IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RA VIDA TH LAWRENCE RAGBIR;
NEW SANCTUARY COALITION OF
NEW YORK CITY;
CASA DE MARYLAND, INC.;
DETENTION WATCH NETWORK;
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT
OF THE NATIONAL LA WYERS GUILD;
and
NEW YORK IMMIGRATION
COALITION,
Plaintiffs,
V.

THOMAS D. HOMAN, in his official
capacity as Deputy Director and Senior
Official Performing the Duties of the
Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement;
THOMAS R. DECKER, in his official
capacity as New York Field Office Director
for U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement;
SCOTT MECHKOWSKI, in his official
capacity as Assistant New York Field Office
Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement;
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT;

\..

.

..

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. ------

 KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, in her official
)
capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; )
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
)
HOMELAND SECURITY;
)
)
)
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, in his
official capacity as Attorney General of the )
United States;
)
)
and
)
)
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
)
Defendants.
)

)

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE, AND HABEAS RELIEF
NATURE OF ACTION
1.

This case is about who we are as a nation. Whether it remains true that "[i]fthere

is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can
. prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion."

W Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). Whether ours is a nation where
the privilege and responsibility of prosecutorial discretion are nothing more than a thin veil for
persecution of disfavored political views. The nation's immigration laws provide for the
removal of some non-citizens from the United States. In years past, to determine who to remove
and when, the Executive Branch has considered factors such as whether the individual poses a
danger to the community, the impact of removal on international relations, and the "human
concerns" of whether the individual "has children born in the United States, long ties to the
community, or a record of distinguished military service." Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S.
387, 396 (2012).

2

 2.

But with the new Administration, something has changed. Federal immigration

authorities have specifically targeted prominent and outspoken immigrant-rights activists across
the country on the basis of their speech and political advocacy on behalf of immigrants' rights
and social justice. These activists have been surveilled, intimidated, harassed, and detained, their
homes have been raided, many have been plucked off the street in broad daylight, and some have
even been deported. The "broad discretion exercised by immigration officials," id, has been
abused in a cynical effort to punish those who disagree with the Administration. To sweep away
all opposition. The Government's targeting of activists on the basis of their core political speech
is unfair, discriminatory, and un-American. And it violates the First Amendment.
3.

Cities that protect noncitizen immigrants are called "sanctuaries" for a

reason. Many immigrants live in the shadows for fear of possible of deportation. Many of the
rights that birthright American citizens take for granted-the
and to live as one pleases-are

right to speak, to worship, to work,

exercised only with caution by immigrants. Yet courageously,

some immigrants speak out. They boldly educate other immigrants about their rights. They
bravely advocate for changes to our immigration laws and enforcement policies. They fearlessly
call out the injustices they see in our nation's immigration system. They do this because the
Constitution not only allows but encourages it. Because of our "profound national commitment
to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." New
York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254,270 (1964).

4.

PlaintiffRavidath "Ravi" Lawrence Ragbir, a father, husband, and nationally-

recognized immigration rights activist, is one such immigrant who has freely exercised his right
to speak out against the injustices and inhumanity of our current immigration system and has
been targeted for removal by federal immigration authorities on the basis of his outspoken

3

 advocacy. PlaintiffNew Sanctuary Coalition of New York City depends on Mr. Ragbir as its
Executive Director. He is the lifeblood of the organization and a central figure in the broader
community of immigration advocates. He has devoted his life to the dignity and well-being of
others, working tirelessly at the intersection of faith and immigrant communities, and gathering
support from faith leaders, elected officials at all levels of government, immigrant-rights
activists, and hundreds of community members.
5.

Mr. Ragbir has lived in the United States for over 25 years, but for the last 10

years he has been subject to a final order of removal. Yet, because of his special contributions to
his community, federal immigration authorities until recently allowed him to remain in the
United States with his beloved U.S. citizen wife and daughter, granting him an order of
supervision and four administrative stays ofremoval. But on January 11, 2018, with his most
recent administrative stay ofremoval still in place, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) officials suddenly and inexplicably detained him at a routine check-in.
6.

Just ten days ago, in response to the cruel and unconstitutional actions of federal

immigration officials, this Court granted Mr. Ragbir a writ of habeas corpus, requiring ICE to
release him from custody. The Court wrote that "[i]t ought not to be-and
been-that

it has never before

those who have lived without incident in this country for years are subjected to

treatment we associate with regimes we revile as unjust." Ragbir v. Sessions, No. 18-cv-236
(KBF), 2018 WL 623557, at* 1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2018) (Forrest, J.).
7.

Mr. Ragbir is not alone. Plaintiff immigrants' rights organizations have joined

this lawsuit because they too have seen their leading advocates targeted because of their
advocacy.

4

 8.

The Government cannot silence critics of its immigration laws and policies by

deporting them. The First Amendment does not allow it. It is a matter of "grave concern"
indeed that Mr. Ragbir and other likeminded activists "ha[ve] been targeted as a result of [their]
speech and political advocacy on behalf of immigrants' rights and social justice." Id. at * 1 n.1.
"[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict
expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." United States v.
Alvarez, 167 U.S. 709, 716 (2012) (alteration in original) (quoting Ashcroft v. Am. Civil Liberties
Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573 (2002)).
9.

This Court should prevent Defendants from doing just that. The Court should

declare that targeting immigrant-rights activists on the basis of their protected political speech
violates the First Amendment, and enjoin Defendants from taking any further retaliatory actions.
And the Court should restrain Defendants from taking any action to effectuate Mr. Ragbir's
removal from the United States unless Defendants demonstrate to the Court's satisfaction that
such action is untainted by unlawful retaliation or viewpoint discrimination.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241; and the Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs' causes of action
arise under the laws and Constitution of the United States, including the First Amendment.
In addition, Plaintiff Ragbir is subject to a final order ofremoval, which "is sufficient, by itself,
to establish the requisite custody" for purposes of habeas jurisdiction. Simmonds v. INS., 326
F.3d 351,354 (2d Cir. 2003); see also Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 239-40 (1963).
11.

Nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) strips this Court of its

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (specifying provisions governing

5

 judicial review of orders ofremoval).

Plaintiffs here do not challenge underlying orders of

removal or actions committed to unreviewable agency discretion. They challenge, rather,
Defendants' pattern and practice of targeting immigrant-rights activists for immigration
enforcement on the basis of their core protected political speech. This includes Defendants'
actions targeting Mr. Ragbir, which arose long after his removal order became final. No other
forum exists to address these claims. Applying any statutory provision to curb jurisdiction in this
case therefore would deprive Plaintiffs of any effective judicial review of their claims, and a
"serious constitutional question ... would arise if a federal statute were construed to deny any
judicial forum for a colorable constitutional claim." Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 603 (1988)
(quotation marks omitted). And, with respect to Mr. Ragbir, the Suspension Clause guarantees
review of his claims. See INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001); Simmonds, 326 F.3d 351.
12.

Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. A substantial part of the

events giving rise to this action occurred in this judicial district.
13.

An actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2201, and this Court has authority to grant declaratory and injunctive relief. Id. §§ 1351, 2201,
2202. The Court has additional remedial authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.

PARTIES
14.

Plaintiff Ravidath Lawrence Ragbir is a resident of Brooklyn, New York. He is a

prominent immigrant-rights activist and Executive Director of the New Sanctuary Coalition of
New York City. Mr. Ragbir became a Lawful Permanent Resident of the United States in 1994.
He received a final order of removal in 2007, but has continued to live and work in the United
States with authorization from ICE since his release from an initial period of immigration
detention in 2008.

6

 15.

Plaintiff New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City (the Coalition) is an

interfaith network of congregations, organizations, and individuals, standing publicly in
solidarity with families and communities resisting detention and deportation in order to stay
together. Since its inception in 2007, the Coalition has grown from a half-dozen congregations
to a city-wide movement, working in coalition with New York City's major immigrant
organizations to reform immigration enforcement practices and policies, both locally and
nationally. The Coalition is based in New York.
16.

Plaintiff CASA de Maryland, Inc. (CASA) is a non-profit 501(c)(3) membership

organization headquartered in Langley Park, Maryland, with offices in Maryland, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania. Founded in 1979, CASA is the largest membership-based immigrant-rights
organization in the mid-Atlantic region, with more than 90,000 members. CASA's mission is to
create a more just society by building power and improving the quality of life in low-income
immigrant communities. In furtherance of this mission, CASA offers a wide variety of social,
health, job training, employment, and legal services to immigrant communities in Maryland, as
well as the greater Washington, DC metropolitan area, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
17.

Plaintiff National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (NIPNLG)

is a national non-profit 501(c)(3) membership organization headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts. Formed in 1971 as a committee of the National Lawyers Guild, NIPNLG
became a freestanding organization in 1981. Today it is one of the few national legal support
groups that specialize in defending the rights of immigrants facing incarceration and deportation.
It provides technical assistance and support to community-based immigrant organizations, legal
practitioners, and advocates seeking and working to advance the rights of noncitizens. NIPNLG
works independently and collaboratively with immigration advocacy organizations across the

7

 United States to educate and strengthen the capacity of immigration professionals and immigrant
organizations to defend immigrant rights, and promotes public policy change through litigation,
advocacy, and support for community organizing on the ground.
18.

Plaintiff New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC) is an umbrella policy and

advocacy organization for more than 200 groups in New York State. NYIC envisions a New
York state that is stronger because all people are welcome, treated fairly, and given the chance to
pursue their dreams. Its mission is to unite immigrants, members, and allies so all New Yorkers
can thrive. NYIC represents the collective interests ofNew York's diverse immigrant
communities and organizations and devises solutions to advance them; advocates for laws,
policies, and programs that lead to justice and opportunity for all immigrant groups; and builds
the power of immigrants and the organizations that serve them to ensure their sustainability, to
improve people's lives, and to strengthen the state.
19.

Plaintiff Detention Watch Network (DWN) is a national coalition of

approximately 200 organizations and individuals headquartered in Washington, DC. Founded in
1997 in response to the explosive growth of the U.S. immigration detention and deportation
system, DWN works against the injustices of those systems and for profound change that
promotes the rights of dignity of all persons. DWN is the only national network that focuses
exclusively on immigration detention and deportation issues, is a go-to resource on detention
issues, and is known as a critical national advocate for just policies that promote an eventual end
to immigration detention. DWN unites diverse constituencies to advance the civil and human
rights of those impacted by the immigration detention and deportation systems. DWN members,
many of whom are directly affected by detention and deportation policies, are community
organizers, advocates, social workers, lawyers, doctors, clergy, students, and formerly detained

8

 immigrants and their families. They are engaged in individual case and impact litigation,
documenting conditions violations, local and national administrative and legislative advocacy,
community organizing and mobilizing, teaching, and social service.
20.

Defendant Thomas D. Homan is the Deputy Director and Senior Official

Performing the Duties of the Director ofICE. He is named in his official capacity. He is
responsible for the enforcement of the immigration laws, including against Mr. Ragbir. He
supervises Defendants Decker and Mechkowski. His address is U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, 500 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20536.
21.

Defendant Thomas R. Decker is the New York Field Office Director for ICE. He

is named in his official capacity. He is responsible for the enforcement of the immigration laws
in New York City and surrounding counties within New York, including against Mr. Ragbir. He
supervises Defendant Scott Mechkowski. His address is New York Field Office, 26 Federal
Plaza, 11th Floor, New York, New York, 10278.
22.

Defendant Scott Mechkowski is the New York Field Office Deputy Director for

ICE. He is named in his official capacity. He is responsible for the enforcement of the
immigration laws in New York City and surrounding counties within New York, including
against Mr. Ragbir. His address is New York Field Office, 26 Federal Plaza, 11th Floor, New
York, New York, 10278.
23.

Defendant Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is an executive department

of the United States Government. DHS is headquartered in Washington, DC.
24.

Defendant ICE is a component ofDHS headquartered in Washington, DC.

25.

Defendant Kirstjen M. Nielsen is the Secretary of Homeland Security. She is

named in her official capacity. She is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the

9

 immigration laws, including against Mr. Ragbir. She supervises Defendants Homan, Decker,
and Mechkowski. Her address is U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 800 K Street, NW
#1000, Washington, DC, 20528.
26.

Defendant Jefferson B. Sessions III is the Attorney General of the United States.

He is named in his official capacity. He is responsible for the administration of the immigration
laws as exercised by the Executive Office for Immigration Review. 8 U.S.C. § 1103(g). He is
responsible for Mr. Ragbir' s removal proceedings, and supervises immigration judges and the
Board oflmmigration Appeals. His address is U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20530.
27.

Defendant Department of Justice (DOJ) is an executive department of the United

States Government. DOJ is headquartered in Washington, DC.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A.

Defendants Have Engaged in a Pattern and Practice of Targeting ImmigrantRights Activists on the Basis of their Core Protected Political Speech

28.

Since January 2017, federal immigration authorities across the country have

engaged in a pattern and practice of targeting outspoken immigrant-rights activists who
publically criticize U.S. immigration law, policy, and enforcement.
29.

Defendants have investigated, surveilled, harassed, raided, arrested, detained, and

even deported these activists in order to silence them. They have arrested activists immediately
following press appearances and news conferences. They have detained spokespeople and
directors of immigration advocacy organizations. They have surveilled the organizations'
headquarters and targeted their members. And they have targeted communities identified by the
federal government as "sanctuary cities" to punish those communities for taking legislative,

10

 · municipal, and political action to limit official cooperation with federal immigration
enforcement.
30.

This sharp spike in immigration enforcement specifically targeting the most vocal

immigration activists is intended to stifle dissent. According to U.S. Representative Jerry
Nadler: "These are well-known activists who've been here for decades, and [ICE is] saying to
them: Don't raise your head." 1 Similarly, U.S. Representative Luis Guitierrez has stated: "I
have long suspected that very vocal advocates were harshly targeted after they spoke out. ... I
would go to ... an immigration hearing, and the person who made the biggest impression? I'd
find out that they'd been detained. And that started last year." 2
31.

Since 2017, media organizations have reported on many immigrants, including

Plaintiff Ravidath Ragbir and others, whom ICE has detained or taken other adverse action
against based on their speech or other protected activities.

B.

Defendants Surveilled, Detained, and Seek To Deport Mr. Ragbir in Retaliation for his Outspoken Criticism of U.S. Immigration Law and Policy
1.

32.

Mr. Ragbir's Activism and Political Speech

Plaintiff Ravidath Ragbir, Executive Director of the Coalition, is a father,

husband, and nationally recognized immigrant-rights leader.
33.

Since his release from immigration detention with a final order ofremoval over a

decade ago, Mr. Ragbir has dedicated his professional and personal life to speaking out against
immigration policies that he considers unjust. He has been a vocal critic of ICE and other

1

Maria Sacchetti and David Weigel, Ice has Detained or Deported Prominent Immigrant Rights
Activists, Washington Post (Jan. 19, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/ice-hasdetained-or-deported-foreigners-who-are-also-immigration-activists/2018/01/19/3 77af23a-fc9511e7-a46b-a3614530bd87 _story.html?utm_term=.5be0c8e2393b.
2

Id

11

 components ofDHS. His work and his views about immigration policy and enforcement are
frequently profiled in local and national media.
34.

As Executive Director of the Coalition, Mr. Ragbir has maintained a regular

presence outside ICE offices and Department of Justice immigration courts in New York, located
at 26 Federal Plaza, which also houses the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) and other DHS and Department of Justice offices, and outside of 201 Varick Street,
which houses the detained immigration court and serves as a processing center for immigrants
who ICE intends to detain. At both locations, Mr. Ragbir organizes weekly prayerful vigils
called "Jericho Walks" that are led by Coalition faith leaders.
35.

In his capacity as the Coalition's Executive Director, Mr. Ragbir has also had

extensive contact with ICE's offices and the immigration courts through the Coalition's
Accompaniment Program. This program ensures that immigrants who have immigration court
dates and check-in appointments do not face these experiences alone. As part of this program,
the Coalition has trained hundreds of volunteers on how to accompany immigrants to court and
to check-ins (which occur at 26 Federal Plaza, 201 Varick Street, and other locations), whereby
immigrants who are subject to some form of supervised release routinely meet with ICE officers.
These volunteers provide critical support to those who would like to comply with the immigration
laws and rules, but are scared to go to court and check-ins alone. In many cases, legal services
providers now reach out to Mr. Ragbir directly to ask the Coalition to provide accompaniment
for their clients. The Coalition provides an average of 11 accompaniments per week to
immigrants in enforcement proceedings.

12

 36.

Second, Mr. Ragbir created a program in which volunteers help immigrants to

find attorneys to assist them in immigration proceedings, in navigating interactions with ICE,
. and, where possible, in speaking out about the injustices they experience.
37.

In addition to this work, Mr. Ragbir has been a vocal advocate for immigrant

rights across the United States and a frequent critic of current immigration policies. For
example, Mr. Ragbir testified before the New York City Council on detention and deportation
policies, met with President Obama's transition team to discuss his perspective and experiences
on immigration policy, and has spoken at countless conferences, media events, and places of
worship. He coordinates workshops with attorneys and other experts to help immigrants fleeing
violence in their home countries to learn about their right to apply for asylum. And he trains
advocates and elected officials on immigration issues and how to reform the deportation system.
38.

Over the years, Mr. Ragbir has received numerous accolades for his zealous

advocacy. He was awarded the 2017 Immigrant Excellence Award by the New York State
Association of Black and Puerto Rican Legislators for his "deep commitment to the enhancement
of their community." He also won the 2017 ChangeMaker Award by South Asian Americans
Leading Together (SAAL T) for his "tremendous sacrifice, fierce advocacy, and fearless
leadership" on behalf of immigrants. He was recently awarded the Bishop's Cross from the
Episcopal Diocese of Long Island for his "exceptional service to the church and to the
community it serves."

2.
39.

Mr. Ragbir's Immigration History

Mr. Ragbir's work is informed by his personal experience of being detained and

facing deportation.
40.

Mr. Ragbir received Lawful Permanent Resident status in the United States in

1994. His daughter was born in the United States the next year.
13

 41.
fraud-a

In May 2006, ICE detained Mr. Ragbir after he was convicted of criminal wire

conviction for which Mr. Ragbir served his time. 3
42.

On August 4, 2006, an Immigration Judge entered an order of deportation in Mr.

Ragbir's case, which became final when the Board of Immigration Appeals rejected his appeal in
March 2007.
43.

Throughout his immigration court proceedings and after issuance of an order of

deportation, Mr. Ragbir remained in detention, despite two Post Order Custody Reviews.
44.

ICE finally released Mr. Ragbir from custody following a third Post Order

Custody Review in February 2008. ICE reported in the Post Order Custody Review that led to
his release that Mr. Ragbir "did not commit a crime of violence and does not appear to be a flight
risk and he is fully aware that he will have to report to ICE custody when required." The notice
further explained, once removal was commenced, "[y]ou will, at that time, be given an
opportunity to prepare for an orderly departure."
45.

Mr. Ragbir has always contested his removability, most recently with the

assistance of pro bona counsel. As of today, Mr. Ragbir has three pending legal applications, a
petition in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for a writ of coram nobis, a
petition for a presidential pardon, and a motion with the Board of Immigration Appeals to
reconsider, reopen, and remand his removal proceedings based on new evidence undermining the
deportability ground in his case, as well as his petition for adjustment of status on the basis of his
eight years of marriage to Amy Gottlieb, a U.S. citizen and attorney. Like Mr. Ragbir, Ms.

3

Mr. Ragbir continues to dispute the basis of his conviction. Further, as this Court recently
noted ordering his release from detention, "[i]t is uncontested that since his release from custody,
[Mr. Ragbir] has lived the life of a redeemed man." Ragbir v. Sessions, No. 18-cv-236 (KBF),
2018 WL 623557, at *3 n.11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2018) (Forrest, J.).

14

 Gottlieb is a prominent immigrant-rights advocate who has dedicated her career to the pursuit of
a just immigration policy.
46.

Meanwhile, for approximately a decade, Mr. Ragbir has dutifully checked in with

ICE and complied with all conditions of his ~elease. Orders of supervision authorize individuals
like Mr. Ragbir to live and work in the United States in compliance with the conditions of the
order. If an order of supervision is revoked on grounds unrelated to flight risk or dangerousness,
the individual will be given the opportunity for an "orderly departure," including time (generally
two to three months) to get his affairs in order, purchase a ticket, and provide proof of departure.
47.

Following his order ofremoval, Mr. Ragbir also applied for and received work

permits that allowed him to work in the United States. It was pursuant to this work authorization
that he was able to work full-time for the Coalition.
48.

For several years, Mr. Ragbir has also received and renewed an administrative

stay of removal (Form 1-246). This stay assured Mr. Ragbir that ICE would not seek his
deportation for the period covered by the administrative stay. Mr. Ragbir's first stay ofremoval
was granted by the ICE Field Office in New York City in December 2011, and was renewed
three times, in February 2013, March 2014 and January 2016. In November 2017, he filed for
renewal of his administrative stay.

3.
49.

Mr. Ragbir's March 9, 2017 Check-In

On March 9, 2017, Mr. Ragbir was due to check in with ICE officers at 26

Federal Plaza. In the tradition of the Accompaniment Program he designed, Mr. Ragbir was
accompanied by his family, lawyers and clergy.
50.

In addition, Mr. Ragbir brought with him several New York elected officials,

including New York State Senator Gustavo Rivera, New York City Council Members Daniel
Dromm, Y danis Rodriguez, and Jumaane Williams, and then-New York City Council Speaker
15

 Melissa Mark-Viverito.

Several hundred additional community members gathered outside in

support of Mr. Ragbir.
51.

During the March 9, 2017 check-in, several of the elected officials accompanying

Mr. Ragbir encountered then-Assistant Field Office Director Scott Mechkowski in the hallway
outside the check-in room on the 9th Floor. Mechkowski demanded that the elected officials
leave the hallway.
52.

Media reports described a tense confrontation between ICE officers and the

elected officials who accompanied Mr. Ragbir. "The conference was cut short when a man ...
ordered the group to clear the hallway immediately. City Councilmember Jumaane Williams
observed that the group wasn't blocking the hallway and asked the man to identify himself. The
man refused, but insisted that Mr. Ragbir, his friends, and the elected officials leave the hallway.
For a moment the two men squared off, eye to eye. The unnamed federal official eventually
stepped away, and Mr. Ragbir's entourage boarded elevators to descend." 4
53.

Due in part to the high-profile detentions of other immigrant activists, there was a

significant media presence at 26 Federal Plaza the morning of March 9, 2017, prior to and
following Mr. Ragbir's check-in.
54.

After the check-in, several media outlets worldwide reported on Mr. Ragbir's

struggle to remain in the United States and his confrontational March 9 check-in with ICE. 5

4

Nick Pinto, Behind ICE's Closed Doors, "The Most Un-American Thing I've Seen," Village
Voice (Mar. 10, 2017), https://www.villagevoice.com/2017 /03/10/behind-ices-closed-doors-themost-un-american-thing-ive-seen/.
5

See, e.g., Liz Robbins, Once Routine, Immigration Check-Ins Are Now High Stakes, N.Y.
Times (Apr. 11, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/nyregion/ice-immigration-checkin-deportation.html; Apoyado por cientos, defensor de inmigrantes evade deportaci6n en Nueva
York, La Nacion Costa Rica (Mar. 9, 2017), https://www.nacion.com/el-mundo/politica/apoyadopor-cientos-defensor-de-inmigrantes-evade-deportacion-en-nuevayork/NQTJGKHIWJA YREVGOVWMLAWJCE/story/; New York: malgre uneasier judiciaire,

16

 55.

Those reports also included the comments of elected officials who were present at

the check-in and critical ofICE's enforcement policies. In the resulting press coverage, Mr.
Ragbir spoke publically regarding the emotional toll taken by the ICE check-in: "When I speak
about how I feel, I cannot breathe. " 6
56.

Mr. Ragbir also criticized federal immigration policy, commenting on the profit

motive fueling current ICE detention policies: "So, you know how much it costs to feed-when
I was locked in detention, do you know how much it cost to feed me for one day? Seventy-five
cents. They were spending to feed one immigrant 75 cents. And you know how we knew that?
Because they felt they were spending too much, and they wanted to bring that cost under 45
cents, so the numbers were thrown out, and we were hearing and seeing this happen. So, the
profits-the
57.

cost is low, but the profits are high, because they're being paid $120, right?" 7
In a panel discussion alongside Councilmember Mark-Viverito, Mr. Ragbir rallied

community members to become involved in the sanctuary-city movement. He insisted that
"sanctuary cities can only work if everyone becomes part of the movement," saying, "we want to
see sanctuary in the schools, the restaurants as well as churches." He encouraged community
members to protest ICE actions.

un immigre evite !'expulsion, Le Parisien (Mar. 10, 2017), http://www.leparisien.fr/flashactualite-monde/new-york-malgre-un-casier-judiciaire-un-immigre-evite-l-expulsion-10-032017-6751086. php.
6

Tiziana Rinaldi, It's Good News and Bad News for an Immigrant Advocate Facing
Deportation, PRI (March 10, 2017), https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-03-10/its-good-news-andbad-news-immigrant-advocate-facing-deportation.
7

Amy Goodman, Exclusive: Facing Possible Deportation, Immigrant Activist Ravi Ragbir
Speaks Out Before ICE Check-in, Democracy Now! (Mar. 9, 2017),
https:/ /www.democracynow.org/20 I 7/3/9/exclusive _ facing_likely _ deportation _immigrant_
activist.

17

 4.
58.

ICE Officials' Reaction to the March 9, 2017 Check-In

On information and belief, on January 3, 2018, days before Mr. Ragbir's next

scheduled check-in, one of the co-founders of the Coalition, Jean Montrevil, was arrested by ICE
agents outside his home during his lunch break from work. Mr. Montrevil, a Haitian national,
immigrant rights activist, and green-card holder who was placed into removal proceedings as a
teenager due to a drug charge, was in the midst of a motion to reopen his order of removal.
Nonetheless, on January 3, 2018, Mr. Montrevil was transferred to detention in ICE's Krome
Detention Center in Florida, and deported to Haiti just six days later, on January 9, 2018. 8 He
was forced to leave behind his four U.S. citizen children, and an active community of organizers
who worked with him to advance immigrant rights, including Mr. Ragbir.
59.

On information and belief, Mr. Montrevil's lawyer asked Scott Mechkowski,

ICE's Deputy Field Office Director for New York, why the agency had sent a team to apprehend
Mr. Montrevil at home months before his scheduled check-in. Mechkowski responded that "We
[ICE] war-gamed this over and over," adding, "[t]his was the best time and place to take him."
60.

On information and belief, during this same period, ICE officials surveilled Mr.

Ragbir and members of the Coalition. 9
61.

On information and belief, on January 5, 2018, Rev. Juan Carlos Ruiz, one of the

co-founders of the Coalition, and an immigrant-rights organizer, went with three other faith
leaders to discuss Mr. Montrevil's situation with ICE Director Thomas Decker at 26 Federal
Plaza. The clergy were told that Director Decker was not available and instead met with Deputy

8

Nick Pinto, No Sanctuary, Intercept (Jan. 19, 2018), https://theintercept.com/2018/01/19/icenew-sanctuary-movement-ravi-ragbir-deportation/
9

Id

18

 Director Scott Mechkowski to discuss Mr. Montrevil's case. Without prompting, Mechkowski
brought up Mr. Ragbir's case and his remarks to the media after his last check-in. In addition:
a.

Mechkowski stated that Mr. Ragbir and Mr. Montrevil's cases were the

two "highest profile" cases in his office.
b.

Mechkowski made negative remarks about the elected officials who spoke

out about ICE practices after Mr. Ragbir's last check-in.
c.

. Mechkowski stated that he would not permit the clergy members to

accompany Mr. Ragbir to this check-in, as they had in the past, and described the
upcoming check-in as "D-Day."
d.

Mechkowski stated that the manner of Mr. Montrevil's detention was

intended to avoid the sort of noisy protest that had accompanied Mr. Ragbir's
previous check-in, and stated that ICE "didn't want the display of wailing kids
and wailing clergy." Clergy members reported that he added: "That can't happen
this time around." 10
e.

Lastly, although Mechkowski denied that ICE was surveilling Mr. Ragbir,

he stated: "I know where Mr. Ragbir lives, and I have seen him walking around,
and I could have taken him myself."
62.

On information and belief, on January 8, 2018, Mr. Ragbir's counsel spoke with

ICE Deputy Director Mechkowski. Speaking of Mr. Ragbir, Mechkowski stated that things were
"different" now than they were in the past, referring to changes in leadership. Significantly,
Mechkowski stated that he felt "resentment" about the March 9, 2017 check-in.
63.

In addition, Mechkowski stated that:

IO Id.

19

 a.

Mechkowski heard Mr. Ragbir's statements to the press, and that he

continued to see him at vigils at 26 Federal Plaza; and
b.

Mechkowski was angry about the presence of the elected officials in 26

Federal Plaza, specifically naming Melissa Mark-Viverito and "that guy from
Brooklyn" (presumably Councilmember Jumaane Williams).

5.
64.

Defendants' Unnecessarily Cruel Detention of Mr. Ragbir

As noted above, Mr. Ragbir's counsel applied for renewal of his administrative

stay in November 2017. At that time Mr. Ragbir's current administrative stay was due to expire
on January 19, 2018. His counsel received an e-mail from Mechkowski on January 10, 2018
stating that Mr. Ragbir's request for renewal of his administrative stay was pending, and that no
decision had been reached.
65.

Mr. Ragbir's January 11, 2018 check-in was atypical in several respects:
a.

First, in advance of Mr. Ragbir's scheduled January 11, 2018 check-in,

Mechkowski suggested that-rather

than following the normal protocol by which

Mr. Ragbir would check-in with the Deportation Office_rassigned to his caseMr. Ragbir should report directly to him on January 11, 2018.
b.

Second, upon meeting Mechkowski as instructed on January 11, 2018, the

group was told that only one of Mr. Ragbir's legal representatives and his wife
would be allowed to enter. The undisputed fact that another attorney and two law
students had entered G-28 Notices of Appearance on behalf of Mr. Ragbir was
disregarded.
66.

In the ensuing meeting, Mechkowski reported that ICE would no longer await a

pending decision from the Office of Chief Counsel on Mr. Ragbir's motion to reopen his
removal proceedings. He stated that he was not willing to wait longer and would be "enforcing
20

 the order." He said that a decision was made that morning to deny Mr. Ragbir's application for a
renewed stay of removal, and handed his counsel a letter from Director Decker stating that his
request for the renewed stay was denied. He then said he would be taking Mr. Ragbir into
custody. Upon hearing the news, Mr. Ragbir briefly lost consciousness.
67.

In the subsequent few hours, Mr. Ragbir's representatives were not given any

arrest warrant authorizing Mr. Ragbir's arrest. Further, ICE officers engaged in evasive
maneuvers to separate Mr. Ragbir from his wife and transfer him to a Florida detention center,
rather than one of the many detention centers typically used by ICE in New York and New
Jersey. Specifically:
a.

Mr. Ragbir's counsel was not told what detention facility he would be

taken to; ICE officers simply stated that they did not know.
b.

The ambulance that took Mr. Ragbir, his wife, and ICE officers to a local

hospital dropped his wife off at one hospital, where his wife believed Mr. Ragbir
would be "medically cleared," and then took Mr. Ragbir to a second hospital.
c.

At the hospital, ICE officers attempted to rush the process of medical

clearance.
d.

Although several detention centers are typically used by ICE in the New

York-New Jersey area, ICE officers took Mr. Ragbir in a van to Newark Airport,
and then to a plane to Miami, Florida to be booked at a facility there. ICE later
disclosed that they had purchased the tickets to Miami the day before.
e.

ICE initially refused to return Mr. Ragbir to the New York area despite

this Court's January 11 order enjoining the Government from transferring him

21

 outside the jurisdiction of the New York field office. Mr. Ragbir was returned
only after filing a motion to enforce the Court's order.
68.

Mr. Ragbir was "processed" curbside at Newark Airport, had his fingerprint

placed on various papers but not given copies of any documents other than the letter denying his
stay application. He learned later that his current stay (which was valid until January 19, 2018)
and ongoing order of supervision had been revoked. He has never been provided with a reason
for the revocation.
69.

Mr. Ragbir spent more than two weeks in detention. His movements were

restricted and monitored. Contact with his wife and his counsel was extremely limited,
particularly while detained in Florida. He was unable to receive calls at all, nor could he make
outgoing calls unless funds were placed in his phone account. In-person visits were strictly
limited in Florida, and family could only visit for a one-hour period, through plexiglass. During

Mr. Ragbir's detention, ICE officers indicated that they were aware of his activism.
70.

Mr. Ragbir's counsel filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on January 11,

2018 in this Court, challenging ICE's detention of Mr. Ragbir as unlawful.
71.

On January 29, 2018, this Court granted that petition, ordering his immediate

release from detention. The Court noted ICE's abrupt detention was both cruel and unusual.
[W]hen this country allowed petitioner to become a part of our
community fabric, allowed him to build a life with and among us
and to enjoy the liberties and freedom that come with that, it
committed itself to avoidance of unnecessary cruelty when the
time came. By denying petitioner these rights, the Government has
acted wrongly.

Ragbir, 2018 WL 623557, at *2.
72.

This Court also indicated that ICE's motivation for Mr. Ragbir's detention

merited further scrutiny:

22

 The Court also notes with grave concern the argument that
petitioner has been targeted as a result of his speech and political
advocacy on behalf of immigrants' rights and social justice.
"[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that
government has no power to restrict expression because of its
message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content."
Id. at *1 n.l (emphasis added) (quoting Alvarez, 567 U.S. at 716).

6.
73.

ICE's Ongoing Efforts To Deport Mr. Ragbir

Mr. Ragbir was released from detention on January 29, 2018, as a result of the

Court's decision. ICE's treatment of Mr. Ragbir was unusual even in the final moments of his
detention. Before he was released, ICE officers shackled him once more for the duration of his
return from Orange County Correctional Facility in Goshen, New York, to New York City. 11 He
was then processed for release and personally served a notice to report for deportation on
Saturday, February 10, 2018 by Mechkowski at 26 Federal Plaza.
74.

Nonetheless, Mr. Ragbir has continued his activism since his release. 12 On

January 31, 2018, Mr. Ragbir returned to 26 Federal Plaza, the site of his detention, and led a
Jericho walk in protest. 13 Speaking to a crowd, he stated, "There is a psychological warfare out
there and they want us to be weak ....
75.

They want us to cave ... so our spirits are broken." Id

Meanwhile, Defendants continue to employ extraordinary tactics to remove Mr.

Ragbir as quickly as possible and without regard to this Court's order holding that Mr. Ragbir

11

Exclusive: Ravi Ragbir Speaks Out After Being Freed.from "Unnecessarily Cruel" ICE
Detention, Democracy Now! (Jan. 30, 2018), https://www.democracynow.org/2018/
1/30/exclusive _immigrant_leader _ravi_ragbir _ freed.
12

Kristin Toussaint, Immigrant rights leader Ravi Ragbir released.from ICE detention, Metro
(Jan. 30, 2018), https:/ /www.metro.us/news/local-news/new-york/immigrant-rights-leader-raviragbir-released-ice.
13

Molly Crane-Newman, Immigrant activist Ravi Ragbir returns to site of his arrest for
Manhattan protest march: "They want us to cave," Daily News (Feb. 1 2018),
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/ravi-ragbir-returns-site-arrest-nyc-protestmarch-article-1.3793363.

23

 was entitled to an orderly departure. In fact, as of today's date, ICE has ordered Mr. Ragbir to
check in again on Saturday, February 10, 2018, less than two weeks after the date ofthis Court's
Order, with "one piece ofluggage not to exceed 44 pounds." 14
76.

ICE's check-in date, February 10, 2018, is notable. It provides Mr. Ragbir less

than two weeks from the date of this Court's Order to prepare himself to leave the country where
he has lived for over two decades, and where he will leave a wife and daughter. In addition, it is
the day after a scheduled hearing on Mr. Ragbir's motion for a stay of his removal pending
adjudication of his coram nobis petition in the District Court of the District of New Jersey. On
information and belief, ICE is aware that the New Jersey District Court has ordered that Mr.
Ragbir shall not be removed until it has reached a decision on that motion, and aware that
February 9 is a hearing date, and not likely to be the date that the motion is decided.
77.

Upon information and belief, it is highly unusual to require an individual to check

in or report to ICE on a Saturday, when ICE offices-and

courts-are

typically closed. Counsel

for Mr. Ragbir noted that the Saturday reporting date would impede his access to the courts, and
asked for a weekday report date,. but this request was rejected.

C.

Defendants Have Targeted Numerous Other Immigrant-Rights Activists on
the Basis of Their Core Protected Political Speech on Immigration Issues

78.

The arrests of Mr. Ragbir and Jean Montrevil are not unique. Rather, under the

current Administration, ICE has engaged in a pattern and practice of targeting immigrants who
exercised their fundamental First Amendment rights to criticize immigration policy and
immigration enforcement.

14

Letter of Thomas Decker to Alina Das (Feb. 5, 2018).

24

 1.

79.

Daniela Vargas

On information and belief, on March 1, 2017, in Jackson, Mississippi, ICE agents

detained Daniela Vargas, a 22-year-old activist and DACA recipient as she left a news
conference where she had spoken alongside other immigration advocacy groups. 15 Vargas had
witnessed ICE's arrest of her family the previous month, and was not detained at that time
because she explained to the officers that she had DACA status. That status had expired, but
Vargas was in the process of applying for renewal. At the conference, she asked President
Trump to protect her.
80.

ICE agents arrested Vargas minutes after she spoke to reporters outside Jackson

City Hall. A person present at the arrest reported that ICE agents opened the car door saying
"you know who we are and you know why we're here." Although she had a pending DACA
case, ICE agents claimed that she was listed as a "visa overstay" and would have to be
detained. 16

2.
81.

Migrant Justice

On information and belief, ICE has targeted multiple members of Migrant Justice,

a community based non-profit organization of Vermont dairy farmworkers and their families. A
majority of Vermont dairy workers are immigrants, and Migrant Justice has engaged in
campaigns to defend the rights of their members as workers and as immigrants. In particular,
Migrant Justice has sought to hold immigration enforcement agencies including ICE accountable
for rights violations.
15

Phil Helsel, 'Dreamer' Applicant Arrested After Calling for Immigrant Protection, NBC News
(Mar. 2, 2017), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dreamer-applicant-arrested-aftercalling-immigrant-protections-n727961.
16

ICE Intimidates Latino CQmmunity With Arrest of DACA Recipient Practicing Free Speech,
HuffPost (Mar. 3, 2017), https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ice-intimidates-latinocommunity-with-arrest-of-daca _us_ 5 8b9dd6de4b02b8b5 84dfb6d

25

 82.

On April 21, 2016, ICE arrested Jose Victor Garcia Diaz outside a Mexican

cultural event in Stowe, Vermont. 17 Mr. Garcia Diaz is a public spokesperson for Migrant
Justice's Milk with Dignity campaign. The day before his arrest, he had returned from a
gathering of the Food Chain Workers Alliance in Los Angeles, California. Mr. Garcia Diaz
represented Vermont farmworkers at the meeting in an effort to build a unified movement for
respect for human rights in food supply chains. His immigration removal proceedings are
ongomg.
83.

On March 17, 2017, the day after Migrant Justice announced an escalation of its

Milk with Dignity campaign with respect to Ben & Jerry's, ICE arrested Jose Enrique Balcazar
Sanchez shortly after he left a meeting at Migrant Justice's office. ICE had previously identified
Balcazar as a target for enforcement.

18

He has been a very visible representative of Migrant

Justice and publicly promoted policies to limit ICE's entanglement with local law enforcement.
Over the past few years, Balcazar Sanchez has served as one of Migrant Justice's primary
spokespeople in its campaigns for driver's licenses and for a fair and impartial policing policy.
He served on a task force established to advise the Vermont Attorney General on immigration
issues, which resulted in guidance for Vermont cities and towns to limit their role in immigration
law enforcement.
84.

On March 17, 2017, ICE also arrested Zully Victoria Palacios Rodriguez, who

was a passenger in Balcazar Sanchez's car. Palacios Rodriguez is a key Migrant Justice
Compl. ~ 16, Migrant Justice v. US. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 17-cv-197 (D. Vt. Oct. 11,
2017).
17

18

On September 22, 2016, ICE arrested Miguel Alfredo Alcudia Gamas, another Migrant
Justice member. Mr. Alcudia Gamas is also a public spokesperson for Migrant Justice's Milk
with Dignity campaign. When ICE arrested Mr. Alcudia Gamas, ICE officers made statements
implying that they were targeting a fellow Migrant Justice leader, Jose Enrique Balcazar
Sanchez. Id. ~ 18.

26

 organizer. Just prior to her arrest, she had also just left Migrant Justice's office. Notably,
Palacios was arrested on the grounds that she had overstayed her visa-a

civil violation-by

approximately eight months. She was held without bail, which is extremely atypical treatment
for an immigrant who has merely overstayed a visa. 19
85.

On June 17, 2017, two more Migrant Justice activists were arrested for

immigration violations as they returned home from a march for better work conditions. Esau
Peche and Yesenia Hernandez participated in the march with approximately 200 others walking
from Montpelier Vermont, to a Ben & Jerry's factory in Waterbury. After the March, they drove

home to East Franklin, which is north of Waterbury. They were stopped by Border Patrol,
arrested and turned over to ICE. A Border Patrol spokesperson stated that the two Mexican
nationals "appeared to the agent to have come across the border" and were stopped as part of
routine operations. 20
86.

Migrant Justice is currently engaged in litigation to confirm through a Freedom of

Information Act request whether its members have been targeted by ICE because of their
advocacy on behalf of migrant workers. 21

3.
87.

Maru Mora Villalpando

On information and belief, in December 2017, ICE served Maru Mora

Villalpando with a Notice to Appear for removal proceedings. 22 Villalpando is a renowned

19

Milton J. Valencia, Hundreds in Boston Will Protest Vermont ICE Arrests, The Boston Globe
(Mar. 26, 2017), https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/26/hundreds-protest-vermont-icearrests-boston-monday/Mdx0twc9TP6s VHsgEjEA Y/story.html
20

Elizabeth Murray, Protesters decry farmworkers' arrest after Ben & Jerry's march (June 19,
2017), http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/vermont/2017 /06/19/border-patrolarrests-2-immigrants-east-franklin/408333001/.
21

Comp!., Migrant Justice, et. al v. United States Dep 't of Homeland Security, et. al, No. 17-cv197 (D. Vt. Oct. 11, 2017).

27

 immigrants' rights activist in Washington State with no criminal record. She has lived in the
United States for 22 years, and during that time, has taken art active and public role in speaking
out for immigrant rights.
88.

On information and belief, Villalpando was originally admitted to the United

States under a tourist visa, and did not leave the country when the visa expired. She has now
resided in the United States for over 25 years. She raised a daughter in the United States:
Josefina Alanis Mora, who is now a university student. She has no criminal history.
89.

On information and belief, Villapando was well-known to federal officials for

many years before she was issued a Notice to Appear. She met with federal officials during the
Obama administration, when she helped publicize detainees' hunger strikes and other protests in
Washington State. She acted as a spokeswoman for immigrants held at the Northwest Detention
Center in Tacoma, Washington. There is no explanation for her ICE's sudden issuance of a
Notice to Appear. She explained to the Washington Post that, "There's no way for them to know
about me except for the work that I do[.]" 23

4.
90.

Baltazar Aburto Gutierrez

On information and belief, in early December 2017, Baltazar "Rosas" Aburto

Gutierrez was detained by an ICE agent who explicitly referenced the fact that he had spoken to
a newspapers in November 2017. 24 Though his comments were made anonymously in a Seattle

22

Maria Sacchetti & David Weigel, ICE Has Detained or Deported Prominent Immigration
Activists, Washington Post (Jan. 19, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/ice-hasdetained-or-deported-foreigners-who-are-also-immigration-activists/2018/01/19/3
77af23a-fc9511e7-a46b-a3614530bd87 _story.html?utm_term=.64d28708d652.
23 Id.
24

Nina Shapiro, ICE Tracks Down Immigrants Who Spoke to Media in SW Washington: "You
Are the One from the Newspaper," Seattle Times (Dec. 3, 2017), https://www.seattletimes.

28

 Times article, a second article in the Chinook Observer referenced his nick-name ("Rosas"). 25 In

addition, his partner's full name and details of the ICE action to arrest and deport her were
reported in both articles.
91.

On information and belief, Gutierrez had commented to the press about the

wrenching circumstances of his partner's arrest by ICE and her deportation to Mexico in
November 2017. ICE at that time declined to arrest Gutierrez as well, stating that while his
partner had a prior deportation order, he did not.
92.

On information and belief, the next month, the agent who arrested Gutierrez

approached him again stating, "You are Rosas," and "You are the one from the newspaper." 26
Gutierrez also stated that the agent told him "My supervisor asked me to come find you because
of what appeared in the newspaper." 27 ICE did not explain why the rationale that prevented
Gutierrez's arrest the month before had changed.

5.
93.

Eliseo Jurado

On information and belief, Eliseo Jurado was born in Mexico and came to the

United States as a teenager. His father is a United States citizen; his mother is a green card
holder. He is married to Encalada Latorre, a Peruvian woman who has taken sanctuary in
churches in Boulder Colorado since December 2016. The couple has two U.S. citizen children.
Jurado's wife, Latorre has been the subject of extensive news coverage since she moved into a
local church to avoid deportation.

com/seattle-news/ice-tracks-down-immigrant-who-spoke-to-media-in-sw-washington-you-arethe-one-from-the-newspaper.
2s Id.
26

Id.

21

Id.

29

 94.

On information and belief, although local ICE Field Office Director Jeffrey Lynch

denied that Jurado's arrest was related to his wife's decision to take sanctuary, he confirmed in a
statement that Jurado came to the agency's attention during an investigation into Encalada
Latorre. 28

6.
95.

Amer Othman Adi

Amer Othman Adi, a 57-year-old businessman, husband and father, arrived in

the United States at 19 years old. He was placed into removal proceedings decades ago, accused
of entering into a "sham" marriage to secure Lawful Permanent Resident status. Adi was told
that he would be deported in 2016, and prepared himself and his United States citizen secondwife for a scheduled departure on January 7 departure. Then, ICE granted a temporary stay that
prevented his January 7 deportation.
96.

On January 16, 2018, ICE arrested Adi and placed him in detention. To protest

his deportation, Adi began a hunger strike. Ohio Democratic congressman Tim Ryan introduced
a private bill to grant Adi lawful permanent resident status, which would allow him to remain in
the United States. The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
approved the private bill, asking ICE to grant Adi a six-month stay of deportation. In an
extraordinary move, ICE reversed its prior stay and rejected the congressional request to stay
Adi's deportation. Adi was deported to Jordan on January 29, 2018.
7.
97.

Immigrant Sanctuaries

On information and belief, ICE has also targeted communities that it identifies as

"sanctuary cities" to punish those communities for taking legislative, municipal and political
28

John Bear & Jenn Fields, Husband of Peruvian Woman Taking Sanctuary at Boulder Church
Detained by ICE, The Denver Post (Jan. 11, 2018),
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/01/11/ingrid-encalada-latorre-husband-detained-immigrationboulder-sanctuary.

30

 action to limit official cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. 29 These are
communities where activists have successfully lobbied to prevent local government from
assisting the federal government in immigration enforcement actions against immigrant
residents.
98.

In September 2017, ICE announced that it would undertake a series ofraids

designed to target sanctuary cities, and publically designated the action, "Operation Safe City."
According to ICE, Operation Safe City would target cities and regions "where ICE deportation
officers are denied access to jails and prisons to interview suspected immigration violators or
jurisdictions where ICE detainers are not honored." 30 Operation Safe City resulted in hundreds
of arrests in communities that had taken actions to limit local government's cooperation with
federal immigration enforcement. These communities included New York, Philadelphia, Los
Angeles, Boston, Denver, and Portland, Oregon. 31
99.

Following the Operation Safe City raids, on October 5, 2017, California Governor

Jerry Brown signed SB54 into law, a statute cancelling almost all state and local cooperation

29

These activities align with broader efforts of the current administration. On January 25, 2017,
the President issued an Executive Order entitled, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the
United States." Exec. Order No. 13,768, 82 Fed. Reg. 8799 (Jan. 25, 2017). The Executive
Order announces that it is the Executive Branch's policy to withhold federal funds from
"sanctuary jurisdictions," directs the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to
ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions do not receive federal grants, and directs the Attorney General
to take enforcement action against any local entity that "hinders the enforcement of Federal law."
Id. at 8801. In July 2017, the Department of Justice increased pressure on sanctuary cities by
imposing additional requirements for federal grants. Pete Williams, Attorney General Sessions
Raises Stakes for Sanctuary Cities, NBC News (July 25, 2017), https://www.nbcnews.com/
politics/politics-news/attorney-general-sessions-raises-stakes-sanctuary-cities-n786546.
30

ICE, ICE Arrests over 450 on federal immigration charges during Operation 'Safe City,'
(Sept. 28, 2017), https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-arrests-over-450-federal-immigrationcharges-during-operation-safe-city.
31

Miriam Jordan, Immigration Agents Arrest Hundreds in Sweep of Sanctuary Cities, N.Y.
Times (Sept. 28, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/us/ice-arrests-sanctuarycities.html.

31

 with federal deportation officers. On information and belief, the statute was the result of, among
other things intense lobbying from immigrant rights organizations. The next day , Acting
Director Thomas Homan, in direct response to the California legislation, made the following
threats in an official statement:
SB54 will negatively impact ICE operations in California by
nearly eliminating all cooperation and communication with our law
enforcement partners in the state, voiding the delegated authority
that the Orange County Sheriffs Office has under the 287g
program, and prohibiting local law enforcement from contracting
with the federal government to house detainees.

ICE will have no choice but to conduct at-large arrests in local
neighborhoods and at worksites, which will inevitably result in
additional collateral arrests, instead of focusing on arrests at jails
and prisons where transfers are safer for ICE officers and the
community. ICE will also likely have to detain individuals
arrested in California in detention facilities outside of the state, far
from any family they may have in California.32
D.

ICE's Retaliatory Enforcement Actions Cause Grave Harm to Plaintiffs
1.

100.

Mr. Ragbir

Mr. Ragbir's sudden detention has inflicted long-lasting and irreparable harm.

The stress of his recent unexpected detention and the prospect of imminent deportation has
exacerbated symptoms of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Mr. Ragbir's symptoms
are also intensified by worry that those who care about him are suffering as well.
101.

Nearly all of Mr. Ragbir's family resides in the United States. Mr. Ragbir has not

lived in Trinidad in nearly three decades.

32

ICE, Statement from ICE Acting Director Tom Homan on California Sanctuary Law (Oct. 6,
2017), https:/ /www.ice.gov/news/releases/ statement-ice-acting-director-tom-homan-californiasanctuary-law (emphasis added).

32

 102.

If Mr. Ragbir is deported to Trinidad, he will be indefinitely separated from his

family and community. Mr. Ragbir's wife and daughter are U.S. citizens and unable to move to
Trinidad.
103.

Mr. Ragbir is continuing to challenge the basis for his removal. But even in the

event that Mr. Ragbir prevails on his challenge, there is no indication that ICE would facilitate
his return to the United States.
104.

The trauma of deportation to Trinidad will further exacerbate Mr. Ragbir's

depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, resulting in long-lasting psychological harm.

2.
105.

New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City

The Coalition has grown rapidly in the past year, with numerous programs

throughout the week providing support and services to immigrant communities. However, as a
direct result ofICE's targeting of the.Coalition leaders, the organization was deprived of its sole
full-time employee and Executive Director, Mr. Ragbir, for several weeks while Mr. Ragbir was in
detention, and may lose Mr. Ragbir completely if he is deported.
106.

Mr. Ragbir's deportation would be devastating to the Coalition. Mr. Ragbir is the

face of NSC, and was the primary point of contact with funders, elected officials, faith leaders,
legal services organizations, and community partners. Mr. Ragbir's deportation would greatly
diminish NSC's network
107.

The sudden execution of Mr. Ragbir's final removal order has made it extremely

difficult to maintain the organization's day-to-day administrative activities. Mr. Ragbir is the
organization's sole full-time employee. NSC has had to divert immense resources to litigation
challenging Mr. Ragbir's imminent deportation.

33

 108.

ICE's targeting of critics of federal immigrant-rights advocates has also sown fear

in the immigrant community, impeding NSC's pursuit of its mission. NSC staff receive
numerous calls from worried immigrants asking whether they should go to their ICE check-ins.
109.

In the wake of Mr. Ragbir's and Mr. Montrevil's detentions, both volunteers and

recipients of the Coalition's services have expressed fear about attending workshops, clinics, and
check-ins and immigration court dates. The Coalition has had to respond to numerous requests
for advice and support from these individuals.
110.

Immigrants are increasingly reluctant to participate in the Coalition's activities for

fear of attracting the attention of ICE authorities.
111.

In addition to targeting Mr. Ragbir, ICE's pattern and practice of targeting critics

of federal immigration policy against immigrant rights activists has directly impeded the
Coalition's ability to carry out its mission. ICE has directly interfered with the Coalition's legal
activities in support of immigrants. For example, in the summer of 2017, ICE officers at 26
Federal Plaza began to interfere with the Coalition's accompaniment program by restricting
public access to the ICE check-in room at 26 Federal Plaza-thwarting

volunteers from the

Accompaniment Program who sought to assist immigrants during their check-ins. Even clergy
who attempted to accompany people at their check-ins were often turned away.
112.

ICE also appears to have surveilled the Coalition's gatherings in an attempt to

intimidate its members. 33

33

Several Coalition members saw evidence ofICE officers surveilling a meeting on the eve of
Mr. Ragbir's arrest. In addition, clergy have spoken to ICE officers who appeared to surveil
Coalition members at a religious service. Nick Pinto, No Sanctuary, The Intercept (Jan. 19,
2018), https:/ /theintercept.com/2018/01/19/ice-new-sanctuary-movement-ravi-ragbirdeportation/.

34

 3.
113.

National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild

NIPNLG has had to expend considerable resources in response to ICE's targeting

of the members and leaders of immigration advocacy organizations. For example, NIPNLG
provided technical assistance to Villalpando on her removal proceedings when she was served
with an NT A by ICE after decades of working without incident as an organizer. Recognizing
ICE's pattern and practice of targeting activists, NIPNLG has had to identify and recruit counsel
for certain activists that it anticipated would be targets of retaliatory action. NIPNLG has also
published several substantial guides and hosted workshops to advise activists in the immigrant
rights community of best practices under the Trump Administration, which included preparing a
plan of action. 34
114.
Gottlieb-have

Further, NIPNLG's members-which

been directly affected by ICE's targeting of immigrant activists.

4.
115.

include Mr. Ragbir and his wife, Amy

CASA de Maryland

Defendants' retaliatory actions have had a highly negative impact on the

community that CASA serves, and is also extremely detrimental to the mission and purpose of
the organization. ICE's actions will harm CASA's mission in multiple ways and has already
forced CASA to divert valuable resources away from its usual activities.
116.

CASA has observed ICE targeting members ofCASA's community and has

responded to more than 50 reported ICE raids over the last year. CASA has seen blatant

34

See, e.g., Julie (Yihong) Mao, Jan Collatz, Understanding the Federal Offenses of Harboring,
Transporting, Smuggling and Encouraging under 8 US.C. § 1324(a) (Sept. 28, 2017),
http:/ /www.nipnlg.org/PDFs/practitioners/practice _ advisories/pr/2017 _ 28Sep _ memo-1324a.pdf;
NIPNLG/Mijente, In Defense of Organizing, (May 2017),
https://www.nationalimmigrationproject.org/PDFs/community/2017 _ 05June _in-defense-ofmijente-en.pdf.
·

35

 instances of racial profiling, including ICE targeting two Latinos at a convenience store in
Baltimore.
117.

As CASA raises its profile, including through increasing impact litigation, the

risks of CASA' s leaders and their families being targeted have increased. Leaders like Missael
Garcia and Monica Camacho, two of CASA's most outspoken activists and both plaintiffs in
CASA's DACA lawsuit, face potential retaliation for continuing to defend their families and
their communities. As they lose protections like DACA and TPS, these leaders become
vulnerable to increasingly aggressive ICE enforcement action.
118.

Over the past year, ICE has deported several CASA leaders, including Liliana

Cruz, Catia Paz, and two young brothers, Diego and Lizandro Claros. All of these leaders had
been vocal supporters of CASA and immigration programs like DACA and DAP A. They had
received extensive media coverage for their advocacy and engagement with elected officials.
Each of them was effectively silenced by ICE through their deportation, which in the case of
Diego and Lizandro happened a mere five days after reporting for a routine ICE check-in.
119.

The selective targeting of CASA leaders has required an increased dedication of

resources to defending these members, including through legal services, organizing and
communications. Although CASA will never stop advocating for the community it serves, its
mission is inherently negatively affected whenever one of its members, and particularly when
one of its leaders, is deported.
120.

CASA has had to redirect resources to deal with ICE's increasingly vindictive and

unrestrained enforcement activity. CASA has dramatically expanded its Know Your Rights
(KYR) presentations across the organization, helping to educate thousands of immigrants over

36

 the past year about their constitutional rights and how to protect their families from immigration
enforcement.
121.

CASA has restructured its services to deal with the termination ofDACA and

TPS, and has increased the number of comprehensive immigration screenings it provides to its
members, in anticipation of continuing excessive ICE enforcement activity.
122.

CASA has significantly expanded its litigation efforts to challenge the

Administration's unconstitutional actions against its members and the broader immigrant
community. All of these changes have taken resources away from other vital CASA
programming and advocacy efforts.

5.
123.

New York Immigration Coalition

Defendants' targeting of immigrant-rights activists like Mr. Ragbir directly

interferes with NYI C's mission of advancing immigrant rights throughout New York.
Defendants' retaliatory measures against the Coalition--one ofNYIC's own member
organizations-weakens

NYIC's unified strength as a coalition and spreads fear among the

immigrant communities that NYIC serves.

37

 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNTI
(Retaliation in Violation of the First Amendment)
124.

Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

125.

To sustain a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show "(1) that the

speech or conduct at issue was protected, (2) that the defendant took adverse action against the
plaintiff, and (3) that there was a causal connection between the protected speech and the adverse
action." Gonzalez v. Hasty, 802 F.3d 212,222 (2d Cir. 2015) (quotation marks omitted).
126.

Plaintiffs have engaged in speech protected by the First Amendment. They have

criticized U.S. immigration law and policy, organized rallies and protests against the U.S.
immigration system, helped noncitizens navigate that system, and urged government officials to
change it. Plaintiffs' speech about U.S. immigration law and policy pertains to matters of public
concern and seeks political change. It is therefore entitled to the highest level of protection
under the First Amendment.
127.

Defendants have taken adverse actions against Plaintiffs. Defendants have

detained Mr. Ragbir and seek to deport him. Defendants have deported one of the Coalition's
leaders and are seeking to deport another. And Defendants have engaged in a nationwide pattern
and practice of selectively enforcing the immigration laws against immigration-rights activists on
the basis of their protected speech regarding U.S. immigration law and policy.
128.

There is a causal connection between Plaintiffs' protected speech and Defendants'

adverse actions. Defendants have selectively enforced the immigration laws against Plaintiffs
and their leaders and members on the basis of their protected speech regarding U.S. immigration
law and policy.

38

 129.

As a result, this Court should declare that Defendants' retaliatory actions violate

the First Amendment; enter a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Defendants from
taking any action to effectuate Mr. Ragbir's removal from the United States unless Defendants
demonstrate to the Court's satisfaction that such action is untainted by unlawful retaliation; and
enter a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Defendants from selectively enforcing
the immigration laws against any individual based on the individual's protected speech regarding
U.S. immigration law and policy.
COUNT II
(Content, Viewpoint, and Speaker Discrimination
in Violation of the First Amendment)

130.

Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

131.

Government action that targets speech based on its content is presumptively

unconstitutional and is justified only if the Government demonstrates that it is narrowly tailored
to serve a compelling state interest. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015).
132.

Defendants' pattern and practice of selectively enforcing the immigration laws

against immigration-rights activists on the basis of their protected speech regarding U.S.
immigration law and policy targets speech based on its content, does not serve a compelling state
interest, and is not narrowly tailored.
133.

Government action that targets private speech based on the viewpoint taken by the

speaker is unconstitutional. Mata! v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017); Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.,
564 U.S. 552 (2011).
134.

Defendants' pattern and practice of selectively enforcing the immigration laws

against immigration-rights activists on the basis of their protected speech regarding U.S.
immigration law and policy targets private speech based on the viewpoint of the speaker.

39

 135.

Government action that targets speech based on the identity of the speaker is

presumptively unconstitutional and is justified only if the Government demonstrates that it is
narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm 'n,
558 U.S. 310 (2010).
136.

Defendants' pattern and practice of selectively enforcing the immigration laws

against immigration-rights activists on the basis of their protected speech regarding U.S.
immigration law and policy targets speech based on the identity of the speaker, does not serve a
compelling state interest, and is not narrowly tailored.
137.

As a result, this Court should declare that Defendants' pattern and practice of

targeting immigration-rights activists on the basis of their protected speech regarding U.S.
immigration law and policy violates the First Amendment; enter a preliminary and permanent
injunction restraining Defendants from taking any action to effectuate Mr. Ragbir's removal
from the United States unless Defendants demonstrate to the Court's satisfaction that such action
is untainted by unlawful discrimination; and enter a preliminary and permanent injunction
restraining Defendants from selectively enforcing the immigration laws against any individual
based on the individual's protected speech regarding U.S. immigration law and policy.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and:
a.

Declare that Defendants' retaliatory enforcement of the immigration laws against

against Mr. Ragbir and other immigrant-rights activists on the basis of their protected political
speech about U.S. immigration law and policy viqlates the First Amendment;

40

 b.

Declare that Defendants' pattern and practice of discriminatorily enforcing the

immigration laws against Mr. Ragbir and other immigrant-rights activists based on the content
and viewpoint of their speech and the identity of the speaker violates the First Amendment;
c.

Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Defendants from taking

any action to effectuate Mr. Ragbir's removal from the United States unless Defendants
demonstrate to the Court's satisfaction that such action is untainted by unlawful retaliation or
discrimination against protected speech;
d.

Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Defendants on a

nationwide basis from selectively enforcing the immigration laws against any individualincluding, without limitation, through investigation, surveillance, detention, deportation, or any
other adverse enforcement action-based on the individual's protected political speech about
U.S. immigration law and policy;
e.

Award Plaintiffs costs and reasonable attorneys' fees; and

f.

Order such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

41

 February 8, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

Alina Das, Esq. (AD8805)
Jessica Rofe, Esq. (JR5231)
Brittany Castle, Legal Intern
Jeremy Cutting, Legal Intern
WASHINGTON SQUARE
LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
Immigrant Rights Clinic
New York University School of Law
245 Sullivan Street, 5th floor
New York, New York 10012
Tel: (212) 998-6430
alina.das@nyu.edu
j essica.rofe@nyu.edu

R. Stanton Jones*
John L. Freedman
William C. Perdue*
Daniel F. Jacobson*
Sally Pei*
Stephen K. Wirth*
Andrew T. Tutt*
ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP
601 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 942-5000
(202) 942-5999 (fax)
stanton.jones@arnoldporter.com
Anthony Boccanfuso
Ada Afton
ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP
250 West 55th Street
New York, NY 10019
(212) 836-8000
(303) 836-8689 (fax)
anthony.boccanfuso@arnoldporter.com
Emily Newhouse Dillingham*
ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP
70 West Madison Street
Suite 4200
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 583-2300
(312) 583-2360 (fax)
emily.dillingham@arnoldporter.com

* Pro hac vice application forthcoming

Counsel for Plaintiffs

42

 VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK

)
) ss.:
)

Ravidath Ragbir, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I am Ravidath Ragbir, a plaintiff in the within action; I have read the foregoing Verified
Complaint and know the contents thereof; except as to matters therein alleged on information
and belief, and except as to matters within the personal knowledge of another plaintiff, I have
learned of the facts alleged therein, either through my own personal knowledge or through
information reported to me in the ordinary course of business; as to those matters as to which I
do not have personal knowledge, I believe them to be true.

Sworn to and subscribed this
1#1 day of February, 2018

cf!;t}J/4-c---Verification Statements.docx

 VERIFICATION

)
) ss.:
)

STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK

Kaji Dousa, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I am co-chair of the New Sanctuary Coalitio_nof New York City, a plaintiff in the within
action; I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and know the contents thereof; except as to
matters therein alleged on information and belief, and except as to matters within the personal
knowledge of another plaintiff, I have learned of the facts alleged therein, either through my own
personal knowledge or through information reported to me in the ordinary course of business; as
to those matters as to which I do not have personal knowledge, I believe them to be true.
This verification is made by deponent because plaintiff is an organization.

~~,..qrnto and subscribed this
February, 2018

O_:...':..-fcfi_
ay of

Jc,,i.:a L. Kuaf
Notary Public, State of New
No. 02R0635J7t9

Y•

QuUlied ia Killpc.MJ
Certlftall• 1'111
la NewY... C....,
Coiitah 111S...,. ll111r,. 11..1.o:Ms-

Verification Statements.docx

,,'