No. 17A-_______ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _______________ IN RE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. _______________ APPLICATION FOR A STAY PENDING DISPOSITION OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND REQUEST FOR AN IMMEDIATE ADMINISTRATIVE STAY _______________ NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov (202) 514-2217 ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioners (defendants in the district court, and mandamus petitioners in the court of appeals) are the United States of America; Donald J. Trump, President of the United States; the United States Department of Homeland Security; Elaine C. Duke, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security; and Jefferson B. Sessions III, Attorney General of the United States. Respondent in this Court is the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Respondents also include the Regents of the University of California; Janet Napolitano, President of the University of California; the State of California; the State of Maine; the State of Maryland; the State of Minnesota; the City of San Jose; Dulce Garcia; Miriam Gonzalez Avila; Saul Jimenez Suarez; Viridiana Chabolla Mendoza; Norma Ramirez; Jirayut Latthivongskorn; the County of Santa Clara; and Service Employees International Union Local 521 (collectively plaintiffs in district court, and real parties in interest in the court of appeals). IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _______________ No. 17A-_______ IN RE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. _______________ APPLICATION FOR A STAY PENDING DISPOSITION OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND REQUEST FOR AN IMMEDIATE ADMINISTRATIVE STAY _______________ Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of this Court and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the President of the United States, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General, respectfully applies for a stay of orders entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on September 22, 2017 (Pet. App. 21a-25a), October 17, 2017 (Pet. App. 26a-44a), and November 20, 2017 (Pet. App. 45a46a), pending the disposition of the government’s petition for a writ of mandamus, filed concurrently with this application, and any further proceedings in this Court. Petitioners request that these orders be stayed to the extent they require the government, in these five related suits for judicial review of agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), to (1) “promptly locate and compile” for inclusion in an expanded administrative record, or for in camera review, thousands of “additional 2 materials” that were considered by persons “anywhere in the government” who gave written or oral advice to the Acting Secretary about the challenged agency action; (2) publicly file the “augmented administrative record” and a privilege log describing all withheld documents by December 22, 2017, and provide copies of all withheld documents for in camera review; (3) publicly file 35 documents that are protected by multiple privileges, including White House documents subject to executive privilege, on December 22, 2017; and (4) resume pending discovery, including broad document discovery and depositions of senior government officials and advisors, on December 22, 2017. 21a-44a. Pet. App. 45a-46a; see id. at Petitioners also request an immediate administrative stay pending the Court’s consideration of this stay application. The five related suits at issue here were brought by respondents in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in order to challenge the Acting Secretary’s decision to wind down the discretionary enforcement policy known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). policy, DHS had determined, as an exercise of Under that prosecutorial discretion, to forbear for a particular period from seeking removal of certain undocumented aliens brought to this country as children. After the Attorney General informed the Acting Secretary that he believed the DACA policy was unlawful and likely to be imminently enjoined by the same federal courts that had enjoined materially 3 indistinguishable policies, see Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D. Tex.), aff’d, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (per curiam), the Acting Secretary chose to wind down the policy in an orderly fashion, rather than risk having a court order bring it to an immediate and potentially chaotic end. As explained in the government’s motion to dismiss pending in district court, judicial review of the Acting Secretary’s discretionary enforcement decision to wind down the DACA policy is precluded by both the APA, see 5 U.S.C. 701(a)(2); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985), and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), see 8 U.S.C. 1252(g); Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 483-485 & n.9 (1999) (AADC). Even if the Acting Secretary’s decision were reviewable, however, the mode of judicial review in an APA action is well established. “[T]he focal point for judicial review should be the administrative record already in existence, not some new record made initially in the reviewing court.” 138, 142 (1973) (per curiam). Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. If “the record before the agency does not support the agency action,” the proper course is “to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.” Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985). And because it is “not the function of the court to probe the mental processes” of the agency, Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 4 1, 18 (1938), administrative indisputably deliberative record not and, established materials except here, form in are no rare also part of the circumstances not subject to discovery. On October 20, 2017, the government filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the court of appeals seeking reversal of the first two district court orders cited above, which authorize broad discovery and order a vast expansion of the administrative record. The government also sought an emergency stay of those orders pending mandamus review. On October 24, the court of appeals granted the government’s request for an emergency stay. C.A. Order. 10/24/17 On November 16, however, a divided panel of the court of appeals (Wardlaw & Gould, JJ.; Watford, J., dissenting) denied the mandamus petition and lifted the previous stay. 1a-20a. See Pet. App. The district court immediately issued an order directing the government to file the expanded administrative record and privilege log by November 22. See D. Ct. Doc. 188 (Nov. 16, 2017). 1 On November 19, 2017, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 23.3, the government moved in district court for a further stay of Citations are to the district court docket in Regents of the University of California v. United States Department of Homeland Security, No. 17-cv-5211 (N.D. Cal.). 1 5 discovery and record expansion pending disposition of a petition to be filed in this Court, or alternatively, for an administrative stay pending the filing of a stay application in this Court. 2 Unusually, respondents then advanced their own request for a stay, which they indicated was intended to obviate this Court’s review. In response, the district court entered an order that stays discovery only until December 22, 2017 and “allow[s] the government an additional month [i.e., until December 22] to compile and to file the augmented administrative record.” Pet. App. 45a-46a. The court directed the government, in the meantime, to “promptly locate and compile the additional materials and be ready to file the fully augmented record by December 22,” ibid., and otherwise denied a stay, see id. at 46a. The standards for granting a stay are readily met in this case. As explained in the government’s petition for a writ of mandamus (at 18-32), the district court’s orders mandating discovery and expansion of the administrative record were in excess of the district court’s authority under the APA and violate fundamental principles of administrative law. As Judge Watford recognized, clear these orders “constitute[d] ‘a abuse of In addition, on November 17, 2017, the government moved in the court of appeals for a stay of that court’s November 16 order pending this Court’s review. The court of appeals dismissed the motion, concluding that its “order denying mandamus relief was effective immediately upon its issuance” and that jurisdiction “now lies with the district court.” Addendum, infra (Add.), 2. 2 6 discretion’” and present a “classic case [for] mandamus relief.” Pet. App. 16a, 20a (citation omitted). The balance of harms weighs strongly in favor of an immediate stay. Unless this Court stays the district court’s orders, the government will be forced to continue processing and undertaking “careful and methodical page-by-page review” of hundreds of thousands of documents collected from the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice and the White House itself, including a large number of deliberative or otherwise privileged materials. Addendum, infra, (Add.) 33; see also id. at 20-21, 23-25. In just three weeks (i.e., on December 22), the government must not only file an expanded administrative record and a privilege log pertaining to potentially thousands of documents, but also furnish in camera all such privileged materials. Moreover, on December 22, the government must publicly disclose 35 privileged documents -- including several documents originating in the White House, see id. at 26 -- as to which the district court summarily overruled or disregarded all applicable privileges, including deliberativeprocess, attorney-client, and executive privileges, without even providing an opportunity for briefing or argument. Absent a stay, the government will also be required to respond to respondents’ pending discovery requests, which to date (in conjunction with requests in related litigation) have not only implicated the collection for potential review of roughly 1.6 7 million documents from DHS and 90,000 documents from DOJ, see Add. 20, 32, but also have included demands upon multiple senior government officials, including the Acting Secretary herself, to sit for depositions designed to probe the informing the Acting Secretary’s decision. mental processes Given the immediate record-compilation burdens imposed by the district court’s orders, and in light of the looming December 22 deadline for record expansion, discovery, and public disclosure of privileged documents, an immediate stay is warranted pending this Court’s further review. STATEMENT 1. Secretary As explained in the petition (at 2), the INA charges the of Homeland Security “with the enforcement” of federal immigration laws. see also 6 U.S.C. 202(3) and (5). administration and 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1); As a practical matter, the government cannot remove every removable alien, and a “principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.” 396 (2012). Like Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, other agencies exercising enforcement discretion, DHS thus must engage in “a complicated balancing of a number of factors which are peculiarly within its expertise.” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). 2. On June 15, 2012, DHS announced the policy that has since become known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. 8 See Pet. App. 47a-51a. DACA made “deferred action” available to “certain who young children.” people Id. at 47a. were brought to this country as Deferred action is a practice in which the Secretary exercises discretion, “for humanitarian reasons or simply for [her] own convenience,” to notify an alien of a nonbinding decision to forbear from seeking his removal. Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 484 (1999) (AADC). Under DACA, following a background check and other review, an alien could receive deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal. Pet. App. 49a-51a. DHS later expanded DACA and also created a similar policy known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). See Pet. App. 52a-60a. Texas and 25 other States brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking to enjoin DAPA and the expansion of DACA, and the district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction after finding a likelihood of success on claims that DAPA and the expansion of DACA violated the APA. v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591 (2015). Texas The Fifth Circuit affirmed the injunction, concluding that DAPA and expanded DACA likely violated both the APA and the INA, Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (2015), and this Court affirmed by an equally divided Court, United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (per curiam). 9 In June 2017, Texas and other plaintiff States from the Texas case announced their intention to amend their complaint to challenge the original DACA policy if it was not rescinded. On September 5, 2017, faced with the prospect of litigation attacking DACA on essentially the same grounds that succeeded in Texas, the Acting Secretary decided to wind down the remaining DACA policy in an orderly fashion. Rescission Memo See Pet. App. 61a-69a (Rescission Memo). states that “[t]aking into consideration The the Supreme Court’s and the Fifth Circuit’s rulings in the ongoing litigation,” as well as the Attorney General’s advice that DACA was unlawful and that further litigation would “likely * * * yield similar results,” “it is clear that the June 15, 2012 DACA program should be terminated.” Id. at 66a-67a. The Rescission Memo states, however, that in light of “complexities associated with winding down the program,” DHS will continue to “adjudicate certain requests for DACA.” Id. at 67a. Among other things, DHS has continued to “adjudicate -- on an individual, case by case basis -- properly filed pending DACA renewal requests * * * from current beneficiaries that have been accepted by the Department as of [September 5, 2017], and from current beneficiaries whose benefits will expire between [September 5, 2017] and March 5, 2018 that have been accepted by the Department as of October 5, 2017.” Id. at 67a-68a. In addition, DHS has “[w]ill not terminate the grants of previously issued deferred action” for the remaining 10 periods of those grants solely based on the Rescission Memo. Id. at 68a. 3. District Respondents brought these five suits in the Northern of California challenging the rescission of DACA. Collectively, respondents allege that the termination of DACA is unlawful because it violates the APA’s requirements for noticeand-comment rulemaking; is arbitrary and capricious; violates the Regulatory Flexibility respondents due process Act, and 5 U.S.C. equal principles of equitable estoppel. 601 et protection; seq.; and denies violates Similar challenges have also been brought in district courts in New York, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. 3 a. As explained in greater detail in the petition (at 6), the government explained at the outset of these actions that the suits were subject to threshold dismissal and that no discovery The litigation in New York has resulted in a similar series of district court orders authorizing immediate discovery and directing expansion of the administrative record. See Batalla Vidal v. Duke, No. 16-cv-4756, 2017 WL 4737280 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2017). The government filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Second Circuit, and on October 24, 2017, a panel of that court stayed discovery and record expansion pending both the district court’s adjudication of threshold “issues of jurisdiction and justiciability” and, in turn, the court of appeals’ decision on the mandamus petition. Order, In re Duke, No. 17-3345 (2d Cir.). On November 9, 2017, the district court granted in part, denied in part, and reserved decision in part on the government’s motion to dismiss, see Batalla Vidal v. Duke, No. 16-cv-4756, 2017 WL 5201116 (E.D.N.Y.), and the court of appeals has scheduled argument on the mandamus petition for December 14, 2017. 3 11 would be appropriate in these suits. the government’s objections and The district court overruled entered an order authorizing immediate expedited discovery, including depositions, document requests, requests for admission, and interrogatories. Pet. App. 21a-25a. On October 6, 2017, the government filed the administrative record, consisting of all non-deliberative materials considered by the Acting Secretary in reaching her decision to rescind DACA. D. Ct. Doc. 64. administrative documents and Respondents promptly moved to “complete” the record, demanding communications” the production concerning DACA of that “[a]ll were “circulated within DHS or DOJ” or exchanged by those agencies with “the White House”; that “evaluat[ed] the costs and benefits” or “discuss[ed] policy alternatives to rescinding DACA”; or that contained “notices, minutes, agendas, list[s] of attendees, [or] notes” relating to internal meetings about DACA. D. Ct. Doc. 65, at 9-10 (Oct. 9, 2017). On October 10, 2017, the district court ordered the government to file a “privilege log” by October 12, and to produce for in camera review on October 16 “hard copies of all emails, internal memoranda, and communications with the Justice Department on the subject of rescinding DACA.” D. Ct. Doc. 67. The government accordingly filed a privilege log listing the privileged documents from the Acting Secretary’s files and briefly identifying the bases 12 for privilege, see D. Ct. Doc. 71-2 (Oct. 12, 2017), and submitted copies of those documents for in camera review. When the district court later indicated that its order was intended to require in camera submission of “anything in the world that the agency has on the subject of rescinding DACA, whether it was with the Justice Department or not,” 10/16/17 Tr. 10, the government explained that it had not interpreted the order in that matter and that complying with such an order “would have been impossible” due to the “enormous” volume of materials involved, id. at 12. On October 17, 2017, the district court granted respondents’ motion in substantial part. See Pet. App. 26a-44a. The court held that the administrative record submitted by DHS was inadequate because it lacked materials from the White House and the Department of Justice, and from subordinates at DHS, reflecting the details of the government’s internal deliberative processes. 34a. The district court also held that the Id. at 32a- government had categorically “waived attorney-client privilege over any materials that bore on whether or not DACA was an unlawful exercise of executive power.” Id. at 39a. And the court summarily ruled, without briefing, that 35 of the privileged documents submitted for in camera review must be filed on the public docket, including several documents from executive privilege. the White House that are subject to Id. at 43a; see Add. 26-27 (describing several of these documents). 13 “Based on the foregoing,” the district court ordered the government to “complete the administrative record by adding to it all emails, letters, memoranda, notes, media items, opinions and other materials directly or indirectly considered in the final agency decision to rescind DACA,” including “(1) all materials actually seen or considered, however briefly, by Acting Secretary Duke in connection with” the challenged decision (except for documents already reviewed in camera and not ordered released); “(2) all DACA-related materials considered by persons (anywhere in the government) who thereafter provided Acting Secretary Duke with written advice or input regarding the actual or potential rescission of DACA”; “(3) all DACA-related materials considered by persons (anywhere in the government) who thereafter provided Acting Secretary Duke with verbal input regarding the actual or potential rescission of DACA”; “(4) all comments and questions propounded by Acting Secretary Duke to advisors or subordinates or others regarding the actual or potential rescission of DACA and their responses”; and “(5) all materials directly or indirectly considered by former Secretary of DHS John Kelly leading to his February 2017 memorandum not to rescind DACA.” 42a-43a (emphases added). that if the government Pet. App. 35a, The district court further directed “redacts or withholds any” of these materials as privileged, the government must submit a second privilege log and “simultaneously lodge full copies of all such 14 materials” with the court to allow it to “review and rule on each item.” Id. at 43a. In response to this order directing additions to the administrative record, DHS and DOJ to date have identified over 21,000 documents for initial review, and of that number, the government estimates that more than 6,000 will require further review to ascertain whether they fall within the expanded record as conceived by the district court and whether they are privileged. Add. 23, 35-36. In the interim, as explained in the petition (at 11-12), respondents also served numerous demands for discovery upon the government, requests including for requests admission, for production interrogatories, of and documents, notices depositions, including of the Acting Secretary herself. 4 of The government’s efforts in responding to discovery in these and other DACA-rescission cases required DHS components to undertake an immediate technology and drastic resources, programmatic functions. reassignment impairing the of attorney, performance staff, of and essential See Add. 5-17. Respondents also previously indicated an intent to pursue depositions of the Attorney General, the current White House Chief of Staff, other current senior White House advisers, and various current senior officials and advisers at DHS. In addition, respondents have issued subpoenas for the testimony of two former White House officials (Stephen K. Bannon and Reince Priebus), the Attorney General of Texas, and the Kansas Secretary of State. 4 15 b. On October 20, 2017, the government filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Ninth Circuit and a request for an emergency stay. The court of appeals promptly granted the latter request and stayed all “discovery and record supplementation in the district court pending the resolution of th[e] petition for writ of mandamus.” 10/24/17 C.A. Order. On November 16, however, a divided panel of the court of appeals denied the government’s mandamus petition and lifted its prior stay. Pet. App. 1a-20a. The panel majority (Wardlaw & Gould, JJ.) upheld the district court’s determination that DHS failed to “provide a complete administrative record.” Pet. App. 3a. The majority dismissed the government’s explanation that the allegedly omitted documents were deliberative materials that form no part of the administrative record, id. at 13a-15a, and failed to acknowledge (much less apply) the settled principle that review in APA cases is limited to the “record the agency presents to the reviewing court,” Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985). The majority also discounted the substantial “separation-of-powers concerns” raised by the orders under review. Pet. App. 3a. Judge Watford dissented, concluding that the district court’s orders “constitute[d] ‘a clear abuse of discretion.’” 16a (citation omitted). Pet. App. He explained that the district court’s orders “violate[d] two well-settled principles governing judicial review of agency action”: (1) “a court ordinarily conducts its 16 review ‘based on the record the agency presents to the reviewing court,’” ibid. (citation omitted), and (2) “documents reflecting an agency’s internal deliberative processes are ordinarily not part of the administrative record,” id. at 17a. Judge Watford also observed that respondents had made no showing of “‘bad faith or improper behavior’ on the part of agency decision-makers,” such as would potentially justify a departure from ordinary recordreview principles. Id. at 18a (citation omitted). Judge Watford further noted the “burdensome and intrusive” nature of the district court’s orders, and concluded that this is a “classic case in which mandamus relief is warranted.” Id. at 20a. Hours after the court of appeals’ dissolution of its stay, on November 16, the district court issued an order directing the government to November 22. file the “complete D. Ct. Doc. 188. administrative record” by Expressing its intention to seek emergency relief from this Court, the government filed motions in both the court of appeals and the district court for a stay pending this Court’s resolution of the government’s forthcoming petition. Both of those requests were denied. Add. 1-2, 3-4. Remarkably, after having sought and obtained rulings ordering immediate record expansion and authorizing discovery, and after vigorously opposing the government’s mandamus petition, respondents then filed their own motion in district court to stay all expansion of the administrative record and all discovery until 17 the district court ruled on both respondents’ motion provisional relief and the government’s motion to dismiss. Doc. 190 (Nov. 19, 2017). for D. Ct. Respondents were explicit that they sought this relief to “obviate Defendants’ efforts to obtain a stay from the Supreme Court.” Id. at 6. On November 20, 2017, the district court entered an order “allow[ing] the government an additional month to compile and to file the augmented administrative record” and staying discovery during the same period. Pet. App. 45a-46a. The court directed, however, that the government “must promptly locate and compile the additional materials and be ready to file the fully augmented record by December 22.” requested stay. Ibid. The court otherwise denied the Id. at 46a. ARGUMENT The government respectfully requests that this Court grant a stay of the district court’s orders pending this Court’s review of the government’s petition for a writ of mandamus (or, in the alternative, certiorari). The government also respectfully requests an immediate administrative stay pending the Court’s ruling on this application for a stay. The Ninth Circuit entered a stay in this case pending its consideration of the government’s mandamus petition, and the Second Circuit has likewise issued a stay pending its consideration of a mandamus petition directed to similar orders expanding the administrative record and authorizing 18 discovery in a parallel suit challenging the rescission of DACA. See p. 10 n.3, supra. The same relief is warranted here. A stay pending the disposition of a petition for a writ of mandamus is warranted if there is (1) “a fair prospect that a majority of the Court will vote to grant mandamus” and (2) “a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam). A stay pending the disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari (which the government seeks in the alternative) is appropriate if there is “(1) a reasonable probability that four Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari; (2) a fair prospect that a majority of the Court will vote to reverse the judgment below; and (3) a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay.” Ibid. All of those requirements are met here. 1. As Judge Watford explained in dissent, this is a “classic case in which mandamus relief is warranted.” upholding the district court’s orders, the Pet. App. 20a. court of In appeals endorsed a view of the required contents of the administrative record that is far in excess of the authority of a reviewing court under the APA. The lower courts’ errors are particularly remarkable inasmuch as the agency action at issue here is a statement of discretionary enforcement policy that requires no particular factual support or evidentiary record. The court of 19 appeals also summarily upheld the district court’s dismissive rejection of deliberative-process and other privileges, including the executive privilege pertaining to White House documents. The district court’s actions thus reflect multiple “departures from settled principles” governing the role of courts under the APA, and the denial of relief here would raise “sensitive separationof-powers concerns” and cause “immediate and irreparable” harm to the government. Ibid. (Watford, J., dissenting). Moreover, there is at least a reasonable probability that four Justices of this Court will consider the issues presented in this petition sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari. As explained below and in the petition, the district court’s orders conflict with the decisions of this Court in multiple respects. And as Judge Watford recognized in dissent, the majority’s reasoning also cannot be reconciled with decisions of the D.C. Circuit holding that “documents reflecting an agency’s internal deliberative processes,” such as “memos or emails containing opinions, recommendations, or advice,” are “ordinarily not part of the administrative record.” Pet. App. 17a; see, e.g., San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 789 F.2d 26, 44-45 (D.C. Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 923 (1986). 2. There is also a “fair prospect” that a majority of this Court will decide either to issue a writ of mandamus directly to 20 the district court or to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s denial of mandamus relief. Perry, 558 U.S. at 190. A court may issue a writ of mandamus when a party establishes that “(1) ‘no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires,’ (2) the party’s ‘right to indisputable,”’ and circumstances.’” issuance (3) ‘the of the writ writ is is “clear appropriate under and the Ibid. (quoting Cheney v. United States Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-381 (2004)) (brackets in original). Each of the prerequisites for mandamus relief is readily met here, and the court of appeals plainly erred in concluding otherwise. a. mandamus, As noted in the petition (at 18), absent review on the district court’s orders will unreviewable on appeal from final judgment. be effectively The White House, DHS, and DOJ will have been required to collect, review, and make privilege determinations as to thousands of additional documents; numerous deliberative materials will have been made public; various privileges, including executive privilege, will have been breached based on the district court’s existing erroneous privilege rulings (and any more that follow); and high-ranking government officials will have been deposed. The government indisputably has “no other adequate means” of protecting its interests aside from this petition. (citation omitted). Perry, 558 U.S. at 190 21 b. “clear The government’s right to a writ of mandamus is also and omitted). indisputable.” Perry, 558 U.S. at 190 (citation As explained in the petition (at 18-32), the orders at issue violate multiple fundamental principles of judicial review of agency action. First, the district court erred by ordering the government to “complete” the administrative record with, among other things, “all DACA-related materials considered by persons (anywhere in the government)” who advised the potential rescission of DACA. review cases, “[t]he APA Acting Secretary concerning Pet. App. 42a-43a. specifically the In agency- contemplates judicial review” on the basis of “the record the agency presents to the reviewing court.” Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985); see Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 143 (1973) (per curiam). If the record supplied by the agency is inadequate to support the agency’s explanation, “the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.” U.S. at 744. 5 Florida Power & Light Co., 470 The district court’s sweeping expansion of the Although this Court has suggested that a district court “may require the administrative officials * * * to give testimony explaining their action” in the rare circumstances where an agency provides entirely no explanation for its decision or where a plaintiff makes “a strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior,” Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420 (1971), those circumstances indisputably have not 5 22 administrative record, reaching well beyond the “record already in existence” to intrude upon the highest offices in the Executive Branch, id. at 743, directly contradicts this Court’s decisions. See Cheney, 542 U.S. at 385, 389 (explaining that judicial demands for White House documents raise “special considerations” regarding “the Executive Branch’s interests in maintaining the autonomy of its office,” with the result that “coequal branches of the Government are set on a collision course”). The district court’s sweeping expansion of the record not only is beyond the court’s authority, but also is particularly anomalous because of the nature of the agency action at issue: a policy a determination by the Acting Secretary to wind down previous policy of prosecutorial discretion that itself created no substantive rights. As the government has explained in its pending motion to dismiss in district court, judicial review of the Acting Secretary’s discretionary decision to withhold deferred action is not only precluded from review by the INA, see 8 U.S.C. 1252(g); Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 483-485 & n.9 (1999) (AADC), but also committed to agency discretion by law, see 5 U.S.C. 701(a)(2); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). determination were been established dissenting). not here. See Pet. 20-21. entirely See And even assuming the unreviewable, Pet. App. 17a-19a it is still a (Watford, J., 23 discretionary enforcement policy decision that would be subject only to narrow arbitrary-and-capricious review, and would not need to be supported by a developed factual record or include any extensive administrative record at all. Respondents cannot evade these principles by pointing to their constitutional claims. See Pet. 23. Constitutional challenges to final agency action, like other such challenges, are governed by the APA, see 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(B), and limitations on discovery have particular force where, as here, the claim rests on allegations that enforcement decisions -- especially in immigration context -- were motivated by discrimination. the See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 463-464, 468 (1996); AADC, 525 U.S. at 489-491. Second, as the petition explains (at 27-31), the district court’s orders cannot be reconciled with the principle that deliberative materials do not form part of the administrative record. The only apparent purpose for the district court’s demands for, inter alia, “emails, letters, memoranda, notes * * * [and] opinions,” Pet. App. 42a, is to consider pre-decisional documents informing the Acting Secretary’s policy and legal analysis. But it is well-settled that it is “not the function of the court to probe the mental processes” of the agency. Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1, 18 (1938) (per curiam); see Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420 (1971). 24 As Judge Watford explained, “[a]n agency generally has no obligation to include documents that were prepared to assist the decision-maker in arriving at her decision, such as memos or emails containing opinions, recommendations, or advice.” Pet. App. 17a; see United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 422 (1941) (“Just as a judge cannot be subjected to such a scrutiny, integrity of the administrative process * * * must be so the equally respected.”); San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, 789 F.2d at 4445. Rather, the lawfulness of the Acting Secretary’s discretionary decision to wind down the DACA enforcement policy is reviewable, if at all, on the reasons that the Acting Secretary herself gave. Third, as elsewhere explained (Pet. 31-32), the district court summarily overrode multiple privileges, including deliberative-process, executive, and attorney-client privileges. Despite receiving no briefing regarding any specific assertion of privilege, the district court ordered disclosure of 35 predecisional and deliberative documents with no explanation other than its conclusory statement that “[t]he undersigned judge has balanced the deliberative-process privilege factors and determined in camera” that the “need for materials and accurate fact-finding” outweighed the deliberative-process privilege, and its erroneous assertion that the documents implicated no other privileges. App. 40a-43a & n.7. Pet. Some of those materials originated in the White House, including a memorandum from the White House Counsel 25 to the President himself. Add. 26. Those materials are plainly subject to executive privilege, a privilege that is “fundamental to the operation of Government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 708 (1974). The district court further held that “[d]efendants have waived attorney-client privilege over any materials that bore on whether or not DACA was an unlawful exercise of executive power and therefore should be rescinded.” Pet. App. 39a. The court premised that extraordinary, categorical ruling on the fact that the Acting Secretary’s decision followed consideration litigation risk and legal advice from the Attorney General. of But the Acting Secretary included the Attorney General’s letter in the administrative record, and in any event, neither this Court nor any court of appeals has ever held that an agency waives its attorney-client privilege on a categorical basis simply by weighing legal risks or announcing a particular view of the law. 3. Absent the requested stay, the government will suffer multiple harms that are immediate and irreparable. U.S. at 190. See Perry, 558 In contrast, the relief requested will cause no harm to respondents, who -- by seeking a stay in district court that was expressly meant to “obviate” this Court’s review -- have freely acknowledged that consideration of their pending claims requires no immediate discovery or expansion of the administrative record. 26 a. The district court has directed the government to immediately compile, and to publicly file or submit in camera by December 22, 2017, a vast number of internal DHS, DOJ, and White House documents that are not properly part of the administrative record. These documents include “all DACA-related materials,” including “emails, letters, memoranda, notes, media items, opinions and other materials,” that were “considered by persons (anywhere in the government)” who “gave verbal or written input to the Acting Secretary.” government claims Pet. App. 42a-44a. privilege as to these To the extent the documents, it must “simultaneously lodge full copies of all such materials” with the district court, with proposed redactions and a “log justification for each.” Id. at 43a. And the court earlier directed that if the government fails to identify and assert all relevant privileges within the time available, all privileges will automatically be waived. See D. Ct. No. 23, at 5 (Sept. 13, 2017). As explained in the accompanying declarations, the government initially identified over 21,000 documents within the custody of DHS and DOJ requiring review to determine whether they fall within the court-ordered additions to the administrative record. 23, 35-36. Add. Other potentially responsive documents will exist at the White House. requires those Compliance with the district court’s orders agencies and the White House to review those documents, “page-by-page,” to determine whether they in fact fall 27 within the district court’s concept of the administrative record and, if so, identify whether they contain any privileged material. Id. at 33; see also id. at 21, 23-25. performed to date, and absent a Based on initial reviews stay from this Court, the government estimates that more than 6,000 documents from DHS and DOJ will require further review to ascertain whether they fall within the expanded record as conceived by the district court and whether they are subject to one or more privileges, including the deliberative-process, privileges. attorney-client, Add. 23, 35-36. and work-product This additional review is required in order to ensure accuracy in the identification of documents for both responsiveness and privilege. Id. at 23, 35-38. Performing that review would require reassignment of resources from other essential programmatic functions. Id. at 23-24, 34. Moreover, absent a stay, the government will be forced in three weeks’ time to publicly file 35 documents furnished in camera that are protected by the deliberative-process executive privilege, and/or other privileges. 26-27. privilege, Pet. App. 43a; Add. Among those materials are several White House documents obtained from the Acting Secretary’s files. Add. 26-27. The district court did not deny that those documents were covered by the deliberative-process privilege, but summarily held that the privileges were outweighed by an unspecified “need for materials and accurate fact-finding,” and inexplicably declared in a 28 footnote that they were not protected by the executive privilege at all. Pet. App. 40a; see id. at 40a n.7. It is well established in even routine cases that the “forced disclosure of privileged material” causes “irreparable harm,” In re Perrigo Co., 128 F.3d 430, 437 (6th Cir. 1997), and that principle applies with particular force where, as here, a district court that has already exceeded the scope of its authority under the APA has gone on to overrule numerous governmental privileges in summary fashion. Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 110 See (2009) (recognizing appropriateness of mandamus where “litigants [are] confronted with a particularly injurious or novel privilege ruling”). The looming resumption of discovery also strongly militates in favor of government’s a stay. obligation Absent to relief respond to from this Court, respondents’ the pending discovery requests will automatically be reinstated on December 22, 2017. Among other demands, respondents have requested the government to produce “[a]ny and all documents and communications considered or created” anywhere within DHS or DOJ “as part of the process of determining whether to continue, modify, or rescind DACA” -- a category of materials extending well beyond even the expansive concept of the administrative record formulated by the district court -- as well as “[a]ny and all documents relating to” numerous, unrelated deferred-action programs dating back to “the 29 Eisenhower Administration.” Add. 42, 45-46 (footnote omitted). Even if subsequently narrowed, further discovery is extremely likely to impose considerable burdens and thereby impair the performance of other essential DHS and DOJ functions. 25, 34-35. Id. at 24- DHS estimates, for example, that it would take at least 2,000 hours to respond to pending document requests alone. Id. at 25. The extraordinary efforts undertaken prior to the court of appeals’ October 24 stay are illustrative of the burdens that the government may face if discovery is permitted to resume. Initial searches conducted by DHS components in response to document requests in these cases and those pending in New York resulted in the collection for potential review of approximately 1.6 million documents from 147 custodians. Add. 20. Until stays were entered by the Second and Ninth Circuits, all full-time employees in the DHS Headquarters litigation group were “assigned to review documents in the various DACA cases” for either discovery or record-expansion purposes, and lawyers were also diverted from five other practice areas; such assignments may again be required if discovery is permitted to resume. 23-24. Customs and Border Id. at 9-10; see also id. at Protection and Citizenship and Immigration Services were forced to redirect all or substantially all of their e-discovery technology resources, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement pulled agency counsel and personnel from 30 immigration court appearances and other regular duties to assist with document review. Id. at 6, 12-13, 15. Those efforts were “completely unprecedented,” id. at 16, and hindered the ability of DHS components to meet important programmatic including responding to other court deadlines. obligations, See also id. at 24-25. Moreover, prior to the October 24 stay, respondents in these cases took the depositions of six government officials and advisers, and they have noticed depositions for at least six others, including the Acting Secretary herself. 6 If those depositions are allowed to proceed, respondents will likely call for testimony regarding numerous privileged matters. Indeed, respondents have announced their intent to seek to re-open prior depositions in order to inquire into the substance of privileged communications, including attorney-client communications subject to categorical waiver of privilege under the district court’s order. As the many appellate decisions reversing ordered depositions of high-level government officials have recognized, mandamus review exists precisely to ensure that such compelled The magistrate judge overruled the government’s objection to the Acting Secretary’s deposition. Although the government has not yet appealed that decision to the district court due to intervening stays of discovery, the district court previously made clear its view that the Acting Secretary should be deposed. See 10/16/17 Tr. 35 (“[M]y own view is I would order that deposition pronto.”). 6 31 examinations of the government’s mental processes can effectively be prevented. See, e.g., In re McCarthy, 636 Fed. Appx. 142 (4th Cir. 2015); In re United States, 542 Fed. Appx. 944 (Fed. Cir. 2013); In re Cheney, 544 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (per curiam); In re United States, 197 F.3d 310 (8th Cir. 1999). b. In contrast, respondents will suffer no harm from a stay. Respondents have already filed a motion for provisional relief arguing on multiple grounds that the Acting Secretary’s decision to rescind DACA was unlawful. See D. Ct. Doc. 111 (Nov. 1, 2017). Briefing on that motion and on the pending motion to dismiss will be completed by December 8, and a hearing on those motions is scheduled for December 20. Respondents have identified no need for adding to the administrative record or for discovery in order to adjudicate their pending claims. To the contrary, by affirmatively seeking a stay of discovery and record expansion pending a ruling on the current motions -- in a declared effort to “obviate” this Court’s review, D. Ct. Doc. 190, at 6 (Nov. 19, 2017) -- respondents have conceded the absence of any immediate need for an expanded administrative record or discovery. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this Court should stay the district court’s orders to the extent they require the government to (1) locate and compile additional materials for inclusion in the expanded administrative record or for in camera review; (2) file 32 an expanded administrative record and privilege log, and submit privileged documents for in camera review, by December 22, 2017; (3) publicly file the 35 privileged documents referenced in the district court’s October 17, 2017 order; and (4) participate in resumed discovery on or after December 22, 2017, all pending the disposition of the government’s petition for a writ of mandamus (or certiorari) Petitioners and also administrative application. any request stay further that pending proceedings this its Court in enter consideration this an of Court. immediate this stay If this Court grants such an administrative stay but thereafter denies a full stay, we respectfully request that the Court provide for postponement of compliance with the district court’s orders for 30 days. Respectfully submitted. NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General DECEMBER 2017 ADDENDUM Court of appeals order denying motion for stay (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2017) .....................................1 District court’s one-month continuance of due date for augmented administrative record and temporary stay of discovery (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017) ..........................3 Declaration of Vijai Chellappa (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2017)........5 Declaration of David J. Palmer (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2017)........8 Declaration of James W. McCament (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2017).....11 Declaration of Raymond Milani (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2017)........14 Declaration of David J. Palmer (Dec. 1, 2017)..................18 Declaration of Allison C. Stanton (Dec. 1, 2017)...............29 Exhibit A.................................................39 C a s e: 1 7- 7 2 9 1 7, 1 1/ 2 1/ 2 0 1 7, I D: 1 0 6 6 3 0 7 2, D kt E ntr y: 4 2, P a g e 1 of 2 FI L E D F O R P U B LI C A TI O N N O V 21 2017 U NI T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S M O L L Y C. D W Y E R, C L E R K U. S. C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E NI N T H CI R C UI T I n r e: U NI T E D S T A T E S O F A M E RI C A; D O N A L D J. T R U M P; U. S. DEP A RT ME NT OF H O MEL A N D S E C U RI T Y; E L AI N E C. D U K E, ______________________________ U NI T E D S T A T E S O F A M E RI C A; D O N A L D J. T R U M P; U. S. DEP A RT ME NT OF H O MEL A N D S E C U RI T Y; E L AI N E C. D U K E, i n h er offi ci al c a p a cit y as A cti n g S e cr et ar y of t h e D e p art m e nt of H o m el a n d S e c urit y, P etiti o n ers, v. U NI T E D S T A T E S DI S T RI C T C O U R T F O R T H E N O R T H E R N DI S T RI C T O F C A LI F O R NI A, S A N F R A N CI S C O, R es p o n d e nt, R E G E N T S O F T H E U NI V E R SI T Y O F C A LI F O R NI A; J A N E T N A P O LI T A N O, I n h er offi ci al c a p a cit y as Pr esi d e nt of t h e U ni v ersit y of C alif or ni a; S T A T E O F C A LI F O R NI A; S T A T E O F M AI N E; S T A T E O F MI N N E S O T A; S T A T E O F M A R Y L A N D; CI T Y O F S A N J O S E; D U L C E G A R CI A; MI RI A M G O N Z A L E Z A VI L A; VI RI DI A N A C H A B O L L A (Add. 1) N o. 1 7- 7 2 9 1 7 D. C. N os. 3: 1 7- c v- 0 5 2 1 1- W H A 3: 1 7- c v- 0 5 2 3 5- W H A 3: 1 7- c v- 0 5 3 2 9- W H A 3: 1 7- c v- 0 5 3 8 0- W H A 3: 1 7- c v- 0 5 8 1 3- W H A N ort h er n Distri ct of C alif or ni a, S a n Fr a n cis c o OR DER C a s e: 1 7- 7 2 9 1 7, 1 1/ 2 1/ 2 0 1 7, I D: 1 0 6 6 3 0 7 2, D kt E ntr y: 4 2, P a g e 2 of 2 Add. 2 M E N D O Z A; N O R M A R A MI R E Z; C O U N T Y O F S A N T A C L A R A; S E R VI C E E M P L O Y E E S I N T E R N A TI O N A L U NI O N L O C A L 5 2 1; JI R A Y U T L A T T HI V O N G S K O R N; S A U L JI M E N E Z S U A R E Z, R e al P arti es i n I nt er est. B ef or e: W A R D L A W, G O U L D, a n d W A T F O R D, Cir c uit J u d g es. B ef or e t h e c o urt is t h e g o v er n m e nt’s e m er g e n c y m oti o n f or a st a y of o ur or d er of N o v e m b er 1 6, 2 0 1 7, w hi c h d e ni e d t h e g o v er n m e nt’s p etiti o n f or a writ of m a n d a m us a n d lift e d a t e m p or ar y st a y t h at w e h a d pr e vi o usl y i m p os e d. As t h e or d er d e n yi n g m a n d a m us r eli ef w as eff e cti v e i m m e di at el y u p o n its iss u a n c e, s e e Ellis v. U. S. Dist. C o urt , 3 6 0 F. 3 d 1 0 2 2, 1 0 2 3 ( 9t h Cir. 2 0 0 4) ( e n b a n c), j uris di cti o n n o w li es wit h t h e distri ct c o urt, a n d n ot wit h t his c o urt. C o m p ar e D ai ml er- B e nz A kti e n g es ells c h aft v. U. S. Dist. C o urt , 8 0 5 F. 2 d 3 4 0, 3 4 1 – 4 2 ( 1 0t h Cir. 1 9 8 6) ( or d eri n g a st a y of distri ct c o urt pr o c e e di n gs b ef or e a n y or d er d e n yi n g or gr a nti n g m a n d a m us h a d iss u e d). If t h e g o v er n m e nt s e e ks f urt h er r eli ef fr o m t his c o urt, it m ust d o s o i n a n e w p etiti o n f or m a n d a m us. T h e g o v er n m e nt’s e m er g e n c y m oti o n f or a st a y is t h er ef or e DI S MI S S E D. I T I S S O O R D E R E D. 2 C a s e 3: 1 7- c v- 0 5 2 1 1- W H A D o c u m e nt 1 9 7 Fil e d 1 1/ 2 0/ 1 7 P a g e 1 of 2 Add. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I N T H E U NI T E D S T A T E S DI S T RI C T C O U R T 8 F O R T H E N O R T H E R N DI S T RI C T O F C A LI F O R NI A 9 11 F or t h e N ort h er n Distri ct of C alif or ni a U nit e d St at es Dist ri ct C o u rt 10 12 13 T H E R E G E N T S O F T H E U NI V E R SI T Y O F C A LI F O R NI A a n d J A N E T N A P O LI T A N O, i n h er offi ci al c a p a cit y as Pr esi d e nt of t h e U ni v ersit y of C alif or ni a, Pl ai ntiffs, 14 v. 15 18 U NI T E D S T A T E S D E P A R T M E N T O F H O M E L A N D S E C U RI T Y a n d E L AI N E D U K E, i n h er offi ci al c a p a cit y as A cti n g S e cr et ar y of t h e D e p art m e nt of H o m el a n d S e c urit y, 19 D ef e n d a nts. 16 17 N o. N o. N o. N o. N o. C C C C C 1 7- 0 5 2 1 1 1 7- 0 5 2 3 5 1 7- 0 5 3 2 9 1 7- 0 5 3 8 0 1 7- 0 5 8 1 3 W W W W W H H H H H A A A A A O N E- M O N T H C O N TI N U A N C E O F D UE D ATE F O R A U G ME NTE D A D MI NI S T R A TI V E R E C O R D A N D TE MP O R A R Y ST A Y OF DI S C O V E R Y / 20 21 Aft er c o nsi d er ati o n of all bri efi n g, t h e C o urt st a n ds b y its t e nt ati v e or d er. 22 T h e pr e vi o us s c h e d ul e is h er e b y m o difi e d t o all o w t h e g o v er n m e nt a n a d diti o n al m o nt h 23 t o c o m pil e a n d t o fil e t h e a u g m e nt e d a d mi nistr ati v e r e c or d, w hi c h d u e d at e will n o w b e 24 D 25 pr o m ptl y l o c at e a n d c o m pil e t h e a d diti o n al m at eri als a n d b e r e a d y t o fil e t h e f ull y a u g m e nt e d 26 r e c or d b y D e c e m b er 2 2, t his c a uti o n b ei n g n e c ess ar y i n or d er t o h a v e a r e alisti c o p p ort u nit y t o 27 r e a c h a fi n al d e cisi o n o n t h e m erits b ef or e t h e M ar c h 5 t er mi n ati o n d at e. A d diti o n all y, all 28 dis c o v er y is h er e b y S T E CE MBE R 2 2, 2 0 1 7, A TN O O N A YE D . Alt h o u g h t h e g o v er n m e nt n e e d n ot fil e u ntil t h at d at e, it m ust u ntil D E CE MBE R 2 2, 2 0 1 7, A TN O O N . C a s e 3: 1 7- c v- 0 5 2 1 1- W H A D o c u m e nt 1 9 7 Fil e d 1 1/ 2 0/ 1 7 P a g e 2 of 2 Add. 4 1 M e a n w hil e, w e will pr o c e e d wit h t h e m oti o n t o dis miss a n d c o m p eti n g m oti o n f or 2 pr o visi o n al r eli ef as s c h e d ul e d. If t h e m oti o n t o dis miss is d e ni e d, t h e n w e will pr o m ptl y s et a 3 pr a cti c al s c h e d ul e t o r e a c h t h e m erits wit h t h e b e n efit of t h e a u g m e nt e d r e c or d. 4 E x c e pt t o t h e f or e g oi n g e xt e nt, b ot h e m er g e n c y m oti o ns f or st a y ar e D E NI E D . 5 6 7 I T I S S O O R D E R E D. 8 9 D at e d: N o v e m b er 2 0, 2 0 1 7. W U 11 F or t h e N ort h er n Distri ct of C alif or ni a U nit e d St at es Dist ri ct C o u rt 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 I L LI A M A L S U P NI T E D S T A T E S D I S T RI C T J U D G E C a s e 3: 1 7- c v- 0 5 2 1 1- W H A D o c u m e nt 7 1- 3 Fil e d 1 0/ 1 2/ 1 7 P a g e 1 of 3 Add. 5 U NI T E D S T A T E S DI S T RI C T C O U R T F O R T H E N O R T H E R N DI S T RI C T O F C A LI F O R NI A S A N F R A N CI S C O DI VI SI O N R E G E N T S O F U NI V E R SI T Y O F C A LI F O R NI A a n d J A N E T N A P O LI T A N O, i n h er offi ci al c a p a cit y as Pr esi d e nt of t h e U ni v ersit y of C alif or ni a, H o n. Willi a m Als u p Pl ai ntiffs, v. U NI T E D S T A T E S D E P A R T M E N T O F H O M E L A N D S E C U RI T Y a n d E L AI N E D U K E, i n h er offi ci al c a p a cit y as A cti n g S e cr et ar y of t h e D e p art m e nt of H o m el a n d S e c urit y, C as e N o. 1 7- c v - 0 5 2 1 1-W H A D ef e n d a nts. D E C L A R A TI O N O F VI J AI C H E L L A P P A I, Vij ai C h ell a p p a , d o h er e b y d e cl ar e a n d st at e: 1. I a m a n E- Dis c o v er y Di git al F or e nsi c A n al yst wit h U. S. C ust o ms a n d B or d er Pr ot e cti o n ( C B P), E- Dis c o v er y T e a m, S e c urit y O p er ati o ns, C y b er S e c urit y Dir e ct or at e, Offi c e of I nf or m ati o n T e c h n ol o g y ( OI T). I h a v e 1 5 y e ars of e x p eri e n c e i n t h e I nf or m ati o n T e c h n ol o g y fi el d, a n d I h a v e w or k e d f or C B P , OI T si n c e 2 0 0 9. I h a v e b e e n a n E-Dis c o v er y Di git al F or e nsi c A n al yst si n c e 2 0 1 1. 2. I a m a w ar e of t h e C o urt Or d er d at e d O ct o b er 1 0, 2 0 1 7, D kt. N o. 6 7, Or d er S h ort e ni n g Ti m e f or Bri efi n g M oti o n t o C o m pl et e t h e A d mi nistr ati v e R e c or d. I m a k e t h e f oll o wi n g st at e m e nts b as e d o n m y p ers o n al k n o wl e d g e a n d u p o n i nf or m ati o n f ur nis h e d t o m e i n t he c o urs e of m y offi ci al d uti es. 3. I n C B P’s eff orts t o r es p o n d t o dis c o v er y r e q u ests i n t his a n d r el at e d c as es , I h a v e assist e d i n t h e o n g oi n g pr o c ess of s e ar c hi n g, c oll e ct i n g, r e vi e wi n g, a n d a n al y zi n g d o c u m e nts C a s e 3: 1 7- c v- 0 5 2 1 1- W H A D o c u m e nt 7 1- 3 Fil e d 1 0/ 1 2/ 1 7 P a g e 2 of 3 Add. 6 b as e d o n s e ar c h es of m or e t h a n 7 0 G B of d at a ( 9 0, 2 1 9 el e ctr o ni c fil es) a c q uir e d fr o m s e ar c h es of 1 2 n et w or k dri v es a n d a p p r o xi m at el y 2 9 w or kst ati o ns. 4. A d diti o n all y, I d e v el o p e d a n d e x e c ut e d t h e s e ar c h of C B P ’s e-m ail m ail b o x j o ur n al s er v ers w hi c h c o nsisti n g of a p pr o xi m at el y 2 0 0 T B of d at a fr o m C B P e -m ail m ail b o x es t o l o c at e p ot e nti all y r es p o nsi v e e- m ail m ess a g es . 5. C B P, OI T h as d e di c at e d si g nifi c a nt h o urs a n d all of t h e E-Dis c o v er y c o m p ut er s e ar c h r es o ur c es t o a c c el er at e t h e t ot al ti m e n e e d e d t o r es p o n d t o p e n di n g dis c o v er y. T o d at e, I h a v e alr e a d y e x p e n d e d a p pr o xi m at el y 4 8 h o urs i n t his eff ort, t o i n cl u d e t h e s e ar c h es, d at a tr a nsf ers, a n d r efi ni n g pr o c ess f or p ot e nti al dis c o v er y m at eri al i n t his a n d r el at e d m att ers. A d diti o n all y, t h e A g e n c y h as e x p eri e n c e d i m p a cts t o a g e n c y f u n cti o n a n d missi o n, as all EDis c o v er y c o m p ut er s er v er r es o ur c es w er e r e assi g n e d a n d di v ert e d t o a ddr ess t h e s e ar c h f or d o c u m e nts r es p o nsi v e t o c urr e nt dis c o v er y r e q u ests i n t h e v ari o us p e n di n g D A C A c as es. S p e cifi c all y , all of o ur w or k f or ot h er c as es a n d c o urt d e a dli n es w as p ut o n h ol d t o p erf or m dis c o v er y t as ks i n t his a n d r el at e d m att ers i n or d er t o e x p e n d t h e e ntir e r es o ur c e of EDis c o v er y’s c o m p ut er s er v er i n r es p o ns e t o pr o d u cti o n of t his dis c o v er y r e q u est. As a r es ult , t h e a g e n c y is alr e a d y m or e t h a n a w e e k b e hi n d i n ot h er liti g ati o n o bli g ati o ns a n d h as als o f all e n b e hi n d o n a n o n g oi n g criti c al s ur v eill a n c e o p er ati o n . 6. Si mil ar b ur d e ns w o ul d li k el y b e i n c urr e d t o i m m e di at el y l o c at e a n y a d diti o n al m at eri als t h at I u n d erst a n d Pl ai ntiffs ass ert s h o ul d b e p art of t h e a d mi nistr ati v e r e c or d. 2 C a s e 3: 1 7- c v- 0 5 2 1 1- W H A D o c u m e nt 7 1- 3 Fil e d 1 0/ 1 2/ 1 7 P a g e 3 of 3 Add. 7 I d e cl ar e t h at t o t h e b est of m y c urr e nt k n o wle d g e t h e f or e g oi n g is tr u e a n d c orr e ct. E x e c ut e d o n t his 1 2 t h d a y of O ct o b er 2 0 1 7. __________________________________________ Vij ai C h ell a p p a 3 C a s e 3: 1 7- c v- 0 5 2 1 1- W H A D o c u m e nt 7 1- 4 Add. 8 Fil e d 1 0/ 1 2/ 1 7 P a g e 1 of 3 C a s e 3: 1 7- c v- 0 5 2 1 1- W H A D o c u m e nt 7 1- 4 Add. 9 Fil e d 1 0/ 1 2/ 1 7 P a g e 2 of 3 C a s e 3: 1 7- c v- 0 5 2 1 1- W H A D o c u m e nt 7 1- 4 Add. 10 Fil e d 1 0/ 1 2/ 1 7 P a g e 3 of 3 C a s e 3: 1 7- c v- 0 5 2 1 1- W H A D o c u m e nt 7 1- 5 Add. 11 Fil e d 1 0/ 1 2/ 1 7 P a g e 1 of 3 C a s e 3: 1 7- c v- 0 5 2 1 1- W H A D o c u m e nt 7 1- 5 Add. 12 Fil e d 1 0/ 1 2/ 1 7 P a g e 2 of 3 C a s e 3: 1 7- c v- 0 5 2 1 1- W H A D o c u m e nt 7 1- 5 Add. 13 Fil e d 1 0/ 1 2/ 1 7 P a g e 3 of 3 C a s e 3: 1 7- c v- 0 5 2 1 1- W H A D o c u m e nt 7 1- 6 Add. 14 Fil e d 1 0/ 1 2/ 1 7 P a g e 1 of 4 C a s e 3: 1 7- c v- 0 5 2 1 1- W H A D o c u m e nt 7 1- 6 Add. 15 Fil e d 1 0/ 1 2/ 1 7 P a g e 2 of 4 C a s e 3: 1 7- c v- 0 5 2 1 1- W H A D o c u m e nt 7 1- 6 Add. 16 Fil e d 1 0/ 1 2/ 1 7 P a g e 3 of 4 C a s e 3: 1 7- c v- 0 5 2 1 1- W H A D o c u m e nt 7 1- 6 Add. 17 Fil e d 1 0/ 1 2/ 1 7 P a g e 4 of 4 Add. 18 No. 17A-____ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _______________ IN RE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. _______________ DECLARATION OF DAVID J. PALMER IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR A STAY PENDING DISPOSITION OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND REQUEST FOR AN IMMEDIATE ADMINISTRATIVE STAY _______________ I, David J. Palmer, do hereby declare and state: 1. I Counsel in am the the Chief U.S. of Staff Department for of the Office Homeland of the Security General (DHS). In this capacity, I supervise attorneys and other professional staff who are court coordinating orders and related actions. efforts discovery at DHS requests Headquarters in these to cases respond and to other I am also a senior leader in the DHS Office of the General Counsel and, in that role, DHS component agency Chief Counsels, their subordinates, and their staff keep me apprised of their day-to-day activities as appropriate, including efforts by the component agencies to respond to court requests in these cases and related actions. orders and discovery I make the following Add. 19 statements based on my personal knowledge and upon information furnished to me in the course of my official duties. 2. I am aware that DHS has been named a defendant in multiple lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the Northern California) 1 District of California (Northern District of and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Eastern District of New York) 2 challenging the September 5, 2017 decision of the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security to rescind the June 15, 2012 DACA Memorandum. 3. I am aware of and have reviewed the following orders: a. Order re Motion to Complete Administrative Record (D. Ct. Doc. 79), dated October 17, 2017, in Regents of University of California, et al. v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 17-cv-5211 (N.D. Cal.) (the Oct. 17 AR Order). b. Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus (D. Ct. Doc. 35), dated November 16, 2017, in In re United States of America, et al., No. 17-72917 (9th Cir.). c. Order to File Completed Administrative Record and Propose Schedule (D. Ct. Doc. 188), dated November 16, 2017, in Regents of University of California, et al. v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 17-cv-5211 (N.D. Cal.) (the Nov. 16 AR Order). Regents of University of California, et al. v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 17-cv-5211; State of California et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al., No. 17-cv-5235; City of San Jose v. Trump, et al., No. 17cv-5329; Garcia v. United States of America, et al., No. 17-cv5380; County of Santa Clara, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 17-cv5813. 2 Batalla Vidal, et al. v. Duke, et al., No. 16-cv-4756; State of New York, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 17-cv-5228. 1 2 Add. 20 d. One-Month Continuance of Due Date for Augmented Administrative Record and Temporary Stay of Discovery (D. Ct. Doc. 197), dated November 20, 2017, in Regents of University of California, et al. v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 17-cv-5211 (N.D. Cal.). 4. DHS Northern has been District of served with California discovery and the requests Eastern District in the of New York cases. Due to the extremely expedited nature of proceedings in these both of retrieved sets documents of for cases, DHS purposes of and its components responding to have potential discovery in both sets of cases. General Discovery In 5. discovery Eastern collecting requests District in of documents the New for Northern York purposes District cases, DHS of of responding California collected a to and total of 1,595,073 documents from a total of 147 custodians across all of DHS, including from DHS Headquarters (DHS HQ) (32 custodians) as well as from Protection (CBP) DHS component (12 agencies custodians), U.S. U.S. Customs Customs and and Border Immigration Enforcement (ICE) (at least 25 custodians), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration initial Services processing and (USCIS) (79 deduplication custodians). of these records, Following at this time DHS has identified a total of 197,035 documents to review for responsiveness to discovery requests. 3 Add. 21 6. In responsive requests, order to identify information DHS and its for custodians purposes components of with responding identified potentially to discovery custodians who were most likely to have responsive information and retrieved documents by conducting searches of their electronically stored information and, where applicable, through manual collection. DHS has dedicated a significant amount of time and resources in responding to the discovery requests served in the various DACA cases pending in both the Northern of New District District York. DHS of has California diverted and staff the Eastern from normal operational duties such as preventative maintenance of information technology systems and resolving customer issues to assist in the collection of data on an expedited basis. Approximately 110 attorneys across DHS have worked on reviewing documents for general discovery in the various DACA cases. Administrative Record Orders In 7. response to scheduling orders issued in both the Eastern District of New York and Northern District of California cases, DHS documents submitted reviewed an and administrative considered by record the that Acting includes Secretary of Homeland Security in connection with her decision to rescind DACA. DHS identified those records by consulting with the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security and members of her staff, conducting a manual collection of documents, 4 and conducting a search of Add. 22 electronically stored information. for responsiveness. DHS The records were also reviewed submitted the administrative record in both the Eastern District of New York and the Northern District of California on October 6, 2017. 8. On Northern October District 17, of 2017, the California U.S. District ordered an Court for the expansion of the administrative record to include additional materials, and further ordered that this expanded administrative record be filed within ten days, by October 27, 2017. See Oct. 17 AR Order. To comply with the Oct. 17 AR Order, DHS expanded the scope of its document collection and review to include documents of additional custodians who had not been identified for purposes of responding to discovery requests. Following receipt of the Oct. 17 AR Order, DHS identified 9. 22 custodians with potentially responsive documents for purposes of inclusion in the Northern District of California administrative record. DHS DHS selected these custodians by attempting to identify personnel who provided written or verbal advice or input to the Acting Secretary. These custodians include some of the most senior agency, leaders in the including Acting Secretary Elaine Duke; Acting General Counsel Joseph Maher; Deputy General Counsel Dimple Shah; and heads of DHS component agencies including James McCament, former Acting Director of USCIS; Craig Symons, Chief Counsel of USCIS; Thomas Homan, Acting Director of ICE; and Kevin 5 Add. 23 McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of CBP. Custodians also include senior officials within the Office of the Secretary, including the Acting Chief of Staff Chad Wolf, Deputy Chief of Staff Elizabeth Neumann, and former Senior Counselor Gene Hamilton. 10. In order to comply with the Oct. 17 AR Order, DHS needed to expedite the review of certain documents that had already been collected documents for purposes from of certain general discovery, custodians whose previously been collected. collection of and also collect documents had not DHS ultimately ended up with a total approximately 18,671 documents from the 22 custodians to review for purposes of responsiveness to the Oct. 17 AR Order. Of that number, approximately 5,195 documents have been identified so far as needing further, second-level review to ascertain whether they should, in fact, be included in the expanded administrative record. Additionally, after segregating all of the responsive documents, separating privileged information from nonprivileged information deliberative (for information) example, there are deliberative also currently versus 3798 non- records that would require a careful and methodical page-by-page review of each document, as in some circumstances only portions of a document may be subject to privilege and thus would need to be redacted, has required rather than withheld in full. 11. Complying with the Oct. 17 AR Order diverting substantial attorney resources, across all of DHS, from 6 Add. 24 other responsibilities. All full time employees on the DHS Headquarters litigation team, who also have full dockets of other litigation matters with pending briefing and discovery deadlines, have been assigned to review documents in these cases in response to the AR Orders. There is no prospect rebalancing their work in other cases. of reassigning or DHS Headquarters has also diverted attorney resources from five other legal practice areas to review and analyze documents in response to the AR Orders. addition, CBP diverted four attorneys from other In pressing litigation matters in order to perform review not only of its own documents, but Headquarters. to assist in the review of documents from DHS USCIS has assigned 11 attorneys to review documents for purposes of complying with the AR Order. ICE has pulled agency counsel and personnel from immigration court appearance responsibilities and other ordinary duties, at one point devoting 1 out of every 14 attorneys in ICE offices across the country to assist with the DACA cases for responding to the AR order. Even 12. with this intense dedication of resources across DHS, given the careful review that must be conducted, the volume of the records, required substantial documents record and potentially pursuant definition. to prevalence time to within the of privilege identify the Northern scope issues, DHS assess properly and of District the of has administrative California’s Moreover, while DHS has been directing its resources 7 Add. 25 towards reviewing documents for purposes of the Northern District of California’s deadlines for expanding the administrative record, it has made collection only of limited documents progress for in general the review discovery. of DHS the still larger has a total of more than 78,000 documents that would need to be reviewed for discovery. By current estimates, it would take at least 2,000 hours to review that volume of documents and prepare productions and privilege logs. Given the very large volume of outstanding documents to review, if discovery were to resume on December 22, DHS would again have to divert substantial attorney resources away from other responsibilities. For example, DHS Headquarters will likely need to assign all litigation attorneys to review documents in the Northern District of California DACA cases, without regard to other demands of their caseloads, and also divert resources of privileged from other legal practices to assist. 13. DHS strongly objects to disclosure materials that the Northern District of California has determined should be publicly released as part of the administrative record. The deliberative-process decision-making among agency process personnel, privilege by protects promoting thus open encouraging the and internal frank those agency discussions officials to be candid in their opinions when participating in the agency decisionmaking would process. be less In the willing to absence of the privilege, engage in the free 8 flow DHS of officials information Add. 26 and discussion out of concern that their pre-decisional thoughts and opinions would be subject to public scrutiny. Any diminishment in the flow of ideas, opinions, and recommendations would have a detrimental effect on DHS’s ability to make informed and appropriate decisions. 14. Order the The for privileged public expanded deliberative disclosure administrative the Northern disclosed are the record their would process. District Acting regarding identified through decision-making documents deliberations documents the reveal of Oct. 17 AR inclusion in DHS’s example, California Secretary’s rescission the proposed For of in among has handwritten DACA, internal, on the ordered notes legal on advice she received, and on the wind-down of the policy, all on a copy of a draft, pre-decisional memorandum from the White House Counsel to the President process, and that is subject executive to attorney-client, privileges. 3 Another deliberative- document ordered disclosed is an internal, pre-decisional pre-briefing document for a meeting regarding the status and future of DACA. paper, process, which and is subject work-product to the This briefing 4 attorney-client, privileges, reflects a deliberative necessary tool for the Acting Secretary to organize and highlight facts, issues, This document is identified in the October 17 AR Order as Tab 19 (Bates No. DACA_RLIT00000069). 4 This document is identified in the October 17 AR Order as Tab 4 (Bates No. DACA_RLIT00000006). 3 9 Add. 27 and internal viewpoints that DHS officials believed should be considered when the Acting Secretary made her final decision. A third document is an email between the Acting Secretary, her Chief of Staff, and the White House Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff, which regarding is subject privileges, the to potential both reveals the rescission of DACA. deliberative-process deliberations regarding the 5 This and email, executive decision-making process concerning the rescission of DACA. 15. For all of these and the many similar documents, the consequence of release would be the reluctance or unwillingness of those participating in the decision-making process to voice their concerns and disagreements with proposed courses of action. includes officials at the highest levels of government. a real danger significantly objections that suppress (which could these the be officials intensity will of misinterpreted instead their by This There is either opinions or decision-making authorities as an indication of only minor resistance) or fail to raise their concerns at all. Such a result would greatly diminish the quality of decision-making of the government to the detriment of the general public. This document is identified in the October 17 AR Order as Tab 47 (Bates No. DACA_RLIT00000450). 5 10 Add. 28 I declare that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this let day of December, 26::.2 DAVID PALMER ll Add. 29 No. 17A-____ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _______________ IN RE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. _______________ DECLARATION OF ALLISON C. STANTON IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR A STAY PENDING DISPOSITION OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND REQUEST FOR AN IMMEDIATE ADMINISTRATIVE STAY _______________ I, Allison C. Stanton, do hereby declare and state: 1. the I am the Director of E-Discovery, FOIA, and Records in Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Justice (DOJ). I joined DOJ in October 2010 after several Hartson years Throughout my with Hogan 15-year & legal career supervised response efforts for complicated discovery matters. LLP I (now have numerous Among other Hogan Lovells). participated in high-profile duties, I and and routinely provide legal and procedural advice to DOJ attorneys and to counsel at DOJ’s review client plans. agencies on I and speak developing write discovery extensively and on documentelectronic discovery and other discovery topics as well as teach a law school Add. 30 course on the same subject. I have broad experience assessing discovery resources needs and plans for both private organizations and governmental E-Discovery, agencies. FOIA, and In Records, I my capacity as Director of am assisting in coordinating efforts at DOJ to respond to court orders and discovery requests in these cases and 2017 in September 5, following statements other rescission based related of on the my actions DACA challenging policy. personal I the make knowledge and the upon information furnished to me in the course of my official duties. 2. Motion cases I am aware of the district court’s Order Regarding the to on Complete October the 17, Administrative 2017. (October 17, 2017 Order). 9, 2017 discovery See Record, 17-cv-5211 entered Docket in entry these No. 79 I am also aware of Plaintiffs’ October requests under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, entitled Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendants (“discovery requests”). See Ex. A. I explain herein the volume and complexity of the documents collected within DOJ to date in response to the district court’s October 17, 2017 Order requiring the government to expand the Administrative Record and the plaintiffs’ discovery requests served matters as I currently understand them. 2 in these and related Add. 31 Document Search and Collection Efforts for Discovery Responses and Expansion of the Administrative Record 3. To date, DOJ has searched for and collected electronic and paper documents from more than 70 individuals in DOJ to respond to pending discovery requests in these and related matters. DOJ identified four individuals who are likely to have information to be included in the expanded Administrative Record contemplated by the district court’s October 17, 2017 Order. 4. Document collection within DOJ to respond to discovery requests in these and and review identification related of matters documents has and required correspondence the of individuals at the highest levels of DOJ, including but not limited to the Attorney General of the United States, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, their senior staff, and other DOJ leaders, attorneys, and personnel. 5. In expanding court’s review the particular, the Administrative October of 17, documents Associate document 2017 and Attorney collection Record Order pursuant requires correspondence General, and the of two within DOJ to district the identification the Attorney members of for and General, their senior staff. 6. All discussions with document personnel collection of varying efforts rank and have included seniority within DOJ to identify the locations and types of potentially relevant or 3 Add. 32 responsive documents. This identification process necessitated that these individuals set aside normal tasks and work in order to assist in this matter. The document collection efforts also entailed electronic searches of correspondence (including email) and electronic pleadings). diverted documents (such as internal memoranda or draft DOJ information technologists and other specialists resources to search, collect, and export potentially relevant or responsive DOJ documents for attorney review. 7. More than 90,000 DOJ documents from more than 70 individuals may need to be reviewed for potential responsiveness to pending discovery requests and for privilege in these and the other related matters. 8. For the efforts to expand the Administrative Record pursuant to the standard outlined in the district court’s October 17, 2017 Order, there are more than 3,000 DOJ documents from four individuals, including the Attorney General, Attorney General, and two of their senior staff. the Associate These documents have been and will continue to be carefully analyzed and reviewed for responsiveness to the district court’s October 17, 2017 Order and for privilege. 9. DOJ is devoting significant search and collection efforts. staff and hours to these To date, DOJ has already expended more than 1,500 hours on the search, collection, processing, and management of documents for potential discovery responses and for 4 Add. 33 efforts to expand the Administrative Record pursuant to the standard outlined in the district court’s October 17, 2017 Order. Review of Documents for Discovery Responses and Expansion of the Administrative Record 10. The review and privilege logging efforts that would be required to comply with the district court’s October 17, 2017 Order regarding the Administrative Record and to respond to the discovery requests are challenging here, because of the volume of documents to be reviewed, the complexity of the analysis, the sensitivity of many of the documents assertion process. documents, in question, and Court’s privilege- Even after segregating all of the responsive separating privileged information information (for example, deliberative information) in potentially thousands careful methodical and the page-by-page from versus of non-privileged non-deliberative documents review of requires each a responsive document, because in some circumstances only portions of a document may be subject to privilege, and thus would need to be redacted, rather than withheld in full. 11. duties to The DOJ assist regarding the requests in has in pulled responding Administrative these counsel matters expedited response timeline. and personnel to the October Record and to due to the 17, respond breadth to and from other 2017 Order discovery extremely Across DOJ, attorneys, information 5 Add. 34 technology, litigation support, and other professional staff were reassigned to work on these cases and the related matters. 12. Even with these diverted resources, review will take time, and must be conducted thoroughly, given the sensitivity of the information from high-level custodians and the volume of the documents at issue. DOJ has required and will continue to require substantial time and expenditure of resources to analyze and log the documents specified in the district court’s October 17, 2017 Order. 13. these DOJ is devoting significant staff to document review in matters. For example, to date more than 40 DOJ attorneys are and were involved in reviewing documents in these matters on an extremely Circuit’s within stay the district expedited was expanded court’s continue to deadlines, in also while basis, effect, to handle 17, 2017 and Record review the that contemplated These litigation to after documents Order. other working before identify Administrative October also both Ninth may by the attorneys matters documents and for be must court these and related matters. 14. Given the volume of documents that remain to be reviewed for responsiveness to the discovery requests, privilege, and for the actual production process, it is currently estimated that if discovery existing recommences document on requests December (Ex. A) 6 22, must 2017 be and responded Plaintiffs’ to as they Add. 35 currently exist, DOJ would have to expend more than 1,400 hours to review, redact, process, log, and produce DOJ documents. 15. Responding to these discovery requests requires considered effort because of (a) the identities of the potential custodians the DOJ, of up documents to and (including including the very senior Attorney officials General of the within United States), (b) the breadth of the discovery requests, see Ex. A, and (c) the volume of more than potentially 90,000 documents to analyze for potential responsiveness and for attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product protection, deliberative-process privilege, law-enforcement privilege, executive privilege, potentially applicable governmental privileges. reviewer assigned to this project must be and any other For example, each trained regarding the context and background of the litigation and the relevant documents in order to accurately determine a document’s deliberative nature, or the deliberative process or processes to which individual documents potentially relate. 16. Expanding the Administrative Record pursuant to the standard outlined in the district court’s October 17, 2017 Order presents similar challenges. for review Attorney from General four of There are more than 3,000 documents high-level the DOJ United individuals, States, the including Associate General, and two members of their senior staff. the Attorney These documents are being analyzed for potential inclusion in the Administrative 7 Add. 36 Record and pursuant also must revealed that initially to be the reviewed more than identified Administrative district as Record for court’s October privilege. A 1,700 of these potentially pursuant to 2017 Order, preliminary review documents within the 17, the standard have scope set been of forth the in the district court’s October 17, 2017 Order, with approximately 700 of those documents being potentially privileged, in whole or in part. Additional review preliminarily will be identified needed are to within verify the that scope the of documents the district court’s order, and to make accurate privilege determinations. 17. Privileged documents would then need to be entered on a privilege log, a time-intensive process that requires significant manual, document-by-document attention. court’s Supplemental Order to Pursuant to the district Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference in Civil Cases, privilege logs must, “at the time of assertion, identify a) all persons making or receiving the privileged or protected communication; b) the steps taken to ensure confidentiality that no of the unauthorized communication, persons have including received the an affirmation communication; c) the date of the communication; and d) the subject matter of the communication.” 2017). indicate This * * * 17-cv-5211 Docket entry No. 23, ¶ 18 (Sept. 13, order also states that the privilege log the location where the document was found.” “should Ibid. According to that order, “[f]ailure to furnish this information at 8 Add. 37 the time of the assertion will be deemed a waiver of the privilege or protection.” Ibid. It is my understanding that these requirements apply to all privilege logs, including any privilege logs that the district court has ordered to be produced in conjunction with the expansion of the Administrative Record. 18. The district court’s October 17, 2017 Order also requires that, if the government redacts or withholds any materials on the basis copies of privilege, of all such otherwise) the redactions “it shall materials, justification for each.” and simultaneously indicating by withholdings lodge full highlighting together with a (or log 17-cv-5211 Docket entry No. 79, at 13. This additional requirement requires significant manual technical work, even after all levels of review and the privilege log have been completed. on the Simultaneously, one set of documents (for filing district court’s public docket) would require opaque redactions of text; while a second set of the exact same documents would have to prepared camera review. in highlighted (not opaque) form for in In addition, copies of all documents withheld in full as privileged would need to be prepared for production to the district court. 19. court’s The DOJ’s October 17, document 2017 review Order to respond regarding the to the district Administrative Record, and to respond to discovery requests in these matters, may 9 Add. 38 al s o r e q ui r e si g ni fi c a nt c o n s ult ati o n wit h e ntiti e s t h at u n d e rl yi n g p ri vil e g e, c o n si d e r e d have e q uiti e s, k n o wl e d g e, i n f o r m ati o n t o a s si st ot h e r E x e c uti v e or e x p e rti s e i n d et e r mi ni n g Br a n c h in the r e s p o n si v e n e s s, a n d t o e n s u r e t h at t h e r el e v a nt e q uiti e s a r e a d e q u at el y in m a ki n g t h es e s e n siti v e d et e r mi n ati o n s on an e x p e dit e d b a si s. I d e cl a r e t h at to the f o r e g oi n g i s t r u e a n d c o r r e ct. b e st of my E x e c ut e d Alli s o n 10 C. c u r r e nt o n D e c e m b er St a nt o n k n o wl e d g e 1, 2 0 1 7. the Add. 39 Exhibit A Add. 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 J effr e y M. D a vi ds o n ( S B N 2 4 8 6 2 0) Al a n B ersi n ( S B N 6 3 8 7 4) C O VI N G T O N & B U R LI N G L L P O n e Fr o nt Str e et, 3 5t h Fl o or S a n Fr a n cis c o, C A 9 4 1 1 1 - 5 3 5 6 T el e p h o n e: ( 4 1 5) 5 9 1 - 6 0 0 0 F a csi mil e: ( 4 1 5) 5 9 1- 6 0 9 1 E m ail: j d a vi ds o n @ c o v. c o m, a b ersi n @ c o v. c o m Att or n e ys f or Pl ai ntiff s T H E R E G E N T S O F T H E U NI V E R SI T Y O F C A LI F O R NI A a n d J A N E T N A P O LI T A N O, i n h er offi ci al c a p a cit y as Pr esi d e nt of t h e U ni v ersit y of C alif or ni a GI B S O N, D U N N & C R U T C H E R L L P T h e o d or e J. B o utr o us, Jr. ( S B N 1 3 2 0 9 9) t b o utr o us @ gi bs o n d u n n. c o m Et h a n D. D ett m er ( S B N 1 9 6 0 4 6) e d ett m er @ gi bs o n d u n n. c o m J ess e S. G a bri el ( S B N 2 6 3 1 3 7) j g a bri el @ gi bs o n d u n n. c o m 3 3 3 S o ut h Gr a n d A v e n u e L os A n g el es, C A 9 0 0 7 1 - 3 1 9 7 T el e p h o n e: ( 2 1 3) 2 2 9 - 7 0 0 0 F a csi mil e: ( 2 1 3) 2 2 9 - 7 5 2 0 17 Att or n e ys f or Pl ai ntiffs D U L C E G A R CI A, MI RI A M G O N Z A L E Z A VI L A, S A U L JI M E N E Z S U A R E Z, VI RI DI A N A C H A B O L L A M E N D O Z A, N O R M A R A MI R E Z, a n d JI R A Y U T L A T T HI V O N G S K O R N 18 [A d diti o n al C o u ns el List e d o n Si g n at ur e P a g es ] 15 16 19 22 23 T H E R E G E N T S O F T H E U NI V E R SI T Y O F C A LI F O R NI A a n d J A N E T N A P O LI T A N O, i n h er offi ci al c a p a cit y as Pr esi d e nt of t h e U ni v ersit y of C alif or ni a, Pl ai ntiffs, 24 25 26 27 28 Att or n e ys f or Pl ai ntiff S T A T E O F C A LI F O R NI A J os e p h W. C ot c h ett ( S B N 3 6 3 2 4) j c ot c h ett @ c p ml e g al. c o m N a n c y L. Fi n e m a n ( S B N 1 2 4 8 7 0) nfi n e m a n @ c p ml e g al. c o m C O T C H E T T, PI T R E & M c C A R T H Y, L L P S a n Fr a n cis c o Air p ort Offi c e C e nt er 8 4 0 M al c ol m R o a d, S uit e 2 0 0 B urli n g a m e, C A 9 4 0 1 0 T el e p h o n e: ( 6 5 0) 6 9 7- 6 0 0 0 F a csi mil e: ( 6 5 0) 6 9 7 - 0 5 7 7 Att or n e ys f or Pl ai ntiff CI T Y O F S A N J O S E U NI T E D S T A T E S DI S T RI C T C O U R T N O R T H E R N DI S T RI C T O F C A LI F O R NI A S A N F R A N CI S C O DI VI SI O N 20 21 X A VI E R B E C E R R A Att or n e y G e n er al of C alif or ni a M I C H A E L L. N E W M A N S u p er visi n g D e p ut y Att or n e y G e n er al J A M E S F. Z A H R A D K A II ( S B N 1 9 6 8 2 2) 1 5 1 5 Cl a y Str e et, 2 0t h Fl o or P. O. B o x 7 0 5 5 0 O a kl a n d, C A 9 4 6 1 2- 0 5 5 0 T el e p h o n e: ( 5 1 0) 8 7 9- 1 2 4 7 E- m ail: J a m es. Z a hr a d k a @ d oj. c a. g o v C A S E N O. 1 7 -C V - 0 5 2 1 1-W H A P L AI N TI F F S’ FI R S T S E T O F R E Q U E S T S F O R P R O D U C TI O N O F D O C U M E N T S T O D EF E N D A N TS v. U. S. D E P A R T M E N T O F H O M E L A N D S E C U RI T Y a n d E L AI N E D U K E, i n h er offi ci al c a p a cit y as A cti n g S e cr et ar y of t h e D e p art m e nt of H o m el a n d S e c urit y, D ef e n d a nts . P L AI N TI F F S’ FI R S T S E T O F R E Q U E S T S F O R P R O D U C TI O N O F D O C U M E N T S T O D E F E N D A N T S All D A C A C as es ( N os. 1 7-5 2 1 1, 1 7 -5 2 3 5, 1 7 -5 3 2 9, 1 7 -5 3 8 0) Add. 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S T A T E O F C A LI F O R NI A, S T A T E O F M AI N E, S T A T E O F M A R Y L A N D, a n d S T A T E O F MI N N E S O T A , Pl ai ntiff s, C A S E N O. 1 7 -C V - 0 5 2 3 5-W H A P L AI N TI F F S’ FI R S T S E T O F R E Q U E S T S F O R P R O D U C TI O N O F D O C U M E N T S T O D EF E N D A N TS v. U. S. D E P A R T M E N T O F H O M E L A N D S E C U RI T Y, E L AI N E D U K E, i n h er offi ci al c a p a cit y as A cti n g S e cr et ar y of t h e D e p art m e nt of H o m el a n d S e c urit y, a n d t h e U NI T E D S T A T E S O F A M E RI C A, 8 D ef e n d a nts . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 CI T Y O F S A N J O S E, a m u ni ci p al c or p or ati o n, Pl ai ntiff s, v. C A S E N O. 1 7 -C V - 0 5 3 2 9-W H A P L AI N TI F F S’ FI R S T S E T O F R E Q U E S T S F O R P R O D U C TI O N O F D O C U M E N T S T O D EF E N D A N TS D O N A L D J. T R U M P, Pr esi d e nt of t h e U nit e d St at es, i n his offi ci al c a p a cit y, E L AI N E C. D U K E, i n h er offi ci al c a p a cit y, a n d t h e U NI T E D S T A T E S O F A M E RI C A, D ef e n d a nts . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 D U L C E G A R CI A, MI RI A M G O A VI L A, S A U L JI M E N E Z S U A R VI RI DI A N A C H A B O L L A M E N N O R M A R A MI R E Z, a n d JI R A Y L A T T HI V O N G S K O R N, NZ ALEZ E Z, D O Z A, UT C A S E N O. 1 7 -C V - 0 5 3 8 0-W H A P L AI N TI F F S’ FI R S T S E T O F R E Q U E S T S F O R P R O D U C TI O N O F D O C U M E N T S T O D EF E N D A N TS Pl ai ntiff s, v. U NI T E D S T A T E S O F A M E RI C A, D O N A L D J. T R U M P, i n his offi ci al c a p a cit y as Pr esi d e nt of t h e U nit e d St at es, U. S. D E P A R T M E N T O F H O M E L A N D S E C U RI T Y, a n d E L AI N E D U K E, i n h er offi ci al c a p a cit y as A cti n g S e cr et ar y of H o m el a n d S e c urit y, D ef e n d a nts . 27 28 P L AI N TI F F S’ FI R S T S E T O F R E Q U E S T S F O R P R O D U C TI O N O F D O C U M E N T S T O D E F E N D A N T S All D A C A C as es ( N os. 1 7-5 2 1 1, 1 7 -5 2 3 5, 1 7 -5 3 2 9, 1 7 -5 3 8 0) Add. 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 P urs u a nt t o R ul e 3 4 of t h e F e d er al R ul es of Ci vil Pr o c e d ur e, Pl ai ntiffs i n t h e a b o v e- c a pti o n e d a n d r el at e d c as es pr o p o u n d t h e f oll o wi n g R e q u ests f or t h e Pr o d u cti o n of D o c u m e nts t o D ef e n d a nts i n t h e a b o v e c a pti o n e d c as es. P er F e d er al R ul es of Ci vil Pr o c e d ur e, R ul e 3 4( b)( 2)( A) a n d t h e C o urt’s C as e M a n a g e m e nt Or d er F or All D A C A A cti o ns I n T his Distri ct (D kt. 4 9), D ef e n d a nts s h all h a v e fift e e n ( 1 5) d a ys fr o m t h e s er vi c e of t h es e R e q u ests t o r es p o n d. F or e a c h d o c u m e nt wit h h el d or r e d a ct e d o n t h e gr o u n ds of pri vil e g e, D ef e n d a nts m ust c o m pl y wit h J u d g e Als u p’s S u p pl e m e nt al Or d er T o Or d er S etti n g I niti al C as e M a n a g e m e nt C o nf er e n c e I n Ci vil C as es, p ar a gr a phs 1 5 a n d 1 8. R E Q U E S T S F O R P R O D U C TI O N O F D O C U M E N T S 9 R E Q U E S T F O R P R O D U C TI O N N O. 1: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A n y a n d all d o c u m e nts a n d c o m m u ni c ati o ns 1 c o nsi d er e d or cr e at e d b y D e p art m e nt of H o m el a n d S e c urit y ( “ D H S ”) or t h e D e p art m e nt of J usti c e ( “ D OJ ”) as p art of t h e pr o c ess of d et er mi ni n g w h et h er t o c o nti n u e, m o dif y, or r es ci n d D A C A, 2 i n cl u di n g, b ut n ot li mit e d t o, a n y d o c u m e nts a n d c o m m u ni c ati o ns r el ati n g t o t h e l e g alit y of D A C A. T his r e q u est i n cl u d es, b ut is n ot li mit e d t o, d o c u m e nts a n d c o m m u ni c ati o ns b et w e e n D H S or D OJ a n d : a n y offi ci al at t h e W hit e H o us e or a n y ot h er E x e c uti v e Br a n c h a g e n c y , m e m b ers of t h e p u bli c, m e m b ers of C o n gr ess a n d c o n gr essi o n al st aff m e m b ers , a n d st at e g o v er n m e nt offi ci als a n d t h eir st aff m e m b ers. T h e d o c u m e nts a n d c o m m u ni c ati o ns i n cl u d e, b ut ar e n ot li mit e d t o, a n y a n d all n oti c es, mi n ut es, a g e n d as, list (s) of att e n d e es, n ot es, m e m or a n d a, or ot h er c o m m u ni c ati o ns fr o m m e eti n gs r el ati n g t o t h e d e cisi o n of w h et h er t o c o nti n u e, m o dif y, or r es ci n d D A C A ; a n y a n d all e v al u ati o ns of t h e c osts a n d b e n efits, dir e ct or i n dir e ct, of c o nti n ui n g, m o dif yi n g, or r es ci n di n g D A C A, a n d a n y m at eri als r el ati n g t o t h e i nt er n al r e vi e w, i nt er -a g e n c y r e vi e w, or e x p erts’ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 As us e d i n t h es e r e q u ests , “ c o m m u ni c ati o ns ” i n cl u d es a n y c o nt a ct b et w e e n t w o or m or e p ers o ns (i n cl u di n g a n y i n di vi d u al, c or p or ati o n, pr o pri et ors hi p, p art n ers hi p, ass o ci ati o n, g o v er n m e nt a g e n c y or a n y ot h er e ntit y) b y w hi c h a n y i nf or m ati o n or k n o wl e d g e is tr a ns mitt e d or c o n v e y e d, or att e m pt e d t o b e tr a ns mitt e d or c o n v e y e d, a n d s h all i ncl u d e, wit h o ut li mit ati o n, writt e n c o nt a ct b y m e a ns s u c h as l ett ers, m e m or a n d a, e- m ails, t e xt m ess a g es, i nst a nt m ess a g es, t w e ets, s o ci al n et w or ki n g sit es, or a n y ot h er d o c u m e nt, a n d or al c o nt a ct, s u c h as f a c e- t o-f a c e m e eti n gs, vi d e o c o nf er e n c es, or t el e p h o n e c o n v ers ati o ns. 2 “ D A C A ” r ef ers t o t h e J u n e 1 5, 2 0 1 2 M e m or a n d u m fr o m f or m er S e cr et ar y of H o m el a n d S e c urit y J a n et N a p olit a n o, titl e d “ E x er cisi n g Pr os e c ut ori al Dis cr eti o n Wit h R es p e ct t o I n di vi d u als W h o C a m e t o t h e U nit e d St at es as C hil dr e n, ” a n d a n y a n d a ll i m pl e m e nt ati o ns of t h e M e m or a n d u m. P L AI N TI F F S’ FI R S T S E T O F R E Q U E S T S F O R P R O D U C TI O N O F D O C U M E N T S T O D E F E N D A N T S All D A C A C as es ( N os. 1 7-5 2 1 1, 1 7 -5 2 3 5, 1 7 -5 3 2 9, 1 7 -5 3 8 0) Add. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 f e e d b a c k r e g ar di n g t h os e e v al u ati o ns; a n d an y a n d all d o c u m e nts a n d c o m m u ni c ati o ns dis c ussi n g p oli c y alt er n ati v es t o r es ci n di n g D A C A, i n cl u di n g, b ut n ot li mit e d t o, a n y m at eri als r el ati n g t o t h e i nt er n al r e vi e w, i nt er-a g e n c y r e vi e w, or e x p erts’ f e e d b a c k r e g ar di n g t h o s e alt er n ati v es. R E Q U E S T F O R P R O D U C TI O N N O. 2: A n y a n d all d o c u m e nt s a n d c o m m u ni c ati o ns, i n cl u di n g, b ut n ot li mit e d t o , i nt er n al g ui d a n c e d o c u m e nts, p oli ci es, F A Qs, or dir e cti v es —i n cl u di n g t h os e distri b ut e d t o D H S e nf or c e m e nt a g e nts a n d ot h er f e d er al e m pl o y e es — r e g ar di n g t h e d e cisi o ns t o c o nti n u e D A C A i n F e br u ar y 2 0 1 7 a n d J u n e 2 0 1 7 a n d t o r es ci n d D A C A i n S e pt e m b er 2 0 1 7. R E Q U E S T F O R P R O D U C TI O N N O. 3: T h e t e m pl at es f or a n y a n d all d o c u m e nts a n d c o m m u ni c ati o ns, i n cl u di n g, b ut n ot li mit e d t o, f or ms, n oti c es, a n d l ett ers, s e nt t o D A C A r e ci pi e nts , fr o m t h e b e gi n ni n g of t h e D A C A pr o gr a m o n J u n e 1 5, 2 0 1 2, t o t h e pr es e nt, r e g ar di n g a p pl yi n g f or , r e c ei vi n g, or r e n e wi n g t h eir d ef err e d a cti o n st at us or w or k a ut h ori z ati o n u n d er D A C A. R E Q U E S T F O R P R O D U C TI O N N O. 4: A n y a n d all d o c u m e nts r el at e d t o a n y b e n efits f or w hi c h D A C A r e ci pi e nts ar e eli gi bl e . R E Q U E S T F O R P R O D U C TI O N N O. 5: A n y a n d all d o c u m e nts a n d c o m m u ni c ati o ns c o n c er ni n g t h e p oli ci es a n d pr a cti c es, fr o m J u n e 1 5, 2 0 1 2, u ntil t h e pr es e nt, f or: a. T h e a dj u di c ati o n of i niti al D A C A a p pli c ati o ns; b. T h e a dj u di c ati o n of r e n e w als of D A C A a p pli c ati o ns; a n d c. All o wi n g D A C A r e ci pi e nts w h o d o n ot fil e f or r e n e w al b ef or e t h e e x pir ati o n d at e st at e d o n t h eir N oti c e of A cti o n t o fil e f or r e n e w al wit h o ut r e q uiri n g t h e m t o fil e a n ot h er i niti al D A C A a p pli c ati o n . R E Q U E S T F O R P R O D U C TI O N N O. 6: A n y a n d all d o c u m e nts r ef er e n c e d i n, or r eli e d o n i n dr afti n g, D ef e n d a nts’ r es p o ns e s t o Pl ai ntiffs’ First S e t of I nt err o g at ori es a n d Pl ai ntiffs’ First S et of R e q u ests f or A d missi o ns . 28 P L AI N TI F F S’ FI R S T S E T O F R E Q U E S T S F O R P R O D U C TI O N O F D O C U M E N T S T O D E F E N D A N T S All D A C A C as es ( N os. 1 7-5 2 1 1, 1 7 -5 2 3 5, 1 7 -5 3 2 9, 1 7 -5 3 8 0) 2 Add. 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 R E Q U E S T F O R P R O D U C TI O N N O. 7: A n y a n d all d o c u m e nts a n d c o m m u ni c ati o ns c o n c er ni n g t h e d e v el o p m e nt , pr e p ar ati o n, or pr o d u cti o n of d o c u m e nts a n d r e m ar ks r el at e d t o t h e a n n o u n c e m e nt of t h e r es cissi o n of D A C A, i n cl u di n g, b ut n ot li mit e d t o: a. F a ct S h e et: R es cissi o n of D ef err e d A cti o n f or C hil d h o o d Arri v als ( D A C A) ( att a c h e d h er et o as E x hi bit A); b. Fr e q u e ntl y As k e d Q u esti o ns o n t h e S e pt e m b er 5, 2 0 1 7 R es ciss i o n of t h e D ef err e d A cti o n f or C hil d h o o d Arri v als ( D A C A) Pr o gr a m ( att a c h e d h er et o as E x hi bit B); c. T al ki n g P oi nts – D A C A R es cissi o n a n d T al ki n g P oi nts – Pr esi d e nt Tr u m p Dir e cts P h as e d E n di n g of D A C A ( att a c h e d h er et o as E x hi bit C); d. T o p Fi v e M ess a g es ( att a c h e d h er et o as E x hi bit D); 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e. Att or n e y G e n er al S essi o ns’ r e m ar ks at a pr ess c o nf er e n c e o n t h e r es cissi o n of D A C A o n S e pt e m b er 5, 2 0 1 7. S e e Att or n e y G e n er al S essi o ns D eli v ers R e m ar ks o n D A C A, D e p’t of J usti c e, Offi c e of P u bli c Aff airs ( S e pt. 5, 2 0 1 7), htt ps:// w w w.j usti c e. g o v/ o p a/s p e e c h/ att or n e y g e n er al -s essi o ns-d eli v ers -r e m ar ks-d a c a . f. Pr esi d e nt Tr u m p’s st at e m e nt o n t h e r es cissi o n of D A C A o n S e pt e m b er 5, 2 0 1 7. S e e W hit e H o us e Offi c e of t h e Pr ess S e cr et ar y, “ St at e m e nt fr o m Pr esi d e nt D o n al d J. Tr u m p ” ( S e pt. 5, 2 0 1 7), htt ps:// w w w. w hit e h o us e. g o v/t h e- pr ess - offi c e/ 2 0 1 7/ 0 9/ 0 5/st at e m e nt- pr esi d e nt- d o n al d-jtr u m p. g. W hit e H o us e Pr ess R el e as e o n t h e r es cissi o n of D A C A o n S e pt e m b er 5, 2 0 1 7. S e e W hit e H o us e Offi c e of t h e Pr ess S e cr et ar y, “ Pr esi d e nt D o n al d J. Tr u m p R est or es R es p o nsi bilit y a n d t h e R ul e of L a w t o I m mi gr ati o n ” ( S e pt. 5, 2 0 1 7), htt ps:// w w w. w hit e h o us e. g o v/t h e- pr ess offi c e/ 2 0 1 7/ 0 9/ 0 5/ pr esi d e nt- d o n al d-j- tr u m p-r est or es-r es p o nsi bilit y-a n d -r ul e-l a w. h. W hit e H o us e st at e m e nt o n r es cissi o n of D A C A o n S e pt e m b er 7, 2 0 1 7. S e e W hit e H o us e bl o g p ost, “ F or m er A d mi nistr ati o n’s F ail e d R e c or d O n Cri m e, I m mi gr ati o n A n d S e c urit y Ar e W h at’s Cr u el ” ( S e pt. 7, 2 0 1 7), htt ps:// w w w. w hit e h o us e. g o v/ bl o g/ 2 0 1 7/ 0 9/ 0 7/f or m era d mi nistr ati o ns -f ail e d-r e c or d-cri m e -i m mi gr ati o n-a n d -s e c urit y-ar e -w h ats -cr u el. P L AI N TI F F S’ FI R S T S E T O F R E Q U E S T S F O R P R O D U C TI O N O F D O C U M E N T S T O D E F E N D A N T S All D A C A C as es ( N os. 1 7-5 2 1 1, 1 7 -5 2 3 5, 1 7 -5 3 2 9, 1 7 -5 3 8 0) 3 Add. 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 R E Q U E S T F O R P R O D U C TI O N N O. 8: A n y a n d all d o c u m e nts a n d c o m m u ni c ati o ns c o n c er ni n g a n y p oli ci es, pr o c e d ur es, g ui d a n c e, m e m or a n d a, or i nstr u cti o ns, r el ati n g t o h o w i nf or m ati o n pr o vi d e d b y D A C A a p pli c a nts is m ai nt ai n e d at U. S. Citi z e ns hi p a n d I m mi gr ati o n S er vi c es ( “ U S CI S ”) , i n cl u di n g, b ut n ot li mit e d t o, h o w s u c h i nf or m ati o n is pr ot e ct e d fr o m dis cl os ur e t o U. S. C ust o ms a n d B or d er Pr ot e cti o n ( “ C B P ”) a n d U. S. I m mi gr ati o n a n d C ust o ms E nf or c e m e nt ( “I C E ”), a n d h o w U S CI S, I C E, a n d C B P us e i nf or m ati o n pr o vi d e d b y f or m er D A C A r e ci pi e nts w h os e d ef err e d a cti o n h as e x pir e d. T h e r el e v a nt ti m e p eri o d f or t his r e q u est is J u n e 1 5, 2 0 1 2, t o t h e pr es e nt. R E Q U E S T F O R P R O D U C TI O N N O. 9: A n y a n d all d o c u m e nts r el ati n g t o t h e est a blis h m e nt, o p er ati o n, c o nti n u ati o n, m o difi c ati o n, dis c o nti n u ati o n, or r es cissi o n of pr e vi o us p ar ol e, n o n- pri orit y st at us, d ef err e d a cti o n a n d/ or e xt e n d e d v ol u nt ar y d e p art ur e pr o gr a ms, i n cl u di n g, b ut n ot li mit e d t o, t h e Eis e n h o w er A d mi nistr ati o n’s p ar ol e of f or ei g n- b or n or p h a ns i nt o t h e c ust o d y of U. S. milit ar y f a mili es s e e ki n g t o a d o pt t h e m; t h e Eis e n h o w er A d mi nistr ati o n’s p ar ol e of H u n g ari a n r ef u g e es; t h e 1 9 5 6 p oli c y u n d er w hi c h t h e I m mi gr ati o n a n d N at ur ali z ati o n S er vi c e ( “I N S ”) gr a nt e d e xt e n d e d v ol u nt ar y d e p art ur e t o ali e ns w h o w er e p h ysi c all y pr es e nt i n t h e U nit e d St at es a n d h a d fil e d a s atisf a ct or y T hir d Pr ef er e n c e vis a p etiti o n; t h e C u b a n R ef u g e e Pr o gr a m; t h e H o n g K o n g P ar ol e Pr o gr a m; t h e r o uti n e gr a nts of e xt e n d e d st a ys of d e p art ur e b y t h e I N S Distri ct Dir e ct or of N e w Y or k b et w e e n 1 9 6 8 a n d 1 9 7 2 w h er e a W est er n H e mis p h er e ali e n w as m arri e d t o a r esi d e nt ali e n; t h e gr a nts of e xt e n d e d v ol u nt ar y d e p art ur e t o S o ut h e ast Asi a n r ef u g e es st arti n g i n 1 9 7 5; t h e gr a nts of e xt e n d e d v ol u nt ar y d e p art ur e t o n urs es w h o w er e eli gi bl e f or H- 1 vis as, st arti n g i n 1 9 7 8; t h e gr a nts of v ol u nt ar y d e p art ur e pr o vi d e d t o c ert ai n P olis h r ef u g e es i n 1 9 8 1; t h e 1 9 8 7 F a mil y F air n ess Pr o gr a m a n d t h e 1 9 9 0 e x p a nsi o n of t h at pr o gr a m; t h e gr a nts of d ef err e d e nf or c e d d e p art ur e pr o vi d e d i n 1 9 9 0 t o c ert ai n C hi n es e n ati o n als aft er t h e Ti a n a n m e n S q u ar e pr ot ests; t h e T e m p or ar y Pr ot e ct e d St at us d esi g n ati o n f or c ert ai n S al v a d or a ns st arti n g i n 1 9 9 2; t h e T e m p or ar y Pr ot e ct e d St at us d esi g n ati o n f or c ert ai n H aiti a ns st arti n g i n 1 9 9 7; t h e d ef err e d a cti o n pr o gr a m f or s elf p etiti o n ers u n d er t h e Vi ol e n c e A g ai nst W o m e n A ct of 1 9 9 4, st arti n g i n 1 9 9 7; t h e d ef err e d a cti o n pr o gr a m f or a p pli c a nts f or n o ni m mi gr a nt st at us or vis as m a d e a v ail a bl e u n d er t h e Vi cti ms of Tr affi c ki n g a n d Vi ol e n c e Pr ot e cti o n A ct of 2 0 0 0, st arti n g i n 2 0 0 1; t h e a ut o m ati c st a ys of r e m o v al pr o vi d e d t o T vis a P L AI N TI F F S’ FI R S T S E T O F R E Q U E S T S F O R P R O D U C TI O N O F D O C U M E N T S T O D E F E N D A N T S All D A C A C as es ( N os. 1 7-5 2 1 1, 1 7 -5 2 3 5, 1 7 -5 3 2 9, 1 7 -5 3 8 0) 4 Add. 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 a p pli c a nts st arti n g i n 2 0 0 2; t h e d ef err e d a cti o n or p ar ol e pr o vi d e d t o U vis a a p pli c a nts st arti n g i n 2 0 0 3; t h e 2 0 0 5 d ef err e d a cti o n pr o gr a m f or f or ei g n st u d e nts aff e ct e d b y H urri c a n e K atri n a; t h e 2 0 0 7 d ef err e d e nf or c e d d e p art ur e pr o gr a m f or c ert ai n Li b eri a n n ati o n al s; t h e 2 0 0 9 d ef err e d a cti o n pr o gr a m f or s ur vi vi n g s p o us es of U. S. citi z e ns; a n d t h e gr a nt of t e m p or ar y pr ot e ct e d st at us f or n ati o n als of G ui n e a, Li b eri a a n d Si err a L e o n e , st arti n g i n 2 0 1 4. T his r e q u est i n cl u d es a n y a n d all d o c u m e nts a n d c o m m u ni c ati o ns r el at e d t o t h e c o nsi d er ati o n of w h et h er t h e est a blis h m e nt, c o nti n u ati o n, m o difi c ati o n, dis c o nti n u ati o n or r es cissi o n of t h e pr o gr a ms w as s u bj e ct t o t h e A d mi nistr ati v e Pr o c e d ur e A ct. T his r e q u est i n cl u d es an y a n d all t e m pl at es f or, or s p e ci m e ns of, f or ms, a p pli c ati o ns, a n d d o c u m e nts us e d b y i n di vi d u als t o a p pl y f or or o bt ai n d ef err e d a cti o n, e xt e n d e d v ol u nt ar y d e p art ur e, n o n- pri orit y st at us, p ar ol e or ot h er si mil ar b e n efits u n d er t h e a b o v e pr o gr a ms. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 D at e d: O ct o b er 9, 2 0 1 7 R es p e ctf ull y S u b mitt e d, C O VI N G T O N & B U R LI N G L L P X A VI E R B E C E R R A /s/ J effr e y M. D a vi ds o n J effr e y M. D a vi ds o n ( S B N 2 4 8 6 2 0) O n e Fr o nt Str e et, 3 5t h Fl o or S a n Fr a n cis c o, C A 9 4 1 1 1- 5 3 5 6 T el e p h o n e: ( 4 1 5) 5 9 1- 6 0 0 0 F a csi mil e: ( 4 1 5) 5 9 1- 6 0 9 1 E m ail: j d a vi ds o n @ c o v. c o m M I C H A E L L. N E W M A N Att or n e ys f or Pl ai ntiffs T H E R E G E N T S O F T H E U NI V E R SI T Y O F C A LI F O R NI A a n d J a n et N a p olit a n o, i n h er offi ci al c a p a cit y as Pr esi d e nt of t h e U ni v ersit y of C alif or ni a L a n n y A. Br e u er ( pr o h a c vi c e ) M ar k H. L y n c h ( pr o h a c vi c e ) Al e x a n d er A. B e r e n g a ut (pr o h a c vi c e ) M e g a n A. Cr o wl e y ( pr o h a c vi c e ) As hl e y A n g u as N y q uist ( pr o h a c vi c e ) J o n at h a n Y. Mi n c er ( B ar N o. 2 9 8 7 9 5) I v a n o M. V e ntr es c a (pr o h a c vi c e ) C O VI N G T O N & B U R LI N G L L P O n e Cit y C e nt er 8 5 0 T e nt h Str e et, N W W as hi n gt o n, D C 2 0 0 0 1- 4 9 5 6 T el e p h o n e: ( 2 0 2) 6 6 2 -6 0 0 0 Att or n e y G e n er al of C alif or ni a S u p er visi n g D e p ut y Att or n e y G e n er al /s/ J a m es F. Z a hr a d k a II J A M E S F. Z A H R A D K A II D e p ut y Att or n e y G e n er al C H RI S TI N E C H U A N G R E B E K A H A. F R E T Z R O N A L D H. L E E K AT HLEE N V ER M AZE N R A DEZ S H U B H R A S HI V P U RI 1 5 1 5 Cl a y Str e et, 2 0t h Fl o or P. O. B o x 7 0 5 5 0 O a kl a n d, C A 9 4 6 1 2- 0 5 5 0 T el e p h o n e: ( 5 1 0) 8 7 9- 1 2 4 7 Att or n e ys f or Pl ai ntiff St at e of C alif or ni a J A N E T T. M I L L S Att or n e y G e n er al of M ai n e S U S A N P. H E R M A N (pr o h a c vi c e ) P L AI N TI F F S’ FI R S T S E T O F R E Q U E S T S F O R P R O D U C TI O N O F D O C U M E N T S T O D E F E N D A N T S All D A C A C as es ( N os. 1 7-5 2 1 1, 1 7 -5 2 3 5, 1 7 -5 3 2 9, 1 7 -5 3 8 0) 5 Add. 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 F a csi mil e: ( 2 0 2) 6 6 2 -6 2 9 1 E- m ail: l br e u er @ c o v. c o m, ml y n c h @ c o v. c o m, a b er e n g a ut @ c o v. c o m, m cr o wl e y @ c o v. c o m, a n y q uist @ c o v. c o m, i v e ntr es c a @ c o v. c o m M ó ni c a R a mír e z Al m a d a ni ( S B N 2 3 4 8 9 3) C O VI N G T O N & B U R LI N G L L P 1 9 9 9 A v e n u e of t h e St ars L os A n g el es, C A 9 0 0 6 7- 4 6 4 3 T el e p h o n e: ( 4 2 4) 3 3 2- 4 8 0 0 F a csi mil e: ( 4 2 4) 3 3 2- 4 7 4 9 E m ail: mr al m a d a ni @ c o v. c o m Eri k a D o u gl as ( S B N 3 1 4 5 3 1) C O VI N G T O N & B U R LI N G L L P 3 3 3 T wi n D ol p hi n Dri v e, S uit e 7 0 0 R e d w o o d S h or es, C A 9 4 0 6 1- 1 4 1 8 T el e p h o n e: ( 6 5 0) 6 3 2- 4 7 0 0 F a csi mil e: ( 6 5 0) 6 3 2- 4 8 0 0 E m ail: e d o u gl as @ c o v. c o m C h arl es F. R o bi ns o n ( S B N 1 1 3 1 9 7) M ar g ar et W u ( B ar N o. 1 8 4 1 6 7) J uli a M. C. Fri e dl a n d er ( S B N 1 6 5 7 6 7) S o n y a S a n c h e z ( S B N 2 4 7 5 4 1) N or m a n H a mill ( S B N 1 5 4 2 7 2) H ar pr e et C h a h al ( S B N 2 3 3 2 6 8) Mi c h a el Tr o n c os o ( S B N 2 2 1 1 8 0) U ni v ersit y of C alif or ni a Offi c e of t h e G e n er al C o u ns el 1 1 1 1 Fr a n kli n Str e et, 8t h Fl o or O a kl a n d, C A 9 4 6 0 7- 5 2 0 0 T el e p h o n e: + 1 ( 5 1 0) 9 8 7- 9 8 0 0 F a csi mil e: + 1 ( 5 1 0) 9 8 7- 9 7 5 7 E m ail: c h arl es.r o bi ns o n @ u c o p. e d u D e p ut y Att or n e y G e n er al 6 St at e H o us e St ati o n A u g ust a, M ai n e 0 4 3 3 3 T el e p h o n e: ( 2 0 7) 6 2 6- 8 8 1 4 E m ail: s us a n. h er m a n @ m ai n e. g o v Att or n e ys f or Pl ai ntiff St at e of M ai n e B RI A N E. F R O S H Att or n e y G e n er al of M ar yl a n d S T E V E N M. S U L LI V A N (pr o h a c vi c e ) S oli cit or G e n er al 2 0 0 S ai nt P a ul Pl a c e, 2 0t h Fl o or B alti m or e, M ar yl a n d 2 1 2 0 2 T el e p h o n e: ( 4 1 0) 5 7 6- 6 3 2 5 E m ail: ss ulli v a n @ o a g.st at e. m d. us Att or n e ys f or Pl ai ntiff St at e of M ar yl a n d L O RI S W A N S O N Att or n e y G e n er al St at e of Mi n n es ot a J U LI A N N A F. P A S S E (pr o h a c vi c e ) Assist a nt Att or n e y G e n er al 4 4 5 Mi n n es ot a Str e et, S uit e 1 1 0 0 St. P a ul, Mi n n es ot a 5 5 1 0 1- 2 1 2 8 T el e p h o n e: ( 6 5 1) 7 5 7- 1 1 3 6 E m ail: j uli a n n a. p ass e @ a g.st at e. m n. us Att or n e ys f or Pl ai ntiff St at e of Mi n n es ot a Att or n e ys f or Pl ai ntiffs T H E R E G E N T S O F T H E U NI V E R SI T Y O F C A LI F O R NI A a n d J A N E T N A P O LI T A N O, i n h er offi ci al c a p a cit y as Pr esi d e nt of t h e U ni v ersit y of C alif or ni a 22 23 GI B S O N, D U N N & C R U T C H E R L L P 24 /s/ T h e o d or e J. B o utr o us, Jr. 25 T h e o d or e J. B o utr o us, Jr., S B N 1 3 2 0 9 9 t b o utr o us @ gi bs o n d u n n. c o m K at h eri n e M. M ar q u art, S B N 2 4 8 0 4 3 k m ar q u art @ gi bs o n d u n n. c o m J ess e S. G a bri el , S B N 2 6 3 1 3 7 j g a bri el @ gi bs o n d u n n. c o m 3 3 3 S o ut h Gr a n d A v e n u e L os A n g el es, C A 9 0 0 7 1- 3 1 9 7 26 27 28 C O T C H E T T, PI T R E & M c C A R T H Y, L L P O F FI C E O F T H E CI T Y A T T O R N E Y /s/ N a n c y L. Fi n e m a n N a n c y L. Fi n e m a n Bri a n D a nit z ( S B N 2 4 7 4 0 3) b d a nit z @ c p ml e g al. c o m T a m ar a h P. Pr e v ost ( S B N 3 1 3 4 2 2) t pr e v ost @ c p ml e g al. c o m S a n Fr a n cis c o Air p ort Offi c e C e nt er 8 4 0 M al c ol m R o a d, S uit e 2 0 0 B urli n g a m e, C A 9 4 0 1 0 T el e p h o n e: ( 6 5 0) 6 9 7 -6 0 0 0 P L AI N TI F F S’ FI R S T S E T O F R E Q U E S T S F O R P R O D U C TI O N O F D O C U M E N T S T O D E F E N D A N T S All D A C A C as es ( N os. 1 7-5 2 1 1, 1 7 -5 2 3 5, 1 7 -5 3 2 9, 1 7 -5 3 8 0) 6 Add. 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 T el e p h o n e: ( 2 1 3) 2 2 9 -7 0 0 0 F a csi mil e: ( 2 1 3) 2 2 9- 7 5 2 0 Et h a n D. D ett m er , S B N 1 9 6 0 4 6 e d ett m er @ g i bs o n d u n n. c o m 5 5 5 Missi o n Str e et S a n Fr a n cis c o, C A 9 4 1 0 5 T el e p h o n e: ( 4 1 5) 3 9 3- 8 2 0 0 F a csi mil e: ( 4 1 5) 3 9 3- 8 3 0 6 P U B LI C C O U N S E L M ar k D. R os e n b a u m, S B N 5 9 9 4 0 mr os e n b a u m @ p u bli c c o u ns el. or g J u d y L o n d o n, S B N 1 4 9 4 3 1 jl o n d o n @ p u bli c c o u ns el. or g 6 1 0 S o ut h Ar d m or e A v e n u e L os A n g el es, C A 9 0 0 0 5 T el e p h o n e: ( 2 1 3) 3 8 5- 2 9 7 7 F a csi mil e: ( 2 1 3) 3 8 5- 9 0 8 9 F a csi mil e: ( 6 5 0) 6 9 7 -0 5 7 7 Ri c h ar d D o yl e ( S B N 8 8 6 2 5) N or a Fri m a n n ( S B N 9 3 2 4 9) O F FI C E O F T H E CI T Y A T T O R N E Y 2 0 0 E ast S a nt a Cl ar a Str e et, 1 6t h Fl o or S a n J os e, C alif or ni a 9 5 1 1 3 T el e p h o n e: ( 4 0 8) 5 3 5- 1 9 0 0 F a csi mil e: ( 4 0 8) 9 9 8- 3 1 3 1 E- M ail A d dr ess: c a o. m ai n @s a nj os e c a. g o v Att or n e ys f or Pl ai ntiff Cit y of S a n J os e B A R R E R A L E G A L G R O U P, P L L C L uis C ort es R o m er o, S B N 3 1 0 8 5 2 l c ort es @ b arr er al e g al. c o m 1 9 3 0 9 6 8t h A v e n u e S o ut h, S uit e R 1 0 2 K e nt, W A 9 8 0 3 2 T el e p h o n e: ( 2 5 3) 8 7 2- 4 7 3 0 F a csi mil e: ( 2 5 3) 2 3 7- 1 5 9 1 L a ur e n c e H. Tri b e , S B N 3 9 4 4 1 l arr y @tri b el a w. c o m H ar v ar d L a w S c h o ol * Affili ati o n f or i d e ntifi c ati o n p ur p os es o nl y 1 5 7 5 M ass a c h us etts A v e n u e C a m bri d g e, M A 0 2 1 3 8 T el e p h o n e: ( 6 1 7) 4 9 5- 1 7 6 7 Er wi n C h e m eri ns k y, pr o h a c vi c e f ort h c o mi n g e c h e m eri ns k y @l a w. b er k el e y. e d u U ni v ersit y of C alif or ni a, B er k el e y S c h o ol of La w * Affili ati o n f or i d e ntifi c ati o n p ur p os es o nl y 2 1 5 B o alt H all B er k el e y, C A 9 4 7 2 0- 7 2 0 0 T el e p h o n e: ( 5 1 0) 6 4 2- 6 4 8 3 L e a h M. Lit m a n , pr o h a c vi c e f ort h c o mi n g llit m a n @l a w. u ci. e d u U ni v ersit y of C alif or ni a, Ir vi n e S c h o ol of L a w * Affili ati o n f or i d e ntifi c ati o n p ur p os es o nl y 4 0 1 E ast P elt as o n Dri v e Ir vi n e, C A 9 2 6 9 7 T el e p h o n e: ( 9 4 9) 8 2 4- 7 7 2 2 Att or n e ys f or Pl ai ntiffs D U L C E G A R CI A, MI RI A M G O N Z A L E Z A VI L A, S A U L JI M E N E Z S U A R E Z, VI RI DI A N A C H A B O L L A P L AI N TI F F S’ FI R S T S E T O F R E Q U E S T S F O R P R O D U C TI O N O F D O C U M E N T S T O D E F E N D A N T S All D A C A C as es ( N os. 1 7-5 2 1 1, 1 7 -5 2 3 5, 1 7 -5 3 2 9, 1 7 -5 3 8 0) 7 Add. 49 1 2 M E N D O Z A, N O R M A R A MI R E Z, a n d JI R A Y U T L A T T HI V O N G S K O R N 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 P L AI N TI F F S’ FI R S T S E T O F R E Q U E S T S F O R P R O D U C TI O N O F D O C U M E N T S T O D E F E N D A N T S All D A C A C as es ( N os. 1 7-5 2 1 1, 1 7 -5 2 3 5, 1 7 -5 3 2 9, 1 7 -5 3 8 0) 8 Add. 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 C E R TI FI C A T E O F S E R VI C E I h er e b y c ertif y t h at o n O ct o b er 9, 2 0 1 7, I s er v e d a tr u e a n d c orr e ct c o p y of P L AI N TI F F S’ FI R S T S E T O F R E Q U E S T S F O R P R O D U C TI O N O F D O C U M E N T S T O D E F E N D A N T S o n t h e p arti es i n t his a cti o n b y el e ctr o ni c m ail tr a ns missi o n t o t h e e- m ail a d dr ess es list e d b el o w. 11 B R A D P. R O S E N B E R G S e ni or Tri al C o u ns el U nit e d St at es D e p art m e nt of J usti c e E m ail: br a d.r os e n b er g @ us d oj. g o v S T E P H E N M. P E Z ZI Tri al Att or n e y U nit e d St at es D e p art m e nt of J usti c e E m ail: st e p h e n. p e z zi @ us d oj. g o v 12 Att or n e ys f or D ef e n d a nts 7 8 9 10 13 14 J A MES Z A H R A D K A j a m es. z a hr a d k a @ d oj. c a. g o v R O N AL D LEE r o n al d.l e e @ d oj. c a. g o v N A N C Y L. FI N E M A N nfi n e m a n @ c p ml e g al. c o m; B RI A N D A NI T Z b d a nit z @ c p ml e g al. c o m; T A M A R A H P. P R E V O S T t pr e v ost @ c p ml e g al. c o m pl u c @ c p ml e g al. c o m E T H A N D. D E T T M E R e d ett m er @ gi bs o n d u n n. c o m J E S S E S. G A B RI E L j g a bri el @ gi bs o n d u n n. c o m K A TI E M. M A R Q U A R T k m ar q u art @ gi bs o n d u n n. c o m K E L S E Y J. H E L L A N D k h ell a n d @ gi bs o n d u n n. c o m M A R K D. R O S E N B A U M mr os e n b a u m @ p u bli c c o u ns el. or g 15 16 17 18 19 20 Att or n e ys f or Pl ai ntiffs 21 22 23 24 25 T his t h e 9t h d a y of O ct o b er, 2 0 1 7 /s/ M ar k H. L y n c h M ar k H. L y n c h 26 27 28 P L AI N TI F F S’ FI R S T S E T O F R E Q U E S T S F O R P R O D U C TI O N O F D O C U M E N T S T O D E F E N D A N T S All D A C A C as es ( N os. 1 7-5 2 1 1, 1 7 -5 2 3 5, 1 7 -5 3 2 9, 1 7 -5 3 8 0) EXHIBIT A 9/ 2 9/ 2 0 1 7 F a ct S h e et: R es cissi o n Of D ef err e d A cti o n F or C hil d h o o d Arri v al s ( D A C A) H o m el a n d S e c urit y Add. 52 � � �� �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � U . S. D e part m e nt of H o m el a n d S e c urit y F a c t S he e t : R e sci s si o n O f D e f e r r e d A c t i o n F o r C hil d h o o d A r ri val s ( D A C A) R el e a s e D at e:  S e pt e m b er 5, 2 0 1 7 O n J u n e 1 5, 2 0 1 2, t h e n- S e cr et ar y of H o m el a n d S e c urit y J a n et N a p olit a n o i s s u e d a m e m or a n d u m e ntitl e d “ E x er ci si n g Pr o s e c ut ori al Di s cr eti o n wit h R e s p e ct t o I n di vi d u al s W h o C a m e t o t h e U nit e d St at e s a s C hil dr e n,” cr e ati n g a n o n- c o n gr e s si o n all y a ut h ori z e d a d mi ni str ati v e pr o gr a m t h at p er mitt e d c ert ai n i n di vi d u al s w h o c a m e t o t h e U nit e d St at e s a s j u v e nil e s a n d m e et s ev er al crit eri a —i n cl u di n g l a c ki n g a n y c urr e nt l a wf ul i m mi gr ati o n st at u s — t o re q u e st c o n si d er ati o n of d ef err e d a cti o n f or a p eri o d of t w o y e ar s, s u bj e ct t o r e n e w al, a n d eli gi bilit y f or w or k a ut h ori z ati o n.  T hi s pr o gr a m b e c a m e k n o w n a s D ef err e d A cti o n f or C hil d h o o d Arri v al s ( D A C A). T h e O b a m a a d mi ni str ati o n c h o s e t o d e pl o y D A C A b y E x e c uti v e Br a n c h m e m or a n d u m — d e s pit e t h e fa ct t h at C o n gr e s s affir m ati v el y r ej e ct e d s u c h a pr o gr a m i n t h e n or m al l e gi sl ati v e pr o c e s s o n m ulti pl e o c c a si o n s. T h e c o n stit uti o n alit y of t hi s a cti o n h a s b e e n wi d el y q u e sti o n e d si n c e it s i n ce pti o n. D A C A ’s crit eri a w er e o v erl y br o a d, a n d n ot i nt e n d e d t o a p pl y o nl y t o c hil dr e n. U n d er t h e c at e g ori c al crit eri a e st a bli s h e d i n t h e J u n e 1 5, 2 0 1 2 m e m or a n d u m, i n di vi d u al s c o ul d a p pl y f or d ef err e d a cti o n if t h e y h a d c o m e t o t h e U . S. b efor e t h eir 1 6 t h birt h d a y; wer e u n d er a g e 3 1; h a d c o nti n u o u sl y r e si d e d i n t h e U nit e d St at e s si n c e J u n e 1 5, 2 0 0 7; a n d w er e i n s c h o ol, gr a d u at e d or h a d o bt ai n e d a c ertifi c at e of c o m pl eti o n fr o m hi g h s c h o ol, o bt ai n e d a G e n er al E d u c ati o n al D e v el o p m e nt ( G E D) c ertifi c at e, or w er e a n h o n or a bl y di s c h ar g e d v et er a n of t h e C o a st G u ar d or Ar m e d F or c e s of t h e U nit e d St at e s. Si g nifi c a ntl y , i n di vi d u al s wer e i n eli gi bl e if t h e y h a d b e e n c o n vi ct e d of a f el o n y or a si g nifi c a nt mi s d e m e a n or , b ut wer e c o n si d er e d eli gi bl e e v e n if t h e y h a d b e e n c o n vi ct e d of u p t o t w o ot h er mi s d e m e a n or s. htt ps:// w w w. d hs. g o v/ n e ws/ 2 0 1 7/ 0 9/ 0 5/f a ct-s h e et-r es cissi o n- d ef err e d- a cti o n- c hil d h o o d- arri v als- d a c a 1/ 3 9/ 2 9/ 2 0 1 7 F a ct S h e et: R es cissi o n Of D ef err e d A cti o n F or C hil d h o o d Arri v al s ( D A C A) H o m el a n d S e c urit y Add. 53 T h e A ttor n e y G e n er al s e nt a l e tter t o t h e D e p art m e nt o n S e pt e m b er 4, 2 0 1 7, arti c ul ati n g hi s l eg al d e t er mi n ati o n t h at D AC A “ w a s eff e ct u at e d b y t h e pr e vi o u s a d mi ni str ati o n t hr o u g h e x e c uti v e a cti o n, wit h o ut pr o p er st at ut or y a ut h orit y a n d wit h n o e st a bli s h e d e n d- d at e, aft er C o n gr e s s' r e p e at e d r ej e cti o n of pr o p o s e d l e gi sl ati o n t h at w o ul d h a v e a c c o m pli s h e d a si mil ar re s ult . S u c h a n o p e n- e n d e d circ u m v e nti o n of i m mi gr ati o n l a w s w a s a n u n c o n stit uti o n al e x er ci s e of a ut h orit y b y t h e E x e c uti v e Br a n c h. ” T h e l e tter f urt h er st at e d t h at b e c a u s e D A C A “ h a s t h e s a m e l e g al a n d c o n stit uti o n al d ef e ct s t h at t h e c o urt s r e c o g ni z e d a s t o D A P A, it i s li k el y t h at p ote nti all y i m mi n e nt liti g ati o n w o ul d yi el d si mil ar r e s ult s wit h r e s p e ct t o D A C A. ” B a s e d o n t hi s a n al y si s, t h e Pr e si d e nt w a s f a c e d wit h a st ar k c h oi c e: d o n ot hi n g a n d all o w f or t h e pro b a bilit y t h at t h e e ntir e D A C A pr o gr a m c o ul d b e i m m e di at el y e nj oi n e d b y a c o urt i n a di sr u pti v e m a n n er , or i n st e a d p h a s e o ut t h e pr o gr a m i n a n ord erl y f a s hi o n. T o d a y , A cti n g S e cr et ar y of H o m el a n d S e c urit y D u k e i s s u e d a m e m or a n d u m ( 1) r e s ci n di n g t h e J u n e 2 0 1 2 m e m o t h at e st a bli s h e d D A C A, a n d ( 2) s e tti n g for w ar d a pl a n f or p h a si n g o ut D A C A. T h e r e s ult of t hi s p h a s e d a p pr o a c h i s t h at t h e D e p art m e nt of H o m el a n d S e c urit y will pr o vi d e a li mit e d wi n d o w i n w hi c h it will a dj u di c at e c ert ai n r e q u e st s f or D A C A a n d a s s o ci at e d a p pli c ati o n s f or E m pl o y m e nt A ut h ori z ati o n D o c u m e nt s m e e ti n g par a m e ter s s p e cifi e d b el o w. Eff e cti v e i m m e di at el y , D H S: Will a dj u di c at e — o n a n i n di vi d u al, c a s e - by- c a s e b a si s — pr o p erl y fil e d p e n di n g D A C A i niti al re q u e st s a n d a s s o ci at e d a p pli c ati o n s f or E m pl o y m e nt A ut h ori z ati o n D o c u m e nt s t h at h a ve b e e n a c c e pt e d a s of t h e d at e of t hi s m e m or a n d u m. Will r ej e ct all D A C A i niti al r e q u e st s a n d a s s o ci at e d a p pli c ati o n s f or E m pl o y m e nt A ut h ori z ati o n D o c u m e nt s fil e d aft er t h e d at e of t hi s m e m or a n d u m. Will a dj u di c at e — o n a n i n di vi d u al, c a s e - by- c a s e b a si s — pr o p erl y fil e d p e n di n g D A C A re n e w al r e q u e st s a n d a s s o ci at e d a p pli c ati o n s f or E m pl o y m e nt A ut h ori z ati o n D o c u m e nt s fr o m c urr e nt b e n efi ci ari e s t h at h a v e b e e n a c c e pt e d a s of t h e d at e of t hi s m e m or a n d u m, a n d fr o m c urr e nt b e n efi ci ari e s w h o s e b e n efit s will e x pir e b e t we e n t h e d at e of t hi s m e m or a n d u m a n d M ar c h 5, 2 0 1 8 t h at h a v e b e e n a c c e pt e d a s of O ct o b er 5, 2 0 1 7. Will r ej e ct all D A C A r e n e w al r e q u e st s a n d a s s o ci at e d a p pli c ati o n s f or E m pl o y m e nt A ut h ori z ati o n D o c u m e nt s fil e d o ut si d e of t h e p ar a m e ter s s p e cifi e d a b o v e. Will n ot t er mi n at e t h e gr a nt s of pr e vi o u sl y i s s u e d d ef err e d a cti o n or r e v o k e E m pl o y m e nt A ut h ori z ati o n D o c u m e nt s s ol el y b a s e d o n t h e dir e cti v e s i n t hi s m e m or a n d u m f or t h e r e m ai ni n g d ur ati o n of t h eir v ali dit y p eri o d s. Will n ot a p pr o v e a n y n e w F or m I- 1 3 1 a p pli c ati o n s f or a d v a n c e p ar ol e u n d er st a n d ar d s a s s o ci at e d wit h t h e D A C A pr o gr a m, alt h o u g h it will g e n er all y h o n or t h e htt ps:// w w w. d hs. g o v/ n e ws/ 2 0 1 7/ 0 9/ 0 5/f a ct-s h e et-r es cissi o n- d ef err e d- a cti o n- c hil d h o o d- arri v als- d a c a 2/ 3 9/ 2 9/ 2 0 1 7 F a ct S h e et: R es cissi o n Of D ef err e d A cti o n F or C hil d h o o d Arri v al s ( D A C A) H o m el a n d S e c urit y Add. 54 st at e d v ali dit y p eri o d f or pr e vi o u sl y a p pr o v e d a p pli c ati o n s f or a d v a n c e p ar ol e. N ot wit h st a n di n g t h e c o nti n u e d v ali dit y of a d v a n c e p ar ol e a p pr o v al s pr e vi o u sl y gr a nt e d, U . S. Cu st o m s a n d B or d er Pr ot e cti o n will — of c o ur s e —r et ai n t h e a ut h orit y it h a s al w a y s h a d a n d e x er ci s e d i n d e t er mi ni n g t h e a d mi s si bilit y of a n y p ers o n pre s e nti n g at t h e b or d er a n d t h e eli gi bilit y of s u c h p ers o n s f or p ar ol e. F urt h er , U. S. Citi ze n s hi p a n d I m mi grati o n S er vi c e s will — of c o ur s e —r et ai n t h e a ut h orit y t o r e v o k e or t er mi n at e a n a d v a n c e p ar ol e d o c u m e nt at a n y ti m e. Will a d mi ni str ati v el y cl o s e all p e n di n g F or m I- 1 3 1 a p pli c ati o n s f or a d v a n c e p ar ol e fil e d u n d er sta n d ar d s a s s o ci at e d wit h t h e D A C A pr o gr a m, a n d will r ef u n d all a s s o ci at e d fe e s. Will c o nti n u e t o e x er ci s e it s di s cr eti o n ar y a ut h orit y t o t er mi n at e or d e n y d ef err e d a cti o n f or a n y r e a s o n, at a n y ti m e, wit h or wit h o ut n oti c e. It s h o ul d b e n ote d t h at D A C A w a s n ot i nt e n d e d t o b e a v ail a bl e t o p er s o n s w h o e nt er e d ill e g all y aft er 2 0 0 7.  T h u s, p er s o n s e nt eri n g t h e c o u ntr y ill e g all y t o d a y , to m orr o w or i n t h e f ut ur e will n ot b e eli gi bl e f or t h e wi n d d o w n of D A C A. T o pi c s:  B or d er S e c urit y K e y w or d s:  D A C A (/t o pi c s/ b or der - se c u rit y) , D ef (/k e y w or d s/ d a c a ) , D ef err e d A cti o n (/t o pi c s/ def err e d - a cti o n) err e d A cti o n f or C hil d h o o d Arri v al s (/k e y w or d s/ d ef err e d - a cti o n- c hil d h o o d- arriv al s) L a st P u bli s h e d D at e: S e pt e m b er 5, 2 0 1 7 htt ps:// w w w. d hs. g o v/ n e ws/ 2 0 1 7/ 0 9/ 0 5/f a ct-s h e et-r es cissi o n- d ef err e d- a cti o n- c hil d h o o d- arri v als- d a c a 3/ 3 EXHIBIT 9/ 2 9/ 2 0 1 7 Fr e q u e ntl y As k e d Q u esti o ns: R es cissi o n Of D ef err e d A cti o n F or C hil d h o o d Arri v als ( D A C A) H o m el a n d S e c urit y Add. 56 � � �� �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � U . S. D e part m e nt of H o m el a n d S e c urit y F r e q u e n tl y A s k e d Q ue s ti o n s: R e s ci s si o n O f D e f e r r e d Ac t i o n F o r C hil d h o o d A r ri v al s ( D A C A) R el e a s e D at e:  S e pt e m b er 5, 2 0 1 7 E n e s p a ñ ol ( htt p s://w w w . d h s. g o v/n e w s / 2 0 1 7/ 0 9/ 0 5/ pr e g unt a s-fr e c u e nt e s - an u l a ci-n- d e-l a- a c ci- n- dif eri d a- p ar a-l o s- ll e g a d o s-e n- l a) T h e f oll o wi n g ar e fr e q u e ntl y a s k e d q u e sti o n s o n t h e S e pt e m b er 5, 2 0 1 7 R e s ci s si o n of t h e D ef err e d A cti o n f or C hil d h o o d Arri v al s ( D A C A) Pr o gr a m. Q 1: W h y i s D H S p h a si n g o u t t h e D A C A p r o g r a m ? A 1: T a ki n g i nt o c o n si d er ati o n t h e f e d er al c o urt r uli n g s i n o n g oi n g liti g ati o n, a n d t h e S e pt e m b er 4, 2 0 1 7 l e tter fr o m t h e A ttor n e y G e n er al, it i s cl e ar t h at pr o gr a m s h o ul d b e t er mi n at e d. A s s u c h, t h e A cti n g S e cr et ar y of H o m el a n d S e c urit y r e s ci n d e d t h e J u n e 1 5, 2 0 1 2 m e m or a n d u m e st a bli s hi n g t h e D A C A pr o gr a m. Pl e a s e s e e t h e A ttor n e y G e n er al’ s l ett er a n d t h e A cti n g S e cr et ar y of H o m el a n d S e c urit y’s m e m or a n d u m f or f urt h er i nf or m ati o n o n h o w t hi s d e ci si o n w a s r e a c h e d. Q 2: W h a t i s g oi n g t o h a p p e n t o c u r r e n t D A C A h ol d e r s ? A 2: C urr e nt D A C A r e ci pi e nt s will b e p er mitt e d t o r et ai n b ot h t h e p eri o d of d ef err e d a cti o n a n d t h eir e m pl oy m e nt a ut h ori z ati o n d o c u m e nt s ( E A D s) u ntil t h e y e x pir e, u nl e s s t er mi n at e d or r e v o ke d. D A C A b e n efit s ar e g e n er all y v ali d f or t w o y e ar s fr o m t h e d at e of i s s u a n c e. Q 3: W h a t h a p p e n s t o i n di vi d u al s w h o c u r r e n tl y h a v e a n i ni ti al D A C A r e q u e s t p e n di n g ? A 3:  D u e t o t h e a nti ci p at e d c o st s a n d a d mi ni str ati v e b ur d e n s a s s o ci at e d wit h r ej e cti n g all p e n di n g i niti al r e q u e st s, U S CI S will a dj u di c at e — o n a n i n di vi d u al, c a s e - by- c a s e b a si s — all htt ps:// w w w. d hs. g o v/ n e ws/ 2 0 1 7/ 0 9/ 0 5/fr e q u e ntl y- as k e d- q u esti o ns-r es cissi o n- d ef err e d- a cti o n- c hil d h o o d- arri v als- d a c a 1/ 5 9/ 2 9/ 2 0 1 7 Fr e q u e ntl y As k e d Q u esti o ns: R es cissi o n Of D ef err e d A cti o n F or C hil d h o o d Arri v als ( D A C A) H o m el a n d S e c urit y Add. 57 pr o p erl y fil e d D A C A i niti al r e q u e st s a n d a s s o ci at e d a p pli c ati o n s f or E A D s t h at h a v e b e e n a c c e pt e d a s of S e pt e m b er 5, 2 0 1 7. Q 4: W h a t h a p p e n s t o i n di vi d u al s w h o c u r r e n tl y h a v e a r e q u e s t f o r r e n e w al o f D A C A p e n di n g ? A 4: D u e t o t h e a nti ci p at e d c o st s a n d a d mi ni str ati v e b ur d e n s a s s o ci at e d wit h r ej e cti n g all p e n di n g r e n e w al r e q u e st s, U S CI S a dj u di c at e — o n a n i n di vi d u al, c a s e - by- c a s e b a si s — pr o p erl y fil e d p e n di n g D AC A r e n e w al r e q u e st s a n d a s s o ci at e d a p pli c ati o n s f or E m pl o y m e nt A ut h ori z ati o n D o c u m e nt s fr o m c urr e nt b e n efi ci ari e s t h at h a v e b e e n a c c e pt e d a s of S e pt e m b er 5, 2 0 1 7, a n d fr o m c urr e nt b e n efi ci ari e s w h o s e b e n efit s will e x pir e b e t we e n S e pt e m b er 5, 2 0 1 7 a n d M ar c h 5, 2 0 1 8 t h at h a v e b e e n a c c e pt e d a s of O ct o b er 5, 2 0 1 7.   U S CI S will r ej e ct all re q u e st s t o r e n e w D A C A a n d a s s o ci at e d a p pli c ati o n s f or E A D s fil e d aft er O ct o b er 5, 2 0 1 7. Q 5: I s t h e r e s till ti m e f o r c u r r e n t D A C A r e ci pi e n t s t o fil e a r e q u e s t t o r e n e w t h ei r D A C A ? A 5: U S CI S will o nl y a c c e pt r e n e w al r e q u e st s a n d a s s o ci at e d a p pli c ati o n s f or E A D s f or t h e cl a s s of i n di vi d u al s d e s cri b e d a b o v e i n t h e ti m e p eri o d d e s cri b e d a b o v e. Q 6: W h a t h a p p e n s w h e n a n i n di vi d u al’ s D A C A b e n e fi t s e x pi r e o v e r t h e c o u r s e o f t h e n e x t t w o y e a r s ? Will i n di vi d u al s wi t h e x pi r e d D A C A b e c o n si d e r e d ill e g all y p r e s e n t i n t h e c o u n t r y ? A 6: C urr e nt l a w d o e s n ot gr a nt a n y l e g al st at u s f or t h e cl a s s of i n di vi d u al s w h o ar e c urr e nt r e ci pi e nt s of D AC A. R e ci pi e nt s of D A C A ar e c urr e ntl y u nl a wf ull y pr e s e nt i n t h e U . S. wit h t h eir re m o v al d ef err e d.  W h e n t h eir p eri o d of d ef err e d a cti o n e x pir e s or i s t er mi n at e d, t h eir r e m o v al will n o l o n g er b e d ef err e d a n d t h e y will n o l o n g er b e eli gi bl e f or l a wf ul e m pl o y m e nt . O nl y C o n gr e s s h a s t h e a ut h orit y t o a m e n d t h e e xi sti n g i m mi gr ati o n l a w s. Q 7: O n c e a n i n di vi d u al’ s D A C A e x pi r e s, will t h ei r c a s e b e r ef e r r e d t o I C E f o r e nf o r c e m e nt p u r p o s e s ? A 7: I nf or m ati o n pr o vi d e d t o U S CI S i n D A C A r e q u e st s will n ot b e pr o a cti v el y pr o vi d e d t o I C E a n d C B P f or t h e p ur p o s e of i m mi gr ati o n e nf or c e m e nt pr o c e e di n g s, u nl e s s t h e r e q u e st or m e e t s t h e criteri a f or t h e i s s u a n c e of a N oti c e T o A p p e ar or a r ef err al t o I C E u n d er t h e crit eri a s e t fort h i n US CI S’ N oti c e t o A p p e ar g ui d a n c e ( w w w . u s ci s. go v/ N T A ( htt p://w w w . u s ci s. g o v/ N T A) ). T hi s p oli c y, w hi c h m a y b e m o difi e d, s u p er s e d e d, or r e s ci n d e d at a n y ti m e wit h o ut n oti c e, i s n ot i nt e n d e d htt ps:// w w w. d hs. g o v/ n e ws/ 2 0 1 7/ 0 9/ 0 5/fr e q u e ntl y- as k e d- q u esti o ns-r es cissi o n- d ef err e d- a cti o n- c hil d h o o d- arri v als- d a c a 2/ 5 9/ 2 9/ 2 0 1 7 Fr e q u e ntl y As k e d Q u esti o ns: R es cissi o n Of D ef err e d A cti o n F or C hil d h o o d Arri v als ( D A C A) H o m el a n d S e c urit y Add. 58 t o, d o e s n ot, a n d m a y n ot b e r eli e d u p o n t o cr eat e a n y ri g ht or b e n efit , s u b sta nti v e or pr o c e d ur al, e nf or c e a bl e b y l a w b y a n y p art y i n a n y a d mi ni str ati v e, ci vil, or cri mi n al m att er . Q 8: Will U S CI S s h a r e t h e p e r s o n al i n f o r m a ti o n o f i n di vi d u al s w h o s e p e n di n g r e q u e s t s a r e d e ni e d p r o a c ti v el y wi t h I C E f o r e nf o r c e m e nt p u r p o s e s ? A 8: G e n er all y , i nfor m ati o n pr o vi d e d i n D A C A r e q u e st s will n ot b e pr o a cti v el y pr o vi d e d t o ot h er l a w e nfor c e m e nt e ntiti e s (i n cl u di n g I C E a n d C B P) f or t h e p ur p o s e of i m mi gr ati o n e nf or c e m e nt pr o c e e di n g s u nl e s s t h e r e q u e st or p o s e s a ri s k t o n ati o n al s e c urit y or p u bli c s af e t y, or m e et s t h e criteri a f or t h e i s s u a n c e of a N oti c e T o A p p e ar or a r ef err al t o I C E u n d er t h e crit eri a. T hi s p oli c y, w hi c h m a y b e m o difi e d, s u p er s e d e d, or r e s ci n d e d at a n y ti m e wit h o ut n oti c e, i s n ot i nt e n d e d to, d o e s n ot, a n d m a y n ot b e r eli e d u p o n t o cr e at e a n y ri g ht or b e n efit , s u b sta nti v e or pr o c e d ur al, e nf or c e a bl e b y l a w b y a n y p art y i n a n y a d mi ni str ati v e, ci vil, or cri mi n al m att er . Q 9: C a n d e f e r r e d a c ti o n r e c ei v e d p u r s u a n t t o D A C A b e t e r mi n a t e d  b e f o r e i t e x pi r e s ? A 9: Y e s.  D A C A i s a n e x er ci s e of d ef err e d a cti o n w hi c h i s a f or m of pr o s e c ut ori al di s cr eti o n. H e n c e, D H S will c o nti n u e t o e x er ci s e it s di s cr eti o n ar y a ut h orit y t o t er mi n at e or d e n y d ef err e d a cti o n at a n y ti m e w h e n i m mi gr ati o n offi ci al s d et er mi n e t er mi n ati o n or d e ni al of d ef err e d a cti o n i s a p pr o pri at e. Q 1 0: C a n D A C A r e ci pi e n t s w h o s e v ali d E A D i s l o s t, s t ol e n o r d e s t r o y e d r e q u e s t a n e w E A D d u ri n g t h e p h a s e o u t ? A 1 0: If a n i n di vi d u al’ s still- v ali d E A D i s l o st , stol e n, or d e str o y e d, t h e y m a y r e q u e st a re pl a c e m e nt E A D b y fili n g a n e w F or m I- 7 6 5.   Q 1 1: Will D A C A r e ci pi e n t s s till b e a bl e t o t r a v el o u t si d e o f t h e U ni t e d S t a t e s w hil e t h ei r D A C A i s v ali d ? A 1 1: Eff e cti v e S e pt e m b er 5, 2 0 1 7, U S CI S will n o l o n g er a p pr o v e a n y n e w F or m I- 1 3 1 a p pli c ati o n s f or a d v a n c e p ar ol e u n d er st a n d ar d s a s s o ci at e d wit h t h e D A C A pr o gr a m. T h o s e wit h a c urr e nt a d v a n c e p ar ol e v ali dit y p eri o d fr o m a pr e vi o u sl y- a p pr o v e d a d v a n c e p ar ol e a p pli c ati o n will g e n er all y r et ai n t h e b e n efit u ntil it e x pir e s. H o w e v er , C B P will ret ai n t h e a ut h orit y it h a s al w a y s e x er ci s e d i n d e t er mi ni n g t h e a d mi s si bilit y of a n y p ers o n pre s e nti n g at t h e b ord er . Furt h er , US CI S r et ai n s t h e a ut h orit y t o r e v o k e or t er mi n at e a n a d v a n c e p ar ol e d o c u m e nt at a n y ti m e. htt ps:// w w w. d hs. g o v/ n e ws/ 2 0 1 7/ 0 9/ 0 5/fr e q u e ntl y- as k e d- q u esti o ns-r es cissi o n- d ef err e d- a cti o n- c hil d h o o d- arri v als- d a c a 3/ 5 9/ 2 9/ 2 0 1 7 Fr e q u e ntl y As k e d Q u esti o ns: R es cissi o n Of D ef err e d A cti o n F or C hil d h o o d Arri v als ( D A C A) H o m el a n d S e c urit y Add. 59 Q 1 2: W h a t h a p p e n s t o i n di vi d u al s w h o h a v e p e n di n g r e q u e s t s f o r a d v a n c e p a r ol e t o t r a v el o u t si d e o f t h e U ni t e d S t a t e s ? A 1 2: U S CI S will a d mi ni str ati v el y cl o s e all p e n di n g F or m I- 1 3 1 a p pli c ati o n s f or a d v a n c e p ar ol e u n d er st a n d ar d s a s s o ci at e d wit h t h e D A C A pr o gr a m, a n d will r ef u n d all a s s o ci at e d f e e s. Q 1 3: H o w m a n y D A C A r e q u e s t s a r e c u r r e n tl y p e n di n g t h a t will b e i m p a c t e d b y t hi s c h a n g e ? D o y o u h a v e a b r e a k d o w n o f t h e s e n u m b er s b y st at e ? A 1 3:  T h er e w er e 1 0 6, 3 4 1 r e q u e st s p e n di n g a s of A u g u st 2 0, 2 0 1 7 – 3 4, 4 8 7 i niti al r e q u e st s a n d 7 1, 8 5 4 r e n e w al s.  W e d o n ot c urr e ntl y h a v e t h e st at e- s p e cifi c br e a k o ut s. Q 1 4: I s t h e r e a g r a c e p e ri o d f o r D A C A r e ci pi e n t s wi t h E A D s t h a t will s o o n e x pi r e t o m a k e a p p r o p ri a t e pl a n s t o l e a v e t h e c o u ntr y ? A 1 4: A s n ot e d a b o v e, o n c e a n i n di vi d u al’ s D A C A a n d E A D e x pir e — u nl e s s i n t h e li mit e d cl a s s of b e n efi ci ari e s a b o v e w h o ar e f o u n d eli gi bl e t o r e n e w t h eir b e n efit s —t h e i n di vi d u al i s n o l o n g er c o n si d er e d l a wf ull y pr e s e nt i n t h e U nit e d St at e s a n d i s n ot a ut h ori z e d t o w or k .  Per s o n s w h o s e D A C A p er mit s will e x pir e b e t we e n S e pt e m b er 5, 2 0 1 7 a n d M ar c h 5, 2 0 1 8 ar e eli gi bl e t o r e n e w t h eir p er mit s. N o p er s o n s h o ul d l o s e b e n efit s u n d er t hi s m e m or a n d u m pri or t o M arc h 5, 2 0 1 8 if t h ey pr o p erl y fil e a r e n e w al r e q u e st a n d a s s o ci at e d a p pli c ati o n f or e m pl o y m e nt a ut h ori z ati o n. Q 1 5: C a n y o u p r o vi d e a b r e a k d o w n o f h o w m a n y D A C A E A D s e x pi r e i n 2 0 1 7, 2 0 1 8, a n d 2 0 1 9 ? A 1 5:  F r o m Au g u st t hr o u g h D e c e m b er 2 0 1 7, 2 0 1, 6 7 8 i n di vi d u al s ar e s e t to h a v e t h eir D A C A/ E A D s e x pir e. Of t h e s e i n di vi d u al s, 5 5, 2 5 8 alr e a d y h a v e s u b mitt e d r e q u e st s f or r e n e w al of D A C A t o U S CI S. I n c al e n d ar ye ar 2 0 1 8, 2 7 5, 3 4 4 i n di vi d u al s ar e s e t to h a v e t h eir D A C A/ E A D s e x pir e. Of t h e s e 2 7 5, 3 4 4 i n di vi d u al s, 7, 2 7 1 h a v e s u b mitt e d r e q u e st s f or r e n e w al t o U S CI S. Fr o m J a n u ar y t hr o u g h A u g u st 2 0 1 9, 3 2 1, 9 2 0 i n di vi d u al s ar e s e t to h a v e t h eir D A C A/ E A D s e x pir e. Of t h e s e 3 2 1, 9 2 0 i n di vi d u al s, ei g ht h a v e s u b mitt e d r e q u e st s f or r e n e w al of D A C A t o U S CI S. htt ps:// w w w. d hs. g o v/ n e ws/ 2 0 1 7/ 0 9/ 0 5/fr e q u e ntl y- as k e d- q u esti o ns-r es cissi o n- d ef err e d- a cti o n- c hil d h o o d- arri v als- d a c a 4/ 5 9/ 2 9/ 2 0 1 7 Fr e q u e ntl y As k e d Q u esti o ns: R es cissi o n Of D ef err e d A cti o n F or C hil d h o o d Arri v als ( D A C A) H o m el a n d S e c urit y Add. 60 Q 1 6: W h a t w e r e t h e p r e vi o u s g ui d eli n e s f o r U S CI S t o g r a n t D A C A? A 1 6: I n di vi d u al s m e eti n g t h e f oll o wi n g c at e g ori c al crit eri a c o ul d a p pl y f or D A C A if t h e y: W er e u n d er t h e a g e of 3 1 a s of J u n e 1 5, 2 0 1 2; C a m e t o t h e U nit e d St at e s b ef or e r e a c hi n g t h eir 1 6t h birt h d a y; H a v e c o nti n u o u sl y r e si d e d i n t h e U nit e d St at e s si n c e J u n e 1 5, 2 0 0 7, u p t o t h e pr e s e nt ti m e; W er e p h y si c all y pr e s e nt i n t h e U nit e d St at e s o n J u n e 1 5, 2 0 1 2, a n d at t h e ti m e of m a ki n g t h eir r e q u e st f or c o n si d er ati o n of d ef err e d a cti o n wit h U S CI S; H a d n o l a wf ul st at u s o n J u n e 1 5, 2 0 1 2; Ar e c urr e ntl y i n s c h o ol, h a v e gr a d u at e d, or o bt ai n e d a c ertifi c at e of c o m pl eti o n fr o m hi g h s c h o ol, h a v e o bt ai n e d a  G e n er al E d u c ati o n al D e v el o p m e nt ( G E D)  c ertifi c at e, or ar e a n h o n or a bl y di s c h ar g e d v et er a n of t h e C o a st G u ar d or Ar m e d F or c e s of t h e U nit e d St at e s; a n d H a v e n ot b e e n c o n vi ct e d of a f el o n y, si g nifi c a nt mi s d e m e a n or , t hre e or m or e ot h er mi s d e m e a n or s, a n d d o n ot ot h er wi s e p o s e a t hr e at t o n ati o n al s e c urit y or p u bli c s af e t y. T o pi c s:  B or d er S e c urit y K e y w or d s:  D A C A (/t o pi c s/ b or der - se c u rit y) , D ef (/k e y w or d s/ d a c a ) , D ef err e d A cti o n (/t o pi c s/ def err e d - a cti o n) err e d A cti o n f or C hil d h o o d Arri v al s (/k e y w or d s/ d ef err e d - a cti o n- c hil d h o o d- arriv al s) L a st P u bli s h e d D at e: S e pt e m b er 5, 2 0 1 7 htt ps:// w w w. d hs. g o v/ n e ws/ 2 0 1 7/ 0 9/ 0 5/fr e q u e ntl y- as k e d- q u esti o ns-r es cissi o n- d ef err e d- a cti o n- c hil d h o o d- arri v als- d a c a 5/ 5 EXHIBIT Add. 62 T al ki n g P oi nt s - D A C A R e s cissi o n B ACK GR O U N D O n J u n e 1 5, 2 0 1 2, t h e n- S e cr et ar y of H o m el a n d S e c urit y J a n et N a p olit a n o iss u e d a m e m or a n d u m e ntitl e d " E x er ci si n g Pr os e c ut ori al Dis cr eti o n wit h R es p e ct t o I n di vi d u als W h o C a m e t o t h e U nit e d St at es as C hil dr e n, " est a blis hi n g a n a d mi ni str ati v e pr o gr a m t h at p er mitt e d c ert ai n i n di vi d u als w h o c a m e t o t h e U nit e d St at es as j u v e nil e s a n d m et s e v er al crit er i a-i n cl u di n g l a c ki n g a n y l a wf ul i m mi gr ati o n st at us-t o r e q u est c o nsi d er ati o n of d ef err e d acti o n f or a p eri o d of t w o y e ars, s u bj e ct t o r e n e w al a n d eli gi bilit y f or w or k a ut h oriz ati o n. R e c o g ni zi n g t h e c o m pl e xiti es ass o ci at e d wit h t er mi n ati n g t h e pr o gr a m, t h e D e p art m e nt will pr o vi d e a li mit e d wi n d o w d uri n g w hi c h it will a dj u di c at e c ert ai n r e q uests f or D A C A a n d ass o ci at e d a p pli c ati o ns m e eti n g c ert ai n p ar a m et er s s p e cifi e d b el o w. T A L KI N G P OI N T S: Pr e si d e nt Tr u m p Dir e ct s P h as e d E n di n g of D A C A ! A cti n g S e cr et ar y D u k e iss u e d a m e m o r es ci n di n g t h e J u n e 1 5, 2 0 1 2 m e m or a n d u m t h at cr e at e d t h e D ef err e d A cti o n f or C hil d h o o d Arri v al s ( D A C A) pr o gr a m. ! Pr esi d e nt D o n al d J. Tr u m p, i n cl os e c o or di n ati o n wit h t h e D e p art m e nt of H o m el a n d S e c urit y a n d t h e D e p art m e nt of J usti c e, c o nsi d er e d a n u m b er of f a ct ors, in cl u di n g t h e l e g alit y of t h e D A C A pr o gr a m, t h e li k el y o ut c o m e of i m mi n e nt liti g ati o n, a n d t h e a d mi ni str ati v e c o m pl e xiti es ass o ci at e d wit h e n di n g t h e pr o gr a m. ! W e ar e a n ati o n of l a ws. D A C A w as a n u n c o n stit uti o n al, u n w arr a nt e d e x er cis e of a ut h orit y b y t h e E x e c uti v e Br a n c h. O nl y t h e U. S. C o n gr ess h as t h e a ut h orit y t o p ass l e gisl ati o n t o pr o vi d e i m mi gr ati o n b e n efits t o i n di vi d u al s. ! Pr esi d e nt O b a m a n ot e d r e p e at e dl y i n t h e m o nt hs a n d y e ars l e a di n g u p t o t h e cr e ati o n of D A C A t h at t h e Pr esi d e nt of t h e U nit e d St at es d o es n ot h a v e t h e a ut horit y t o cr e at e s u c h a a n o p e n- e n d e d, wi d e-r a n gi n g pr o gr a m wit h o ut C o n gr essi o n al a ut h ori z ati o n. ! D A C A will b e p h as e d o ut. All D A C A b e n efits ar e pr o vi d e d o n a t w o- y e ar b asis, s o i n di vi d u als w h o c urr e ntl y h a v e D A C A will b e all o w e d t o r et ai n b ot h D A C A a n d t h eir w or k a ut h ori z ati o ns ( E A Ds) u ntil t h e y e x pir e. ! U. S. Citi z e ns hi p a n d I m mi gr ati o n S er vi c es will a dj u di c at e - o n a n i n di vi d u al, c as e- b y- c as e b asis- pr o p erl y fil e d p e n di n g D A C A i niti al r e q u ests a n d ass o ci at e d a p pli c ati o ns f or E m pl o y m e nt A ut h oriz ati o n D o c u m e nts t h at h a v e b e e n a c c e pt e d as of S e pt e m b er 5, 2 0 1 7. ! U S CI S will a dj u di c at e- o n a n i n di vi d u al, c as e- b y- c as e b asi s- pr o p erl y fil e d p e n di n g D A C A r e n e w al r e q u ests a n d ass o ci at e d a p pli c ati o ns f or E m pl o y m e nt A ut h o riz ati o n D o c u m e nts fr o m c urr e nt b e n efi ci ari es t h at h a v e b e e n a c c e pt e d as of t h e d at e of t his m e m or a n d u m, a n d fr o m c urr e nt b e n efi ci ari es w h o s e b e n efits will e x pir e b et w e e n S e pt e m b e r 5, 2 0 1 7 a n d M ar c h 5, 2 0 1 8 t h at h a v e b e e n a c c e pt e d as of O ct o b er 5, 2 0 1 7. ! I n di vi d u als w h o h a v e n ot s u b mitt e d a r e q u est b y S e pt e m b er 5th, f or a n i niti al gr a nt u n d er D A C A m a y n o l o n g er d o s o. All r e q u ests f or i niti al gr a nts r e c ei v e d aft er S e pt e m b er 5t h will b e r ej e ct e d. ! I n g e n er al, i n di vi d u al s w h o will n o l o n g er h a v e D A C A will n ot pr o a cti v el y b e r ef err e d t o I C E a n d pl a c e d i n r e m o v al pr o c e e di n gs u nl ess t h e y s atisf y o n e of t h e D e p art m e nt's e nf or c e m e nt pri oriti es. ! T h e D e p art m e nt of H o m el a n d S e c urit y ur g es D A C A r e ci pi e nts t o us e t h e ti m e r e m ai ni n g o n t h eir w or k a ut h oriz ati o ns t o pr e p ar e f or a n d arr a n g e t h eir d e p art ur e fr o m t h e U nit e d St at es-i n cl u di n g Add. 63 pr o a cti v el y s e e ki n g tr a v el d o c u m e nt ati o n- or t o a p pl y f or o t h er i m mi gr ati o n b e n efits f or w hi c h t h e y m a y b e eli gi bl e. ! As of S e pt e m b er 4, 2 0 1 7, t h er e ar e 6 8 9, 8 2 1 i n di vi d u als wit h c urr e nt v ali d D A C A. ! It s h o ul d b e n ot e d t h at D A C A w as n ot i nt e n d e d t o b e a v ail a bl e to p ers o n s w h o e nt er e d ill e g all y aft er 2 0 0 7. T h us, p ers o ns e nt eri n g t h e c o u ntr y ill e g all y t o d a y, t o m orr o w or i n t h e f ut ur e will n ot b e eli gi bl e f or t h e wi n d d o w n of D A C A. EXHIBIT Add. 65 T O P FI V E M E S S A G E S 1. T h e O b a m a A d mi ni str ati o n i n stit ut e d a n u n c o n stit uti o n al pr o gr a m. T h e Att or n e y G e n er al s e nt a l ett er t o t h e D e p art m e nt of H o m el a n d S e c urit y o n S e pt e m b er 4, 2 0 1 7, arti c ul ati n g hi s l e g a l d et er mi n ati o n t h at D A C A “ w a s eff e ct u at e d b y t h e pr e vi o u s a d mi ni str ati o n t hr o u g h e x e c uti v e a cti o n, wit h o ut pr o p er st at ut or y a ut h orit y a n d wit h n o e st a bli s h e d e n d- d at e, aft er C o n gr e s s' r e p e at e d r ej e cti o n of pr o p o s e d l e gi sl ati o n t h at w o ul d h a v e a c c o m pli s h e d a si mil ar r e s ult. S u c h a n o p e n- e n d e d cir c u m v e nti o n of i m mi gr ati o n l a w s w a s a n u n c o n stit uti o n al e x er ci s e of a ut h ori t y b y t h e E x e c uti v e Br a n c h. ” T h e l ett er f urt h er st at e d t h at b e c a u s e D A C A “ h a s t h e s a m e l e g al a n d c o n stit uti o n al d ef e ct s t h at t h e c o urt s r e c o g ni z e d a s t o D A P A, it i s li k el y t h at p ot e nti all y i m mi n e nt liti g ati o n w o ul d yi el d si mil ar r e s ult s wit h r e s p e ct t o D A C A. ” 2. Gi v e n t h e Att or n e y G e n er al’ s fi n di n g s o n t h e l e g alit y of t h e D A C A pr o gr a m, t h e Pr e si d e nt h a d t w o st ar k o pti o n s. H e c o ul d: 1) D o n ot hi n g a n d all o w f or t h e pr o b a bilit y t h at t h e e ntir e D A C A pr o gr a m c o ul d b e i m m e di at el y e nj oi n e d b y a c o urt i n a di sr u pti v e m a n n er or 2) p h a s e o ut t h e pr o gr a m i n a n or d erl y f a s hi o n. 3. All c urr e nt D A C A b e n efi ci ari e s ar e eli gi bl e t o r et ai n t h eir b e n efit s at l e a st u ntil M ar c h 5, 2 0 1 8. D ef err e d a cti o n i s al w a y s t e m p or ar y i n n at ur e. T h e D A C A pr o gr a m o nl y g a v e r e ci pi e nt s t h e a bilit y t o d ef er a cti o n o n t h eir i m mi gr ati o n c a s e f or t w o- y e ar i n cr e m e nt s wit h t h e p ot e nti al f or r e n e w al. S h o ul d C o n gr e s s d e ci d e t o d e v el o p a p er m a n e nt l e gi sl ati v e s ol uti o n f or c urr e nt b e n efi ci ari e s w hil e a d dr e s si n g t h e n e e d f or i m mi gr ati o n e nf or c e m e nt, t hi s a cti o n will all o w t h e m ti m e t o d o s o. 4. I n di vi d u al s w h o h a v e pr o p erl y fil e d D AC A i niti al r e q u e st s a n d a s s o ci at e d a p pli c ati o n s f or E m pl o y m e nt A ut h ori z ati o n D o c u m e nt s t h at h a v e b e e n a c c e pt e d a s of t h e d at e of t hi s m e m or a n d u m, will h a v e t h eir a p pli c ati o n s a dj u di c at e d. 5. Pr o p erl y fil e d D A C A r e n e w al a p pli c ati o n s a n d a s s o ci at e d a p pli c ati o n s f or E m pl o y m e nt A ut h ori z ati o n D o c u m e nt s fr o m c urr e nt b e n efi ci ari e s w h o s e b e n efit s will e x pir e b et w e e n S e pt e m b er 5, 2 0 1 7 a n d M ar c h 5, 2 0 1 8 t h at h a v e b e e n a c c e pt e d a s of O ct o b er 5, 2 0 1 7 will b e a dj u di c at e d.