Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1152 Page 1 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lee Gelernt* Judy Rabinovitz* Anand Balakrishnan* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 T: (212) 549-2660 F: (212) 549-2654 lgelernt@aclu.org jrabinovitz@aclu.org abalakrishnan@aclu.org Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783) ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES P.O. Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138-7131 T: (619) 398-4485 F: (619) 232-0036 bvakili@aclusandiego.org Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Additional counsel on next page UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 Ms. L. et al., Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMSMDD 15 16 Petitioners-Plaintiffs, v. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”); U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”); U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”); Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”); Thomas Homan, Acting Director of ICE; Greg Archambeault, San Diego Field Office Director, ICE; Joseph Greene, San Diego Assistant Field Office Director, ICE; Adrian P. Macias, El Paso Field Director, ICE; Frances M. Jackson, El Paso Assistant Field Office Director, ICE; Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of DHS; Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, Attorney General of the United States; L. Francis Cissna, Director of USCIS; Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of Date Filed: April 27, 2018 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Hearing Date: May 4, 2018 Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 13A Judge: Dana M. Sabraw Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1153 Page 2 of 49 1 2 3 4 CBP; Pete Flores, San Diego Field Director, CBP; Hector A. Mancha Jr., El Paso Field Director, CBP; Alex Azar, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; Scott Lloyd, Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, 5 6 Respondents-Defendants. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 T: (415) 343-1198 F: (415) 395-0950 samdur@aclu.org Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1154 Page 3 of 49 1 INTRODUCTION 2 This is a prototypical civil rights class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs are far 3 too numerous to proceed individually, the defendants are federal agencies, and there 4 are numerous common issues. The government does not dispute that there are 5 numerous putative plaintiffs, nor could they. The affidavits state that there are 6 hundreds of families throughout the country that have been separated. In fact, it 7 was just revealed that the number may be as large as 700 families, with more than 8 100 cases involving children less than 4 years old. Caitlin Dickerson, Hundreds of 9 Children Have Been Taken from Parents at U.S. Border, N.Y. Times, Apr. 20, 10 2018. Defendants also do not dispute that they are, in fact, separating hundreds of 11 families without a showing that the parent presents a danger to the child. 12 Defendants nonetheless seek to defeat class certification by attempting to 13 pick off the two named plaintiffs, arguing that Ms. C. and Ms. L. are not adequate 14 representatives because their cases are moot. But the cases are plainly not moot for 15 a variety of reasons, including that the relief they seek–reunification–did not occur 16 before the class certification motion was filed (and in Ms. C’s case, has still not 17 occurred). Defendants should not be permitted to thwart judicial scrutiny of their 18 widespread separation practice simply by mooting individual plaintiffs. That is 19 particularly so in a case where Defendants control access to the hundreds of 20 detained parents and children. 1 21 22 Defendants alternatively argue that class certification should be denied because there are certain differences among class members. But the presence of 23 1 24 25 26 27 28 Notwithstanding the enormous difficulty of locating these families, who are scattered throughout the country, Plaintiffs have managed to locate at least some additional families and are submitting their declarations with this brief, should the Court wish to add additional parents who remain detained, including within this District. See, e.g., Declaration of Mr. U., Ex. 21 (detained at Otay Mesa). See also Declaration of Ms. G., Ex. 22; Declaration of Ms. M.M.A.L., Ex. 23; Declaration of J.I.L., Ex. 24; Declaration of Mirian, Ex. 25; Declaration of Mr. A., Ex. 26 (all parents in ICE detention and separated from their children). 1 18cv0428 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1155 Page 4 of 49 1 potential factual differences (even assuming they exist) does not defeat class 2 certification where, as here, there are multiple critical questions common to all 3 plaintiffs. Defendants suggest that such questions do not exist in this case, but they 4 themselves raise those questions with respect to all class members, including 5 whether these families even have a due process right to remain together. 6 7 PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE NOT MOOT, AND THEY EASILY SATISFY RULE 23’S ADEQUACY REQUIREMENTS. 8 The government repackages its mootness arguments as challenges to Ms. L.’s 9 10 I. and Ms. C.’s adequacy as class representatives. ECF No. 59 at 6-7. As Plaintiffs have already explained, ECF No. 58 at 5-6, Plaintiffs’ claims are not moot. 11 1. Ms. L.’s claims are not moot because reunification came as the result of 12 the government’s voluntary cessation, and is not moot for that reason alone. ECF 13 No. 58, at 5-6. Indeed, Defendants have not disclaimed their ability to separate 14 Ms. L. from her child at any moment, and any finding of mootness is especially 15 unwarranted where a defendant “continues to defend the legality of” its abandoned 16 practice. Knox v. SEIU, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012). Defendants do not 17 address Plaintiffs’ voluntary cessation argument, which is dispositive here. 18 Even assuming that Ms. L.’s individual claims were moot, she would still be 19 an adequate representative for the class claims because both the amended class 20 complaint and motion for class certification were filed before she was reunited with 21 her child See ECF No. 32 (Amended Class Complaint); ECF No. 35 (Motion for 22 Class Certification), both filed March 9. It is settled that where the named 23 Plaintiffs’ claims are “inherently transitory,” “certification relates back to the filing 24 of the complaint,” and so the class claims remain justiciable. Chen v. Allstate Ins. 25 Co., 819 F.3d 1136, 1142-43 (9th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted); see also 26 Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 110 n.11 (1975) (class claims not moot where 27 named plaintiffs had live claims “[a]t the time the complaint was filed”); County of 28 Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 51-52 (1991) (same). The rule is of course 2 18cv0428 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1156 Page 5 of 49 1 designed to guard against defendants “picking off” the named Plaintiffs in an 2 action, in a strategic effort to prevent them from ever receiving a ruling on class 3 certification. See Chen, 819 F.3d at 1147-48; see also Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 4 653 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011). That rationale has particularly acute force 5 here, where the government controls the timing of relief and access to all the 6 detained plaintiffs through the country. 7 Defendants note that although reunification occurred after the filing of the 8 amended complaint and motion for class certification, Ms. L.’s own release from 9 detention occurred on March 6, before the filing of the amended complaint and 10 class certification motion. Defendants argue that Ms. L’s claims therefore “became 11 moot on March 6, 2018,” and that “her class claims are not saved by the inherently 12 transitory doctrine.” ECF No. 59 at 7 & n.2. But Ms. L.’s claims were not moot on 13 March 6 because she had not yet received the relief she sought: reunification with 14 her child. The relief Plaintiffs seek is not release from detention, but reunification, 15 even if that means that they remain in detention in a family facility with their child. 16 See Flagstaff Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Sullivan, 962 F.2d 879, 885 (9th Cir. 1992) (finding 17 case not moot even though plaintiff had received partial relief). 18 2. Ms. C.’s case is not moot because she has not yet been reunified. 19 Moreover, even under the government’s theory, her claims would not be moot 20 because she herself was not released until after the amended complaint and class 21 certification motion were filed. ECF No. 59 at 7 n.2. And if reunification does 22 occur, Ms. C.’s case would still not be moot under the voluntary cessation 23 exception. 24 3. The government separately challenges Ms. C.’s adequacy as a class 25 representative on the ground that the Court lacks venue over her claims. ECF No. 26 59 at 7. But as Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss explains, 27 only one Plaintiff need establish venue in suits against the federal government. See 28 ECF No. 58 at 6-9 (citing, inter alia, Railway Labor Execs.’ Ass’n v. ICC, 958 F.2d 3 18cv0428 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1157 Page 6 of 49 1 252, 256 (9th Cir. 1991), and Californians for Renewable Energy v. EPA, 2018 WL 2 1586211, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). There is 3 no dispute that Ms. L. has established venue in this District, and therefore venue 4 over the entire action—including Ms. C.’s claims—is proper. ECF No. 58 at 6-7. 5 4. Finally, if the Court deems it necessary, other parents who remain 6 separated from their children can be substituted as named Plaintiffs, including a 7 plaintiff detained in this district. See, e.g., Declaration of Mr. U., Ex. 21. At 8 bottom, the government cannot moot class actions by providing voluntary relief to 9 named plaintiffs, thereby insulating a widespread practice from meaningful scrutiny 10 11 (especially where the government controls access to the plaintiffs). II. 12 PLAINTIFFS HAVE SATISFIED THE COMMONALITY AND TYPICALITY REQUIREMENTS. 13 Defendants raise only a single objection to commonality and typicality: that 14 the government’s decisions to separate families “arise[] from many different factual 15 situations and so to evaluate this injury the Court would need to examine these 16 widely varying array of factual situations.” ECF No. 59 at 11. Not only do 17 Defendants fail to identify any actual material differences among the proposed class 18 members, they misunderstand Rule 23’s requirements. 19 As discussed below, Defendants do not actually identify “many different 20 factual situations.” Thus, even on its own terms, Defendants’ argument is 21 unpersuasive. More fundamentally, the presence of some factual differences does 22 not defeat class certification. Here, there are numerous threshold common 23 questions that are most appropriately addressed in one action, and not in hundreds 24 of individual cases (even assuming the families could locate attorneys to raise 25 them). For instance: 26 • Are Defendants correct that they do not need a justification to separate these 27 parents and children because there is no due process right at all to be detained 28 together? 4 18cv0428 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1158 Page 7 of 49 1 • If there is a due process right for these parents and children to be detained 2 together, can it be abridged in circumstances where there has been no 3 showing that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child? 4 • Are Defendants correct that the TVPRA mandates that they separate families 5 where the parent is subject to mandatory detention, because a parent in 6 detention is “unavailable” to care for the child, notwithstanding the existence 7 of family detention centers? 8 9 10 • Are Defendants correct that separation is permissible based on doubts about parentage without first offering parents a DNA test? • Are Defendants correct that detention placement decisions are discretionary 11 and therefore not subject to review by courts under 8 U.S.C. § 12 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) or under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2)? 13 These are only a few of the common threshold questions presented by this case. 14 “[A]ll that Rule 23(a)(2) requires is a single significant question of law or fact.” 15 Abdullah v. U.S. Sec. Assocs, 731 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation 16 marks omitted) (emphasis added). Defendants are incorrect that these questions 17 should all be litigated in hundreds of individual actions. That is true even assuming 18 that the government is correct that this case presents numerous factual differences 19 among the class. See Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1046 (9th Cir. 1998) 20 (affirming class certification despite “[d]ifferences among the class members with 21 respect to the merits of their claims”). 22 In any event, despite Defendants’ assertion that family separation “may result 23 from a variety of fact-specific scenarios,” ECF No. 59 at 10, they identify only two 24 such scenarios, both of which are presented by the named Plaintiffs themselves. 25 Defendants claim that their separation of Ms. L. from S.S. was justified by Ms. L.’s 26 inability to verify her relationship with her daughter. They also assert that they 27 separated Ms. C. from her child because of her criminal prosecution. But the 28 government offers no explanation as to why those varying factual scenarios would 5 18cv0428 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1159 Page 8 of 49 1 produce a different answer to the same core question each Plaintiffs ask: Can the 2 government lawfully detain them apart from their children, without any showing 3 that they present a danger to their child? See Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 686 4 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Rule 23(a)(3) requires only that [the plaintiffs’] claims be ‘typical’ 5 of the class, not that they be identically positioned to each other or to every class 6 member.”). 2 7 As a result, “[i]ndividual variation among plaintiffs’ questions of law and 8 fact does not defeat underlying legal commonality, because ‘the existence of shared 9 legal issues with divergent factual predicates is sufficient’ to satisfy Rule 23.” 10 Santillan v. Ashcroft, 2004 WL 2297990, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2004) (quoting 11 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998)). The same is true 12 of typicality. See, e.g., Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020 (under “permissive” typicality 13 standard, representative claims need only be “reasonably co-extensive with those of 14 absent class members; they need not be substantially identical”). 15 These standards are even more liberal in civil rights suits where a class 16 “challenges a system-wide practice or policy that affects all of the putative class 17 members.” Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 868 (9th Cir. 2001), overruled on 18 other grounds by Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 504-05 (2005). Such suits 19 “by their very nature often present common questions satisfying Rule 23(a)(2).” 20 7A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1763 (3d ed. 2017). 21 See, e.g., Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 701 (1979) (approving class 22 certification of due process challenge to benefits denials); Powers v. Hamilton Cty. 23 Pub. Def. Comm'n, 501 F.3d 592, 619 (6th Cir. 2007) (affirming class certification 24 of due process claim because “cases alleging a single course of wrongful conduct 25 2 26 27 28 As Plaintiffs have explained, they do not challenge whether Ms. C. was lawfully prosecuted, nor do they challenge the legality of separating her from her child while she was in criminal custody. Ms. C.’s claim is that Defendants could not engage in separation when she was back in ICE custody and could then have been detained with her son in a family detention center. 6 18cv0428 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1160 Page 9 of 49 1 are particularly well-suited to class certification”); Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. 2 Supp. 3d 1168, 1203 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (“The procedural due process claim for 3 which [the plaintiff] seeks class-wide preliminary injunctive relief is amenable to 4 common answers.”). 5 In short, class certification is warranted because of the numerous common 6 questions and because Plaintiffs challenge a systemic government practice and seek 7 common relief: a prohibition on keeping them separate from their children while 8 they are detained in immigration custody absent a showing that they are a danger to 9 their children. See Parsons, 754 F.3d at 681 (recognizing that “the commonality 10 requirement can be satisfied by proof of the existence of systemic policies and 11 practices”); Rosas v. Baca, No. 12-cv-0428, 2012 WL 2061694, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 12 June 7, 2012) (“In a civil rights suit such as this one . . . commonality is satisfied 13 where the lawsuit challenges a systemwide practice or policy that affects all of the 14 putative class members.”) (citation omitted). 15 III. PLAINTIFFS SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 23(b)(2). 16 Defendants incorrectly argue that Plaintiffs’ class definition is deficient. 17 ECF No. 59 at 13-14. But class members are easily identified: parents who are 18 detained by DHS separately from their children without a showing that the parent 19 presents a danger to the child. Notably, the only supposed problem Defendants 20 identify is in determining when individuals like Ms. C.—who were criminally 21 prosecuted—would fall into the class. Id. at 14. But the solution to that “problem” 22 is simple: they become part of the class when they are in the custody of DHS 23 without their children. See ECF No. 58 at 20. Therefore, since the end of Ms. C.’s 24 criminal sentence, when she was returned to ICE custody, she has been within the 25 class definition.3 26 27 28 3 Defendants also cite Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S.Ct. 830, 851 (Feb. 27, 2018), ECF No. 59 at 12 n.3, but acknowledge that the Supreme Court merely remanded that case to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration of class certification. 7 18cv0428 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1161 Page 10 of 49 1 Defendants also contend that certification should be denied because relief 2 could apply differently to individuals like Ms. C. ECF No. 59 at 14. Specifically, 3 Defendants note that while Ms. L. was held continuously in DHS custody, Ms. C. 4 was already separated from her child when she was returned to DHS custody from 5 criminal custody. But, despite this difference, “a single injunction or declaratory 6 judgment would provide relief to each member of the class.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 7 v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 360 (2011); see also Parsons, 754 F.3d at 688 (approving 8 of Rule 23(b)(2) class because “[w]hile each of the . . . policies and practices may 9 not affect every member of the proposed class . . . in exactly the same way, they 10 constitute shared grounds for all [members] in the proposed class”); Marisol A. v. 11 Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372, 378 (2d Cir. 1997) (affirming Rule 23(b)(2) certification 12 notwithstanding purportedly “unique circumstances of each plaintiff’s experience 13 with the child welfare system”). Both Ms. L. and Ms. C. would obtain relief from a 14 declaration and injunction that separation is unlawful absent a showing that the 15 parent presents a danger to the child; in Ms. L.’s case it would mean that the 16 separation should never have occurred, and in Ms. C.’s case it would be she should 17 have been reunited once she returned to DHS custody. 18 19 CONCLUSION Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification should be granted. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 18cv0428 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1162 Page 11 of 49 1 Dated: April 27, 2018 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783) ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES P.O. Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138-7131 T: (619) 398-4485 F: (619) 232-0036 bvakili@aclusandiego.org Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 T: (415) 343-1198 F: (415) 395-0950 samdur@aclu.org Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Lee Gelernt Lee Gelernt* Judy Rabinovitz* Anand Balakrishnan* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 T: (212) 549-2660 F: (212) 549-2654 lgelernt@aclu.org jrabinovitz@aclu.org abalakrishnan@aclu.org 15 16 17 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 18cv0428 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1163 Page 12 of 49 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on April 27, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing 3 with the Clerk for the United States District Court for the Southern District of 4 California by using the appellate CM/ECF system. A true and correct copy of this 5 brief has been served via the Court’s CM/ECF system on all counsel of record. 6 /s/ Lee Gelernt Lee Gelernt, Esq. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 18cv0428 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1164 Page 13 of 49 1 2 Ms. L., et al., v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. 3 EXHIBITS TO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 6 7 8 9 Exhibit 21 22 23 24 25 26 Document Declaration of Mr. U. Declaration of Ms. G. Declaration of Ms. M. M. A. L. Declaration of Ms. J. I. L. Declaration of Mirian Declaration of Mr. A. Pages 12-16 17-21 22-26 27-34 35-41 42-47 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 18cv0428 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1165 Page 14 of 49 EXHIBIT 21 Exh. 21, Page 12 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1166 Page 15 of 49 Exh. 21, Page 13 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1167 Page 16 of 49 Exh. 21, Page 14 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1168 Page 17 of 49 Exh. 21, Page 15 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1169 Page 18 of 49 Exh. 21, Page 16 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1170 Page 19 of 49 EXHIBIT 22 Exh. 22, Page 17 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1171 Page 20 of 49 2 3 4 5 Lee Gelernt* Judy Rabinovitz* Anand Balakrishnan* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY l 0004 T: (212) 549-2660 F: (212)_ 549-2654 Bardis Vakili (SBN 24 7783) ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES P.O. Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138-713 l T: (619~398-4485 F: (619 232-0036 bvakili aclusandiego.org lgelernt@aclu.org jrabinov1tz@aclu.org 7 abalakrishnan@aclu.org 6 8 9 10 11 12 *Admitted Pro Hae Vice Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs Additional counsel on next page UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD s. L., et al., Petitioners-Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 .S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement " ICE"); U.S. Department of Homeland Security "DHS"); U.S. Customs and Border Protection "CBP"); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"); U.S. Department of Health nd Human Services ("HHS"); Office of efugee Resettlement ("ORR"); Thomas oman, Acting Director of ICE; Greg rchambeault, San Diego Field Office Director, CE; Joseph Greene, San Diego Assistant Field ffice Director, ICE; Adrian P. Macias, El Paso ield Director, ICE; Frances M. Jackson, El Paso ssistant Field Office Director, ICE; Kirstjen ielsen, Secretary of DHS; Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, Attorney General of the United tates; L. Francis Cissna, Director of USCIS; evin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of BP; Pete Flores, San Diego Field Director, BP; Hector A. Mancha Jr., El Paso Field irector, CBP; Alex Azar, Secretary of the epartment of Health and Human Services; Scott Lloyd, Director of the Office of Refugee esettlement, Date Filed: April 16, 20 J 8 DECLARATION OF Ms. G. CLASS ACTION Hearing Date: May 4, 2018 Time: TBD Courtroom: 13A Judge: Hon. Dana Sabraw Respondents-Defendants. Exh. 22, Page 18 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1172 Page 21 of 49 2 3 4 5 Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 T: (415)343-1198 F: (415) 395-0950 samdur@aclu.org 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exh. 22, Page 19 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1173 Page 22 of 49 I, 2 Ms. G. , make the following declaration based on my personal knowledge and declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3 4 1746 that the following is true and correct: 5 I. I am a citizen of Mexico and am seeking asylum in the United States. When I 6 came to the United States, I asked for asylum at the border in Nogales, Arizona I am 7 8 9 now in immigration proceedings before an immigration judge to seek asylum .r 2. I came to the United States on or around March I, 2018 with my biological 10 II 12 13 daughter, Y-M-N-P, who is six years old, and blind, and my biological son, J-P-P-G, who is four years old. Both are from Mexico and seeking asylum. 3. When we came to the United States, we reported at Nogales, Arizona and said 14 15 that I wanted to seek asylum. 16 4. Shortly after arriving, I was told that I was going to be separated from my 17 daughter. There were no doubts expressed that I was my daughter' s biological mother 18 19 20 and I have a birth certificate to show our relationship. They did not say that I was a danger to my daughter or was abusive. 21 22 23 24 5. I was sent to the Eloy Detention Center around March 5, 2018. My children were sent to an ORR facility in Phoenix, Ari zona 6. I have not seen my children for one and a half months. I worry about them 25 26 constantly and don't know when I will see them. We have talked on the phone, at first 27 28 18cv0428 Exh. 22, Page 20 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1174 Page 23 of 49 once a week, and now twice a week. They are constantly asking me when we wi 11 be 2 together again. 3 I know that Y-M-N-P- and J-P-P-G are having a very hard time detained all by 4 7. 5 themselves without me. They are only six and four years-old in a strange country and 6 7 8 9 they need their parent. 8. I hope I can be with my children very soon. I miss them and am scared for them. 10 11 9. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of 12 America that the foregoing is true and correct, based on my personal knowledge. 13 Executed in Eloy, Arizona, April ~' 2018. 'l-3 14 15 16 I Ms. G. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exh. 22, Page 21 18cv0428 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1175 Page 24 of 49 EXHIBIT 23 Exh. 23, Page 22 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1176 Page 25 of 49 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Lee Gelemt* Judy Rabinovitz* Anand Balakrishnan * AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad ~tri 18th Floor New York, l~ r 10004 T: f212) 549-2660 F: 212} 549-2654 lge ernt@aclu.org j rabinovztz@aclu.org abalakrishnan@aclu.org T *Admitted Pro Hae Vice Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs Additional counsel on next page UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. l 8-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Ms. L., et al., 12 13 Bardis Vakili (SBN 24 7783) ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES P.O. Box 87131 San Diego,,_ CA 92138-7131 T: (619~3'J8-4485 F: (619 232-0036 bvakili aclusandiego.org P etitioners-PLaintiffs, V. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"); U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"); U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"); Office of Refugee Resettlement ("ORR"); Thomas Homan, Acting Director of ICE; Greg Archambeault, San Diego Field Office Director, ICE; Joseph Greene, San Diego Assistant Field Office Director, ICE; Adrian P. Macias, El Paso Field Director, ICE; Frances M. Jackson, El Paso Assistant Field Office Director, ICE; Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of DHS; Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, Attorney General of the United States; L. Francis Cissna, Director of USCIS; Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of CBP; Pete Flores, San Diego Field Director, CBP; Hector A. Mancha Jr., El Paso Field Director, CBP; Alex Azar, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; Scott Lloyd, Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, Respondents-Defendants. Exh. 23, Page 23 Date Filed: April 24, 2018 DECLARATION OF Ms. M. M. A. L. CLASS ACTION Hearing Date: May 4, 2018 Time: TBD Courtroom: 13A Judge: Hon. Dana Sabraw Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1177 Page 26 of 49 Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 2 IMMIGRANTS ' RIGHTS PROJECT 39 Drumm Street 3 San Francisco, CA 94111 4 T: (415) 343-1198 F: (415) 395-0950 5 samdur@aclu.org 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exh. 23, Page 24 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1178 Page 27 of 49 I, 2 Ms. M. M. A. L. , make the following declaration based on my personal knowledge and declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3 4 1746 that the following is true and correct: 5 1. I am a citizen of Guatemala and am seeking asylum in the United States. When 6 7 8 9 I came to the United States, I presented myself at the border at San Ysidro, California asking for asylum. 1. I came to the United States on or around April 20, 2018 with my biological son, 10 11 12 13 E-Z-G-A. My child is from Guatemala and seeking asylum. 2. When we came to the United States, we reported at San Ysidro, California, and said that I wanted to seek asylum. 14 Shortly after arriving, I was told that I was going to be separated from my son. 15 3. 16 There were no doubts expressed that I was my son's biological mother and I have a 17 18 19 20 birth certificate to show our relationship. They did not say that I was a danger to my son or was abusive. 4. I was sent to the Eloy Detention Center in April 2018. My children were sent to 21 22 23 24 an ORR facility in Phoenix, Arizona. 5. I have not seen my children for 1 month. I worry about E-Z-G-A constantly and don't know when I will see him. We have talked on the phone only once. I was 25 26 given a number to call, but no one answers the phone. I hope I can be with my child 27 very soon. I miss him and am scared for him. 28 18cv0428 Exh. 23, Page 25 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1179 Page 28 of 49 7. 2 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, based on my personal knowledge. 3 4 Executed in April 24, 2018. 5 6 . 7 Ms. M. M. A. L. 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 18cv0428 Exh. 23, Page 26 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1180 Page 29 of 49 EXHIBIT 24 Exh. 24, Page 27 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1181 Page 30 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Lee Gelemt* Judy Rabinovitz* Anand Balakrishnan* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 T: (212) 549-2660 F: (212) 549-2654 lgelernt@aclu.org jrabinovztz@aclu.org abalakrishnan@aclu.org Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783) ACLU FOUNbATION OF SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES P.O. Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138-7131 T: (619) 398-4485 F: (619} 232-0036 bvakili@aclusandiego.org Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs Additional counsel on next page *Admitted Pro Hae Vice UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Ms. L., et al., 12 Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Petitioners-Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"); U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"); U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"); Office of Refugee Resettlement ("ORR"); Thomas Homan, Acting Director of ICE; Greg Archambeault, San Diego Field Office Director, ICE; Joseph Greene, San Diego Assistant Field Office Director, ICE; Adrian P. Macias, El Paso Field Director, ICE; Frances M. Jackson, El Paso Assistant Field Office Director, ICE; Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary ofDHS; Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, Attorney General of the United States; L. Francis Cissna, Director ofUSCIS; Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of CBP; Pete Flores, San Diego Field Director, CBP; Hector A. Mancha Jr., El Paso Field Director, CBP; Alex Azar, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; Scott Lloyd, Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Respondents-Defendants. Exh. 24, Page 28 Date Filed: April 3, 2018 DECLARATION OF Ms. J. I. L CLASS ACTION Hearing Date: May 4, 2018 Time: TBD Courtroom: 13A Judge: Hon. Dana Sabraw Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1182 Page 31 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 T: (415)343-1198 F: (415) 395-0950 samdur@aclu.org 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exh. 24, Page 29 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1183 Page 32 of 49 1 1. I, Ms. J. I. L. , make the following declaration based on my 2 personal knowledge and declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3 4 1746 that the following is true and correct: 5 2. I am a citizen of El Salvador and am seeking asylum in the United States. I had 6 7 8 9 my initial asylum interview ("credible fear interview") on March 27 or 28, 2018. I received a negative finding on my credible fear interview, and I immediately asked for review of the decision by the immigration judge. I have yet to receive a date for my 10 11 12 13 appearance before an immigration judge to review the negative finding. I hope to have the opportunity to present my asylum case in immigration court. My children and I fled El Salvador, and I fear that we will be killed if we return there. 14 15 3. 16 2018, seeking protection from violence in El Salvador. My son J.S.P.L. was born on I arrived at the Texas/Mexico border with my two biological sons on March 13, 17 18 19 20 August 3, 2007 and is ten years old. My son D.A.P.L. was born on March 30, 2014 and is four years old. 4. My sons and I were apprehended with three other women near Roma, Texas by 21 22 23 24 border officials on the morning of March 13th, 2018. The officers put us in the back of their vehicle and drove us to the border station. Everyone referred to the station as an "icebox" or "hie/era." 25 26 5. 27 Later, one of the officers said that they believed I had ties to gangs back to El At the hielera, the officers asked for my information and took my fingerprints. 28 Exh. 24, Page 30 18cv0428 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1184 Page 33 of 49 1 2 Salvador. I have never been a part of or aided the gangs in El Salvador. In fact, gang members severely beat me in front of my children for refusing to comply with their 3 4 orders. My ex-partner is in prison back in El Salvador for involvement with the 5 gangs, but I did not support his involvement, which put my children and me in danger. 6 7 8 9 6. Another officer in the hielera told me that I was going to be transferred to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") Laredo Detention Center in Laredo, Texas. However, J.S.P.L. and D.A.P.L. were not going to be transferred with me. The 10 11 12 13 officer said that children were not allowed at the Laredo facility. 7. That day, March 13, a woman came to pick up my kids. I was given only five minutes to say goodbye before J.S.P.L. and D.A.P.L. were tom from me. My babies 14 15 started crying when they found out we were going to be separated. It breaks my heart 16 to remember my youngest wail, "Why do I have to leave? Marni, I want to stay with 17 18 19 20 you!" My youngest cried and screamed in protest because he did not want to leave my side. My oldest son was also confused and did not understand what was happening. In tears myself, I asked my boys to be brave, and I promised we would be together again 21 22 23 24 soon. I begged the woman who took my children to keep them together so they could at least have each other. She promised she would, and she left with my boys. I was transferred to the Laredo Detention Center. I have been in this detention center since 25 26 then and am heartbroken. 27 28 Exh. 24, Page 31 18cv0428 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1185 Page 34 of 49 1 2 8. It has been 18 days since I have spoken to my boys. I do not know where my sons are, and I am very worried about them. I called the Office of Refugee 3 4 Resettlement to learn about my children, but the office only told me that the boys are 5 ·in a shelter in San Antonio. 6 7 8 9 9. The separation from my sons has been incredibly hard, because I have never been away from them before. I do not want my children to think that I abandoned them. J.S.P.L. and D.A.P.L. are so attached to me. D.A.P.L. used to sleep in bed with 10 11 12 13 me every night while J.S.P.L. slept in his own bed in the same room. Back in El Salvador, my kids became nervous every time I was out of their sight. They would calm down as soon as they saw me, and I assured them that I would not leave them. It 14 15 hurts me to think how anxious and distressed they must be without me. l6 10. I am particularly worried about my older son J.S.P.L. who was not doing well 17 18 19 20 back in El Salvador after he saw MS gang members beat me and threaten me. He did not even want to leave my side to go to the restroom. Before the MS started threatening us, J.S.P.L. was a normal, happy child. He loved to play and study. School 21 22 23 24 was his favorite part of his day. After the MS's threats and beatings, he did not want to go to school anymore, because he was afraid he would not find me when he came back home. Now, his worst fear has come true; I am not by his side. He must be worse 25 26 now that he is suffering all by himself. I am also very worried about my younger son 27 28 Exh. 24, Page 32 18cv0428 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1186 Page 35 of 49 1 2 because he is only four years old. Both of my sons need their mother. I do not know if they are eating, sleeping, or even going to the restroom. 3 4 11. 5 their mother. I have heard that my two sons may have been separated and placed in I brought my sons to the United States to seek safety not to leave them without 6 7 8 9 different foster homes. If this is true, I am even more worried, because now they are with strangers, away from each other. 12. I am desperate to be reunited with both of my sons. I came with the hope that 10 11 12 13 we could come here and live safely together. Instead, I am imprisoned while my two boys are alone among strangers. 13. I would like to be released and reunited with my sons so we can live with 14 15 family in the United States while we pursue our asylum cases. I have an aunt in l6 Virginia who is a United States citizen. If we cannot be released, I would rather be 17 18 19 20 detained together. 14. I hope I can be reunited with my sons very soon. I pray that people put themselves in my shoes and think about how difficult it must be for me as a mother to 21 22 23 be away from my children. I miss J.S.P.L. and D.A.P.L., and I am scared for my little boys. 24 25 26 27 28 Exh. 24, Page 33 18cv0428 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1187 Page 36 of 49 1 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that 2 the foregoing is true and correct, based on my personal knowledge. Executed in 3 4 Laredo, Texas, on April 3, 2018. 5 6 7 Ms. J. I. L. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 18cv0428 Exh. 24, Page 34 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1188 Page 37 of 49 EXHIBIT 25 Exh. 25, Page 35 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1189 Page 38 of 49 Exh. 25, Page 36 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1190 Page 39 of 49 Exh. 25, Page 37 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1191 Page 40 of 49 Exh. 25, Page 38 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1192 Page 41 of 49 Exh. 25, Page 39 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1193 Page 42 of 49 Exh. 25, Page 40 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1194 Page 43 of 49 Exh. 25, Page 41 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1195 Page 44 of 49 EXHIBIT 26 Exh. 26, Page 42 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1196 Page 45 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Lee Gelernt* Judy Rabinovitz* Anand Balakrishnan* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 T: (212) 549-2660 F: (212) 549-2654 lgelernt@aclu.org jrabinovitz@aclu.org abalakrishnan@aclu.org Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783) ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES P.O. Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138-7131 T: (619) 398-4485 F: (619) 232-0036 bvakili@aclusandiego.org Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Additional counsel on next page UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Ms. L., et al., 12 Petitioners-Plaintiffs, 13 v. Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD 14 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”); U.S. Department of Homeland Security 15 (“DHS”); U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 16 Services (“USCIS”); U.S. Department of Health DECLARATION OF Mr. A. 17 and Human Services (“HHS”); Office of 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”); Thomas Homan, Acting Director of ICE; Greg Archambeault, San Diego Field Office Director, ICE; Joseph Greene, San Diego Assistant Field Office Director, ICE; Adrian P. Macias, El Paso Field Director, ICE; Frances M. Jackson, El Paso Assistant Field Office Director, ICE; Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of DHS; Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, Attorney General of the United States; L. Francis Cissna, Director of USCIS; Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of CBP; Pete Flores, San Diego Field Director, CBP; Hector A. Mancha Jr., El Paso Field Director, CBP; Alex Azar, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; Scott Lloyd, Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, Respondents-Defendants. Exh. 26, Page 43 CLASS ACTION Hearing Date: May 4, 2018 Time: 1:30 pm Courtroom: 13A Judge: Hon. Dana Sabraw Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1197 Page 46 of 49 1 2 3 4 5 Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 T: (415) 343-1198 F: (415) 395-0950 samdur@aclu.org 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exh. 26, Page 44 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1198 Page 47 of 49 1 2 1. I, Mr. A. , make the following declaration based on my personal knowledge and declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the following is 3 4 true and correct: 5 2. I am a citizen of Honduras and came to the United States seeking asylum. I 6 7 8 9 received a negative determination of my initial asylum interview (“credible fear interview”), and an immigration judge affirmed it so I have a final order of removal but have not been deported. 10 11 12 13 3. I came to the United States on or around February 18, 2018 with my biological son, R.Z.A.R., who is three years old. He is also from Honduras and seeking asylum. 4. When we came to the United States, we turned ourselves in at the border in 14 15 Brownsville, Texas, and I said that I wanted to seek asylum. 16 5. Shortly after arriving, I was told that I was going to be separated from my son. 17 18 There were no doubts expressed that I was my son’s biological father and I have a 19 birth certificate to show our relationship. I also had my son’s vaccination records and 20 his passport. They did not tell me that I was a danger to my son or was abusive. They 21 22 23 24 told me that they had to separate me from my son because I had a prior removal order and they did not have any places to detain fathers and children. 6. I was sent to the South Texas Detention Center around February 19, 2018. My 25 26 son was sent to an ORR facility in or near El Paso, Texas. 27 28 Exh. 26, Page 45 18cv0428 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1199 Page 48 of 49 1 2 7. I have not seen him for over two months. I worry about R.Z.A.R. constantly and don't know when I will see him. We have talked on the phone several times, but I 3 4 do not have many minutes and I do not always get an answer when I call. 5 8. I know that R. is having a very hard time detained all by himself without me. 6 7 8 9 My son has already suffered a lot because his mother disappeared about six months ago. He is too young to understand that she was taken from us, but he knows she is gone and he misses her. That has been very hard on him. He is only a three-year-old in 10 11 12 a strange country and needs his parent. 9. I hope I can be with my son very soon. I miss him and am scared for him. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exh. 26, Page 46 18cv0428 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 62 Filed 04/27/18 PageID.1200 Page 49 of 49 Mr. A. Exh. 26, Page 47