Case 1:18-cv-11340-GAO Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

ANGELICA REBECA GONZALEZ-GARCIA; and her
daughter, S.K., by and through her mother, ANGELICA
REBECA GONZALEZ-GARCIA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, Attorney
General of the United States; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN,
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security;
THOMAS HOMAN, Acting Director of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; PATRICK
CONTRERAS, Director, ICE Field Office for
Enforcement Removal Operations in Houston, Texas;
KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting Commissioner of
U.S. Customs and Border Protection; ALEX AZAR,
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services; SCOTT LLOYD, Director of the Office of
Refugee Resettlement; and SOUTHWEST KEY
PROGRAMS,

Civil Action No.__________

Defendants.

COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION
1.

Angelica Rebeca Gonzalez-Garcia is an asylum-seeker whose seven-year-old

daughter was forcibly separated from her, for no legitimate reason, by the United States
government. She brings this action because the government is refusing to release her daughter,
S.K., from detention at a shelter where the girl—now eight years old, after having spent her
birthday in captivity—has suffered emotional distress and physical harm. The government has
offered no legitimate basis for this continued detention despite Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia’s pleas for
S.K.’s release and her uncontested fitness to care for her own child. Now, after more than six
1
4826-0906-6091.1

 Case 1:18-cv-11340-GAO Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 2 of 14

weeks of forced separation, Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia asks this Court to require that S.K. be reunited
with her at once.
2.

Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia and S.K. arrived in the United States together and sought

asylum in Arizona on or about May 9, 2018. On May 11, 2018, without being provided any
justification, mother and daughter were forcibly separated as a consequence of the government’s
policy and practice of family separation at the southern U.S. border.
3.

In an act of unmitigated cruelty, when Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia was told that her

daughter would be taken from her, an officer said, “Happy Mother’s Day.”
4.

Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia was transferred from Arizona to a facility in Colorado, where

an immigration judge later granted her bond and released her from custody. But the government
refused to provide Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia with any information about her daughter’s location. More
than a week after they were separated, Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia was finally informed that her daughter
was detained in a shelter in Harlingen, Texas at the direction of the Office of Refugee Resettlement
(“ORR”). When Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia was finally able to speak to her daughter, she learned that
during her detention, S.K. had been physically injured by another detained child, leaving her
bruised and in pain, had contracted an infection that was reported to be conjunctivitis, had suffered
a high fever, and was extremely fearful.
5.

Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia has been informed that the government intends continue to

detain her unless Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia passes the screening to become a “sponsor” for her own
child—which could take weeks, if not months. Having unlawfully taken S.K., the government is
now requiring Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia to be screened as if she were a stranger to her own child.

2
4826-0906-6091.1

 Case 1:18-cv-11340-GAO Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 3 of 14

6.

The government has been informed, and has never disputed, that Ms. Gonzalez-

Garcia is S.K.’s mother. Yet it still refuses to reunite S.K. with Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia, who is now
domiciled in Framingham, Massachusetts awaiting her asylum hearing.
7.

The government’s forcible separation of Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia and S.K. as well as

its refusal to immediately reunite them, represent an egregious violation of their Fifth Amendment
due process rights as well as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
The government’s actions also violate both the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the
settlement agreement in Flores v. Sessions, 85-cv-4544 (C.D. Cal.). Without intervention of this
Court, Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia and S.K. will continue to be separated for no legitimate reason;
Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court require S.K. to be returned to her mother without
further delay.
JURISDICTION
8.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), the federal Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. §§ 22012202), the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (habeas
jurisdiction), 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (United States as defendant), Art. I, § 9, cl. 2 of the United States
Constitution (“Suspension Clause”), the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 704), and
¶ 24(B) of the Flores settlement agreement. Plaintiff S.K. is in custody for purposes of habeas
jurisdiction.
VENUE
9.

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) because Plaintiff Gonzalez-Garcia

resides in Framingham, Massachusetts. Venue is further proper because Plaintiff S.K. will reside
with her mother in Massachusetts upon her release.

3
4826-0906-6091.1

 Case 1:18-cv-11340-GAO Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 4 of 14

PARTIES
10.

Plaintiff Angelica Rebeca Gonzalez-Garcia is a citizen of Guatemala. She is the

mother of Plaintiff S.K.
11.

Plaintiff S.K. is a citizen of Guatemala. She brings suit by and through her mother,

Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia.
12.

Defendant Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is sued in his official capacity as the

Attorney General of the United States (“Attorney General”).

In this capacity, he shares

responsibility for the administration of the immigration laws. See 8 U.S.C. § 1103.
13.

Defendant Kirstjen Nielsen, is sued in her official capacity as the Secretary of the

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). In this capacity, she directs each of the
component agencies within DHS and has primary responsibility for the administration of the
immigration laws, and is a legal custodian of Plaintiff S.K. See 8 U.S.C. § 1103.
14.

Defendant Thomas Homan is sued in his official capacity as the Acting Director of

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and is a legal custodian of Plaintiff S.K.
15.

Defendant Patrick Contreras is sued in his official capacity as he serves, upon

information and belief, as the Director of the ICE Field Office for Enforcement Removal
Operations in Houston, Texas, and is a legal custodian of Plaintiff S.K.
16.

Defendant Kevin K. McAleenan is sued in his official capacity as the Acting

Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection.
17.

Defendant Alex Azar is sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), the department of the executive branch of
the U.S. government which has been delegated with authority over “unaccompanied” noncitizen
children, and is a legal custodian of Plaintiff S.K.

4
4826-0906-6091.1

 Case 1:18-cv-11340-GAO Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 5 of 14

18.

Defendant Scott Lloyd is sued in his official capacity as the Director of Office of

Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”) is the component of HHS which provides care of and placement
for “unaccompanied” noncitizen children, and is a legal custodian of Plaintiff S.K.
19.

Southwest Key Programs, upon information and belief, is a Texas corporation

transacting business at 6002 Jain Lane, Austin, TX 7872 and 23011 Rio Rancho Rd, Harlingen,
TX 78552, and, in acting as agent of ORR, is a legal custodian of Plaintiff S.K.
FACTS
20.

On or about May 9, 2018 Plaintiff Angelica Rebeca Gonzalez-Garcia (“Ms.

Gonzalez-Garcia”) arrived in the United States from Guatemala, along with her seven-year-old
daughter (“S.K.”). Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) officials arrested her and her daughter.
CBP transferred mother and daughter to a holding facility, where they were held in a room with
approximately 30-40 other people.
21.

Ms. Garcia-Gonzalez, upon belief, was never charged with a crime.

22.

On May 10, 2018, CBP officials told Ms. Garcia-Gonzalez that they intended to

forcibly remove her daughter from her the next day. Cruelly, an officer wished her “Happy
Mother’s Day.”
23.

On May 11, 2018, Ms. Garcia-Gonzalez was forcibly separated from her seven-

year-old daughter. The separation served no legitimate legal or child welfare purpose.
24.

Upon separation, C.B.P. transferred S.K. to the custody of the ORR, which in turn

transferred S.K. to a shelter in Harlingen, Texas.
25.

Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia was transferred to Colorado. On June 19, 2018, she was

released on a minimal bond issued by an immigration judge, after filing an asylum application.
She currently is residing in Framingham, Massachusetts.

5
4826-0906-6091.1

 Case 1:18-cv-11340-GAO Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 6 of 14

26.

Since learning of the location of her daughter on or about May 25, 2018, Ms.

Gonzalez-Garcia has only been able to communicate with S.K. remotely during those many weeks.
During these phone calls, S.K. expresses her fear and begs Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia to take her out of
the shelter.
27.

With the assistance of counsel, Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia has undertaken every effort

to have her daughter returned to her.
28.

On June 22, 2018, Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia completed a 36-page screening form to

justify her qualification as a “sponsor” of her own daughter. On Sunday, June 24, 2018, additional
information was submitted to the government, including a birth certificate showing the relationship
between Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia and her daughter. But her release was still not permitted.
29.

Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia was informed that all individuals in the household in which

she is staying would be required to submit fingerprints, and that the earliest opportunity to do this
is July 16, 2018 in Newark, New Jersey.1 Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia was already fingerprinted by the
government in May. Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia offered to provide her submit her fingerprints on an
expedited basis through a private fingerprinting service, but the shelter refused that offer.
30.

There is no evidence, or even allegation, that Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia is in any way

unable to care for S.K. By contrast, the efforts undertaken by Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia demonstrate
that she is acting in the best interests of her child.
31.

S.K. will be a “derivative” applicant on her mother’s asylum application, and

therefore her legal claims will likely proceed in the Boston immigration court as part of her
mother’s case.

1

Prior to engaging counsel, Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia was told that the earliest possible fingerprint date was July 31,
2018 in Worcester, Massachusetts.

6
4826-0906-6091.1

 Case 1:18-cv-11340-GAO Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 7 of 14

32.

Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia has not seen her daughter since she was taken from her on

May 11, 2018. Each day they are separated causes her greater harm and could potentially lead to
permanent emotional trauma of S.K. Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia worries about S.K. constantly and is
desperate to be reunited.2
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
(Violation of Substantive and Procedural Due Process)
33.

All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as though fully set forth

34.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to all “persons” on United

herein.

States soil and thus applies to Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia and her daughter, S.K.
35.

Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia and S.K., have a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause

in remaining together as a family.
36.

The separation of Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia from her daughter, and the defendants’

ongoing failure to reunite them, violate substantive due process.

These actions further no

legitimate purpose and no compelling governmental interest.
37.

Moreover, Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia and her daughter were denied, and are still being

denied, procedural due process. They were forcibly separated without any process, and Ms.
Gonzalez-Garcia has not been allowed to be reunited with her daughter.

2

Jack Healy, “Migrant Parents Wait and Hope for Their Children: ‘I Feel Like I’m Going to Die’,” New
York Times (June 25, 2018) (available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/us/immigrant-childrenseparating-families.html).

7
4826-0906-6091.1

 Case 1:18-cv-11340-GAO Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 8 of 14

COUNT II
(Violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Guarantee)
38.

All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as though fully set forth

39.

The Fifth Amendment contains an implicit guarantee of equal protection that

herein.

invalidates any official action that in part reflects a racially discriminatory intent or purpose.
Classifications based on race or national origin receive exacting scrutiny, and even facially neutral
policies and practices will be held unconstitutional when they reflect a pattern unexplainable on
grounds other than race or national origin.
40.

Defendants’ decisions to separate families from Central America arriving at the

southern border seeking asylum, and to isolate children in detention facilities separate from their
parents, are unconstitutional because they were motivated, at least in part, by intentional
discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and/or national origin. This intentional discrimination
includes bias against immigrants perceived to come from Central American countries.
41.

As a result of these decisions, including the decisions that have caused their

separation, Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia and S.K. have been and are being denied equal protection.
COUNT III
(Violation of Administrative Procedure Act)
42.

All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as though fully set forth

43.

Under the APA, “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy

herein.

in court [is] subject to judicial review.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. Upon judicial review, “agency action,
findings, and conclusions” shall be “h[e]ld unlawful and set aside” when they are “arbitrary,

8
4826-0906-6091.1

 Case 1:18-cv-11340-GAO Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 9 of 14

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” or “unsupported by
substantial evidence. . . .” 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A), (E).
44.

Congress has charged HHS and, by extension, ORR, with “promptly placing”

minors in its custody “in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child[.]”
8 U.S.C. § 1232(c).
45.

In June 2018, in the midst of public outcry involving the government’s practices of

separating parents from children, ORR made it more difficult to release “unaccompanied” children
by creating a new requirement that each adult household member in the home of the “sponsor” be
fingerprinted. Under the policy, fingerprints are shared with DHS for immigration checks and
criminal checks. ORR Policy Guide, Children Entering the United States Unaccompanied § 2.5.1
(revised June 7, 2018), available at acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/children-entering-the-united-statesunaccompanied-section-2#2.5.1.
46.

Although she was already fingerprinted at the border, and although her child was

taken from her by the government itself, Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia has been informed that she may not
be reunited with S.K. unless she complies with these procedures. What is more, complying with
these procedures requires her to wait until July 16, 2018, for a fingerprint appointment in Newark.
Because processing could take additional weeks after the application for “sponsorship” is
complete, it is likely the earliest that ORR could reunite Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia with her eight-yearold daughter is August 2018.
47.

Ironically, having provided no process at all for considering S.K.’s best interests

before tearing her from her mother and placing her in the care of strangers, the government now
erects a mountain of paperwork and checks to ensure that she will not be harmed by reunification.

9
4826-0906-6091.1

 Case 1:18-cv-11340-GAO Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 10 of 14

48.

Applying these burdensome requirements to “unaccompanied” children like S.K.—

who seek reunification with a parent from whom they were forcibly separated—unreasonably
extends family separations that never should have occurred to begin with. It is devoid of any
legitimate child welfare rationale, and is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary
to law.
COUNT IV
(Violation of the Flores Settlement Agreement)
49.

The Flores Settlement, signed in 1997, sets forth a “nationwide policy for the

detention, release, and treatment of minors in the custody of [immigration officials],” and requires
these officials to treat “all minors in its custody with dignity, respect and special concern for their
particular vulnerability as minors.” See Flores Settlement at ¶¶ 9-11. The settlement continues to
be binding upon the government.3 See Flores v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 898, 905-06 (9th Cir. 2016).
50.

The Flores Settlement requires federal officials to “place each detained minor in

the least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs, provided that such
setting is consistent with its interests to ensure the minor's timely appearance before the [DHS]
and the immigration courts and to protect the minor's well-being and that of others.” See Flores
Settlement at ¶ 11.
51.

Section VI of the Flores settlement sets forth a “GENERAL POLICY FAVORING

RELEASE.” Specifically, Paragraph 14 requires that where immigration officials determine that
a minor’s detention “is not required either to secure his or her timely appearance before [DHS] or
the immigration court, or to ensure the minor’s safety or that of others,” they shall release the

3

Under the Homeland Security Act of 2003, immigration enforcement functions were transferred from the
Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS), which is referenced in the Settlement, to ICE. See 6 U.S.C. §§ 111,
251, 291. The care of “unaccompanied” children was transferred to ORR. See 6 U.S.C. § 279(a), (b)(1)(A), (g)(2).

10
4826-0906-6091.1

 Case 1:18-cv-11340-GAO Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 11 of 14

minor “without unnecessary delay” to a parent, guardian, or other adult or licensed program willing
to accept legal custody. See Flores Settlement at ¶ 14. Release to a parent is preferred. Id. A
minor who is not released to a parent or other adult or program under Paragraph 14 shall remain
in the custody of federal agencies and be “placed temporarily in a licensed program until such time
as release can be effected in accordance with Paragraph 14 or until the minor’s immigration
proceedings are concluded, whichever occurs earlier.” Id. ¶ 19.
52.

Paragraph 24(B) of the Flores Settlement sets forth a minor’s right to challenge a

determination to place the minor in a particular facility when in government custody. The minor
may seek judicial review in “any United States District Court with jurisdiction and venue over the
matter to challenge the placement determination.” See Flores Settlement at ¶ 24(B).
53.

HHS has unlawfully separated S.K. from her mother and needlessly delayed and

denied S.K.’s release to the care of her mother despite her mother’s availability and willingness to
care for her.
54.

Defendants’ policies, practices, acts, and omissions with respect to S.K.’s

continued detention deprive S.K. of her rights under the Flores Settlement by failing to place S.K.
in the least restrictive setting, failing to reunite S.K. with her parent, and failing to effect S.K.’s
release to her parent when it was possible to do so. See Flores Settlement ¶¶ 11, 14, 19.
COUNT V
(Declaratory Judgment Act)
55.

All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as though fully set forth

56.

The federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, provides that “[i]n

herein.

a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction . . . any court of the United States . . . may

11
4826-0906-6091.1

 Case 1:18-cv-11340-GAO Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 12 of 14

declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether
or not further relief is or could be sought.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).
57.

There is an actual controversy between the parties because Defendants have refused

to immediately release S.K. into her mother’s custody. The Court should exercise its authority to
declare that Defendants have no basis to refuse to release S.K. and must immediately release S.K.
into the custody of Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia.
COUNT VI
(Petition for Writ of Mandamus)
58.

All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as though fully set forth

59.

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction to hear “any action in the nature of

herein.

mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform
a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361; see also Samirah v. Holder, 627 F.3d 652, 663
(7th Cir. 2010) (remanding case to district court to issue writ of mandamus commanding Attorney
General to take necessary steps to enable alien to reenter United States).
60.

Here, as explained above, Defendants owe a duty to Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia and her

daughter to immediately release S.K. into Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia’s custody.

It is therefore

appropriate for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Defendants to immediately
release Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia’s daughter.
COUNT VII
(Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus)
61.

All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as though fully set forth

herein.

12
4826-0906-6091.1

 Case 1:18-cv-11340-GAO Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 13 of 14

62.

Defendant S.K., as a natural person present in the United States, has a constitutional

liberty interest in release from unlawful detention through the writ of habeas corpus.
63.

This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus to end the detention of

Defendant S.K. because her continued detention violates her legal and constitutional rights as set
forth above.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter a judgment against Defendants and
award the following relief:
A.

Declare that Defendants’ continued custody of S.K. violates due process, the Equal

Protection Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Flores Settlement;
B.

Declare that Defendants must immediately release S.K. into the custody of her

mother, Ms. Gonzalez-Garcia;
C.

Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from continuing to separate Ms.

Gonzalez-Garcia from her minor daughter, S.K., or, alternatively, issue a writ of mandamus or a
writ of habeas corpus requiring her release;
D.

Require Defendants to pay Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

E.

Order all relief that is just and proper.

13
4826-0906-6091.1

 Case 1:18-cv-11340-GAO Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 14 of 14

Respectfully Submitted,
PLAINTIFFS ANGELICA REBECA
GONZALEZ-GARCIA and her daughter, S.K., by
and through her mother, ANGELICA REBECA
GONZALEZ-GARCIA,
By their Attorneys,

/s/ Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero
Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero (BBO# 670014)
Julia A.C. Lippman (BBO# 688852)
NIXON PEABODY LLP
100 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 345-1000
rrauseoricupero@nixonpeabody.com
jlippman@nixonpeabody.com
Susan B. Church (BBO# 639306)
Heather Yountz (BBO# 669770)
Demissie & Church
929 Massachusetts Ave., Suite 01
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 319-2399
sbc@demissiechurch.com

Of Counsel:
Matthew R. Segal (BBO# 654489)
Adriana Lafaille (BBO# 680210)
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of
Massachusetts, Inc.
211 Congress Street
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 482-3170
alafaille@aclum.org
Dated: June 27, 2018

14
4826-0906-6091.1

 Case 1:18-cv-11340-GAO Document 1-1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 1 of 1

CIVIL COVER SHEET

JS 44 (Rev. 06/17)

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I.ANGELICA
(a) PLAINTIFFS
REBECA GONZALEZ-GARCIA; and her daughter, S.K., by
and through her mother, ANGELICA REBECA GONZALEZ-GARCIA

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

U.S.

DEFENDANTS
Jefferson
Sessions, Kirstjen Neilssen, Thomas Homan, Patrick
Contreras, Kevin McAleenan, Alex Azar, Scott Lloyd, in their official
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
NOTE:

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (If Known)

Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero
Nixon Peabody LLP
100 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02110

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
" 1

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

" 3

Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

" 2

U.S. Government
Defendant

" 4

Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
" 1

"
"
"
"
"

" 2

"

2

Incorporated and Principal Place
of Business In Another State

" 5

" 5

Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country

" 3

"

3

Foreign Nation

" 6

" 6

"
"

"
"
"
"
"

"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"

"
"
"
"
"
"

Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

TORTS

110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran’s Benefits
160 Stockholders’ Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise

REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

"
"
"
"
"
"
"

PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers’
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
448 Education

and One Box for Defendant)
PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
" 4
" 4
of Business In This State

Citizen of Another State

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
CONTRACT

DEF
" 1

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY
" 365 Personal Injury Product Liability
" 367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
" 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
" 370 Other Fraud
" 371 Truth in Lending
" 380 Other Personal
Property Damage
" 385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
" 463 Alien Detainee
" 510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
" 530 General
" 535 Death Penalty
Other:
" 540 Mandamus & Other
" 550 Civil Rights
" 555 Prison Condition
" 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement

" 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881
" 690 Other

LABOR
" 710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
" 720 Labor/Management
Relations
" 740 Railway Labor Act
" 751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
" 790 Other Labor Litigation
" 791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

BANKRUPTCY
" 422 Appeal 28 USC 158
" 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
" 820 Copyrights
" 830 Patent
" 835 Patent - Abbreviated
New Drug Application
" 840 Trademark
SOCIAL SECURITY
" 861 HIA (1395ff)
" 862 Black Lung (923)
" 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
" 864 SSID Title XVI
" 865 RSI (405(g))

FEDERAL TAX SUITS
" 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
" 871 IRS—Third Party
26 USC 7609

IMMIGRATION
" 462 Naturalization Application
" 465 Other Immigration
Actions

OTHER STATUTES
" 375 False Claims Act
" 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a))
" 400 State Reapportionment
" 410 Antitrust
" 430 Banks and Banking
" 450 Commerce
" 460 Deportation
" 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
" 480 Consumer Credit
" 490 Cable/Sat TV
" 850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
" 890 Other Statutory Actions
" 891 Agricultural Acts
" 893 Environmental Matters
" 895 Freedom of Information
Act
" 896 Arbitration
" 899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
" 950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
" 1 Original
Proceeding

" 2 Removed from
State Court

" 3

" 6 Multidistrict
Litigation Transfer
(specify)
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
Remanded from
Appellate Court

" 4 Reinstated or
Reopened

" 5 Transferred from
Another District

" 8 Multidistrict
Litigation Direct File

28 U.S.C. §§ 2201

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Challenge to detention of minor child

" CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE
DATE

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
" Yes
" No
JURY DEMAND:

DEMAND $

DOCKET NUMBER

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

/s/ Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero

06/27/2018
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #

AMOUNT

APPLYING IFP

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE

 Case 1:18-cv-11340-GAO Document 1-2 Filed 06/27/18 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
1. Title of case (name of first party on each side only) Gonzalez-Garcia v. Sessions

2. Category in which the case belongs based upon the numbered nature of suit code listed on the civil cover sheet. (See local
rule 40.1(a)(1)).
I.

410, 441, 470, 535, 830*, ($%"# 891, 893, 895, R.23, REGARDLESS OF NATURE OF SUIT.

II.

110, 130, 140, 160, 190, 196, 230, 240, 290,320,362, 370, 371, 380, 430, 440, 442, 443, 445, 446, 448, 710, 720,
740, 790, 820*, 840*, 850, 870, 871.

III.

120, 150, 151, 152, 153, 195, 210, 220, 245, 310, 315, 330, 340, 345, 350, 355, 360, 365, 367, 368, 375, $'&# 385,
400, 422, 423, 450, 460, 462, 463, 465, 480, 490, 510, 530, 540, 550, 555, 625, 690, 751, 791, 861-865, 890, 896,
())# 950.

*Also complete AO 120 or AO 121. for patent, trademark or copyright cases.

3. Title and number, if any, of related cases. (See local rule 40.1(g)). If more than one prior related case has been filed in this
district please indicate the title and number of the first filed case in this court.

4. Has a prior action between the same parties and based on the same claim ever been filed in this court?
YES

"

NO

"

5. Does the complaint in this case question the constitutionality of an act of congress affecting the public interest?
§2403)
YES

"

NO

"

YES

"

NO

"

If so, is the U.S.A. or an officer, agent or employee of the U.S. a party?

(See 28 USC

6. Is this case required to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges pursuant to title 28 USC §2284?
YES

"

NO

"

7. Do all of the parties in this action, excluding governmental agencies of the United States and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (“governmental agencies”), residing in Massachusetts reside in the same division? - (See Local Rule 40.1(d)).
YES
A.

NO

"

If yes, in which division do all of the non-governmental parties reside?
Eastern Division

B.

"

"

Central Division

"

Western Division

"

If no, in which division do the majority of the plaintiffs or the only parties, excluding governmental agencies,
residing in Massachusetts reside?
Eastern Division

"

Central Division

"

Western Division

"

8. If filing a Notice of Removal - are there any motions pending in the state court requiring the attention of this Court? (If yes,
submit a separate sheet identifying the motions)
YES

"

NO

"

(PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT)
ATTORNEY'S NAME Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero
ADDRESS Nixon Peabody LLP, 100 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02110
TELEPHONE NO. 617-345-1071
(CategoryForm&-201'.wpd )