffs? adherence to Islam constitutes an exercise of religious freedom. 196. The Executive Order imposes a substantial burden on certain visa holders? exercise of religion by curtailing their ability to travel freely to and from the United States. Those who are currently in the United States cannot leave for fear of being denied reentry. This disability burdens the exercise of religious and familial duties, including pilgrimages to Mecca or providing care to relatives residing abroad, which is a religious duty under the Qur?an. 197. The Executive Order penalizes the Plaintiffs? exercise of religion by denying them an equal share of the rights, bene?ts, and privileges enjoyed by members of other faiths. 198. The Executive Order exposes Plaintiffs to arrest and removal proceedings as a consequence of their religious exercise. 199. The Executive Order is not narrowly tailored to advance a Compelling goverrunental interest. 200. Plaintiffs have been harmed by the Executive Order?s violation of their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 201. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief, the Plaintiffs will continue to be harmed by the Executive Order. 202. Plaintiffs have no adequate or available administrative remedy; in the alternative, any effort to obtain an administrative remedy would be futile. 203. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. 204. As a result, the Executive Order violates RFRA and should be set aside. CGUNT VI (Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act) (All Plaintiffs against all Defendants exeept Defendant Donald J. Trump) I 205. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 206. The Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Justice are ?agencies? under the APA. See 5 U.S.C. 551(1). 207, in implementing the Executive Order, Defendants have acted contrary to 8 U.S.C. 1 152(a)(l)(A) by discriminating on the basis of national origin in the issuance of immigrant visas. 208. ?In implementing the Executive Order, Defendants have acted contrary to regulations, rules, policies, and practices that require individualized detenninations regarding eligibility in the processing and revocation of visas, including 22 CPR. 40.6; 22 C.F.R. part 40, subparts 8 ORR. 205.2; 9 FAM 301.1-2; 9 FAM 403.1 16(8); 9 FAM 209. In implementing the Executive order, Defendants have altered existing rules adopted through notice-and-comment without undertaking a new notice-and-comment process, in violation of the APA's procedural requirements. 210. in implementing the Executive Order, Defendants have failed to provide a reasoned explanation for departing from rules and policies adopted without notice and comment, in violation of the procedural requirements. 211. Defendants? violations of the APA in implementation of the Executive Order have harmed Plaintiffs. 5i 212. The Executive Order, and Defendants? implementation and enforcement of it, have forced organizational Plaintiffs to divert resources from their regular activities and have undermined organizzitional Plaintiffs? ability to ful?ll their missions. 213. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief, the Plaintiffs will continue to suffer harm from the Executive Order and Defendants? implementation and threatened enforcement of it. 214. Plaintiffs have no adequate or available administrative remedy; in the alternative, any effort to obtain an administrative remedy would be futile. 215. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. 216, This Court accordingly should declare that Defendants? implementation of the Executive Order is unlawful and set it aside. PRAYER FOR WHEREFORE, all plaintiffs seek an order and judgment to: Deciare Sections 5(a) and 5(e) of the Executive Order contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States; (2) Enjoin Defendants from enforcing 5(c) and 5(e) of the Executive Order, including at any United States border or point of entry; applying 5(a) and 5(e) of the Executive Order to deny, revoke, restrict or cancel anyimmigrant or nonimmigrant visa; applying 303), 5(a) and 502:) of the Executive Order to" deny or suspend entry or admission to any person; applying 503), 5(c) and 5(e) of the Executive Order to prohibit any person from applying for any bene?t under the Immigration and Nationatity Act of 1965 denying any person subject to the Executive Order access to legat counsel of his or her choice; applying Sections 5(6) and 5(e) of the Executive Order to instruct any airline or other common carrier to deny passage to any person; imposing or threatening to impose any ?nancial penalty on any airline or other common carrier for allowing passage to any person covered by 5(a) and 5(e) of the Executive Order; (3) Require Defendants to provide written guidance to employees, contractors and agents of US. Customs and Border Protection and any other US. government entity necessary to ensure full and timely compliance with all terms of the order to be entered by the Court; (4) Require Defendants to rescind any guidance, directive, memorandum or statement interpreting or applying the Executive Order that con?icts with any term of the order to be: entered by the Court; (5) Require Defendants to post a copy of the written guidance required under paragraph (3) on government websites including stategov; (6) Require Defendants to update all relevant public guidance, documentation, and FAQS to re?ect the terms of the order to be entered by the Court; (7) Require Defendants to reissue any and all physically cancelled visas; .53 (8) Require Defendants to pay reasonable attorneys? fees and costs pursuant to 42 [1.513. 1988; (9) Any other relief necessary to cure the violations or that justice may otherwise require. Dated: February 8, 2017 Cyrus Mehri (D.C. Bar 420970) MEHRI SKALET, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 822-5100 (202) 822-4997 (fax) U.W. Clement (pro izac vice motion forthcoming) MEHRI SKALET, PLLC 5202 Mountain Ridge Parkway Birmingham, AL 35222 (205) 837-2898 (205) 798-2577 (fax) Kristen Clarke (DC. Bar 973885) Jon Greenbaum (11C. Bar 489887) COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 140! New York Ave., NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 662-8600 (202) 783?0857 (fax) greenbaum@lawyerscommitteeorg 51$ Respectful] submitted, ?at/(Ad John A. Freedman (11c. Bar 453075) David P. Gersch (QC. Bar 367469) R. Stanton Jones (RC. Bar 987088) Nancy L. Perkins (DC. Bar 421574) Ronald A. Schechter (DC. Bar 245019) Robert N. Weiner (BC. Bar 298133) Sonia Tabriz (DC. Bar 1025020) Stephen K. Wirth (QC. Bar 1034038) ARNOLD PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 942-5000 (202) 942?5999 (fax) john.freedman@apks.com Chrismpher M. Odell (pro hac vice motion forthcoming) ARNOLD PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 576-2400 (713) 576-2499 (fax) Counselfor Plainnj?