Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27 Filed 07/13/18 Page 1 of 6 1 The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., NO. 2:18-cv-00939-MJP 9 Plaintiffs, 10 v. 11 12 13 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, et al., 14 DECLARATION OF MEGAN D. LIN IN SUPPORT OF STATES’ REPLY RE: MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY AND REGULAR STATUS CONFERENCES Defendants. 15 I, Megan D. Lin, declare as follows: 16 1. I am over the age of 18 and have personal knowledge of all the facts stated herein. 2. I am an Attorney Fellow with the Washington Solicitor General’s Office and 17 18 counsel of record for the State of Washington in this matter. 19 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of the June 26, 2018 20 Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Classwide Preliminary Injunction entered in Ms. L., et al. 21 v. ICE, et al., Case No. 18cv-0428 DMS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. 83. 22 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a true and correct copy of a July 10, 2018 Daily 23 Beast article, Government Told Immigrant Parents to Pay for DNA Tests to Get Kids Back, 24 DECLARATION OF MEGAN D. LIN 2:18-cv-00939-MJP 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 (206) 464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27 Filed 07/13/18 Page 2 of 6 1 Advocate Days, authored by Justin Glawe and Adam Rawnsley. 2 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit S is a true and correct copy of the July 9, 2018 Order 3 Denying Defendants’ “Ex Parte Application for Limited Relief from Settlement Agreement” in 4 Flores, et al. v. Sessions, et al., Case No. CV 85-4544-DMG (AGRx) (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. 455. 5 6 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit T is a true and correct copy of the July 10, 2018 tweet of @CNNSitRoom. 7 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit U is a true and correct copy of the July 10, 2018 8 Politico article, Trump’s solution for reunifying migrant families: ‘Don’t come to our country 9 illegally’, authored by Louis Nelson. 10 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit V is a true and correct copy of the July 10, 2018 11 11:00 a.m. hearing transcript for the Status Conference in Ms. L., et al. v. ICE, et al., Case No. 12 18cv-0428 DMS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.). 13 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit W is a true and correct copy of the U.S. Immigration 14 and Customs Enforcement – Enforcement and Removal Operations Separated Parent’s Removal 15 Form. 16 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit X is a true and correct copy of the July 10, 2018 Joint 17 Status Report Regarding Reunification entered in Ms. L., et al. v. ICE, et al., Case No. 18 18cv-0428 DMS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. 99. 19 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit Y is a true and correct copy of the U.S. Department 20 of Homeland Security’s Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification 21 release issued June 23, 2018. 22 23 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit Z is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Jonathan White filed on July 5, 2018 with Respondents’ Notice Regarding Compliance and 24 DECLARATION OF MEGAN D. LIN 2:18-cv-00939-MJP 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 (206) 464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27 Filed 07/13/18 Page 3 of 6 1 Request for Clarification and/or Relief in Ms. L., et al. v. ICE, et al., Case No. 18cv-0428 DMS 2 (MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. 86-1. 3 13. Attached as Exhibit AA is a true and correct copy of the July 9, 2018 Order 4 Following Status Conference entered in Ms. L., et al. v. ICE, et al., Case No. 18cv-0428 DMS 5 (MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. 95. 6 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit BB is a true and correct copy of the July 6, 2018 Order 7 Setting Further Status Conference entered in Ms. L., et al. v. ICE, et al., Case No. 18cv-0428 8 DMS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. 91. 9 15. Attached hereto as Exhibit CC is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of 10 Francisco Serrano in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Discovery. Mr. Serrano’s 11 declaration was previously filed on July 2, 2018 as Exhibit 36 (Dkt. 15-4 at 12-63) to the States’ 12 Motion for Expedited Discovery and Regular Status Conferences (Dkt. 15), but did not contain 13 the Certification of Translation at page 6 of that Declaration. Exhibit CC merely corrects that 14 oversight; Mr. Serrano’s declaration is otherwise the same as previously filed. 15 16. Attached hereto as Exhibit DD is a true and correct copy of the July 6, 2018 letter 16 from Governors Jay Inslee, Andrew Cuomo, Daniel Malloy, Phil Murphy, Tom Wolfe and 17 Kate Brown directed to the Secretaries of the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services 18 and Homeland Security. 19 20 21 22 17. Attached hereto as Exhibit EE is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Jennifer Florian-Vega. 18. Attached hereto as Exhibit FF is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Ibis Guzman Colindres. 23 24 DECLARATION OF MEGAN D. LIN 2:18-cv-00939-MJP 3 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 (206) 464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27 Filed 07/13/18 Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. Attached hereto as Exhibit GG is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Dunia Garcia Ramirez. 20. Attached hereto as Exhibit HH is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Sindy Rosales-Coreas. 21. Attached hereto as Exhibit II is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Lesley Martinez Soriano. 22. Attached hereto as Exhibit JJ is true and correct copy of the July 1, 2018 New 8 York Times Article, Sponsors of Migrant Children Face Steep Transport Fees and Red Tape, 9 authored by Miriam Jordan. 10 23. Attached hereto as Exhibit KK is a true and correct copy of the July 12, 2018 11 Joint Status Report Regarding Reunification entered in Ms. L., et al. v. ICE, et al., Case No. 12 18cv-0428 DMS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. 104. 13 24. Attached hereto as Exhibit LL is a true and correct copy of the July 10, 2018 14 Slate article, Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is Budgeting for a Surge in Child 15 Separations, authored by Mark Joseph Stern. 16 25. Attached hereto as Exhibit MM is a true and correct copy of the Second 17 Amended Complaint filed July 3, 2018 in Ms. L., et al. v. ICE, et al., Case No. 18cv-0428 DMS 18 (MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. 85. 19 26. Attached hereto as Exhibit NN is a true and correct copy of the Joint Motion 20 Regarding Scope of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction in Ms. L., et al. v. ICE, et al., Case No. 21 18cv-0428 DMS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. 105. 22 23 24 DECLARATION OF MEGAN D. LIN 2:18-cv-00939-MJP 4 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 (206) 464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27 Filed 07/13/18 Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED this 13th day of July, 2018, at Olympia, Washington. 4 /s/ Megan D. Lin Megan D. Lin 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 DECLARATION OF MEGAN D. LIN 2:18-cv-00939-MJP 5 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 (206) 464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27 Filed 07/13/18 Page 6 of 6 1 DECLARATION OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on July 13, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing document with 3 the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will serve a copy of this document upon 4 all counsel of record. 5 DATED this 13th day of July, 2018, at Olympia, Washington. 6 /s/ Rebecca Glasgow REBECCA GLASGOW Deputy Solicitor General 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 DECLARATION OF MEGAN D. LIN 2:18-cv-00939-MJP 6 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 (206) 464-7744 Case Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 1 of 189 Exhibit Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1724 Page 2 of 189 Page 1 of 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Ms. L.; et al., Case No.: 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Petitioners-Plaintiffs, 12 13 v. 14 U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”); et al., 15 16 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASSWIDE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Respondents-Defendants. 17 18 Eleven weeks ago, Plaintiffs leveled the serious accusation that our Government was 19 engaged in a widespread practice of separating migrant families, and placing minor 20 children who were separated from their parents in government facilities for 21 “unaccompanied minors.” 22 indiscriminately, and separated even those families with small children and infants—many 23 of whom were seeking asylum. Plaintiffs noted reports that the practice would become 24 national policy. Recent events confirm these allegations. Extraordinary relief is requested, 25 and is warranted under the circumstances. According to Plaintiffs, the practice was applied 26 On May 7, 2018, the Attorney General of the United States announced a “zero 27 tolerance policy,” under which all adults entering the United States illegally would be 28 subject to criminal prosecution, and if accompanied by a minor child, the child would be 1 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1725 Page 3 of 189 Page 2 of 24 1 separated from the parent.1 Over the ensuing weeks, hundreds of migrant children were 2 separated from their parents, sparking international condemnation of the practice. Six days 3 ago on June 20, 2018, the President of the United States signed an Executive Order (“EO”) 4 to address the situation and to require preservation of the “family unit” by keeping migrant 5 families together during criminal and immigration proceedings to the extent permitted by 6 law, while also maintaining “rigorous[]” enforcement of immigration laws. See Executive 7 Order, Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation § 1, 2018 WL 8 3046068 (June 20, 2018). The EO did not address reunification of the burgeoning 9 population of over 2,000 children separated from their parents. Public outrage remained 10 at a fever pitch. Three days ago on Saturday, June 23, 2018, the Department of Homeland 11 Security (“DHS”) issued a “Fact Sheet” outlining the government’s efforts to “ensure that 12 those adults who are subject to removal are reunited with their children for the purposes of 13 removal.”2 14 Plaintiffs assert the EO does not eliminate the need for the requested injunction, and 15 the Fact Sheet does not address the circumstances of this case. Defendants disagree with 16 those assertions, but there is no genuine dispute that the Government was not prepared to 17 accommodate the mass influx of separated children. Measures were not in place to provide 18 for communication between governmental agencies responsible for detaining parents and 19 those responsible for housing children, or to provide for ready communication between 20 separated parents and children. There was no reunification plan in place, and families have 21 been separated for months. Some parents were deported at separate times and from 22 23 1 24 25 26 27 28 See U.S. Att’y. Gen., Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration Enforcement Actions of the Trump Administration (May 7, 2018), https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-remarksdiscussing-immigration-enforcement-actions. 2 See U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Fact Sheet: Federal Regulations Protecting the Confidentiality of Asylum Applicants (June 23, 2018), https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/06/23/fact-sheet-zero-tolerance-prosecution-and-familyreunification. 2 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1726 Page 4 of 189 Page 3 of 24 1 different locations than their children. Migrant families that lawfully entered the United 2 States at a port of entry seeking asylum were separated. And families that were separated 3 due to entering the United States illegally between ports of entry have not been reunited 4 following the parent’s completion of criminal proceedings and return to immigration 5 detention. 6 This Court previously entered an order finding Plaintiffs had stated a legally 7 cognizable claim for violation of their substantive due process rights to family integrity 8 under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution based on their allegations the 9 Government had separated Plaintiffs from their minor children while Plaintiffs were held 10 in immigration detention and without a showing that they were unfit parents or otherwise 11 presented a danger to their children. See Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 302 12 F. Supp. 3d 1149, 2018 WL 2725736, at *7-12 (S.D. Cal. June 6, 2018). A class action 13 has been certified to include similarly situated migrant parents. Plaintiffs now request 14 classwide injunctive relief to prohibit separation of class members from their children in 15 the future absent a finding the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child, and to require 16 reunification of these families once the parent is returned to immigration custody unless 17 the parent is determined to be unfit or presents a danger to the child. 18 Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, 19 and that the balance of equities and the public interest weigh in their favor, thus warranting 20 issuance of a preliminary injunction. This Order does not implicate the Government’s 21 discretionary authority to enforce immigration or other criminal laws, including its 22 decisions to release or detain class members. Rather, the Order addresses only the 23 circumstances under which the Government may separate class members from their 24 children, as well as the reunification of class members who are returned to immigration 25 custody upon completion of any criminal proceedings. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 3 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1727 Page 5 of 189 Page 4 of 24 1 I. 2 BACKGROUND 3 This case started with the filing of a Complaint by Ms. L., a Catholic citizen of the 4 Democratic Republic of the Congo fleeing persecution from her home country because of 5 her religious beliefs. The specific facts of Ms. L.’s case are set out in the Complaint and 6 this Court’s June 6, 2018 Order on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Ms. L., 2018 WL 7 2725736, at *1-3. In brief, Ms. L. and her then-six-year-old daughter S.S., lawfully 8 presented themselves at the San Ysidro Port of Entry seeking asylum based on religious 9 persecution. They were initially detained together, but after a few days S.S. was “forcibly 10 separated” from her mother. When S.S. was taken away from her mother, “she was 11 screaming and crying, pleading with guards not to take her away from her mother.” (Am. 12 Compl. ¶ 43.) Immigration officials claimed they had concerns whether Ms. L. was S.S.’s 13 mother, despite Ms. L.’s protestations to the contrary and S.S.’s behavior. So Ms. L. was 14 placed in immigration custody and scheduled for expedited removal, thus rendering S.S. 15 an “unaccompanied minor” under the Trafficking Victims Protection and Reauthorization 16 Act (“TVPRA”), Pub. L. No. 110-457 (Dec. 23, 2008), and subjecting her to the “care and 17 custody” of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”).3 S.S. was placed in a facility in 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The TVPRA provides that “the care and custody of all unaccompanied alien children, including responsibility for their detention, where appropriate, shall be the responsibility of” HHS and its sub-agency, ORR. 8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(1). An “unaccompanied alien child” (“UAC”) is a child under 18 years of age with no lawful immigration status in the United States who has neither a parent nor legal guardian in the United States nor a parent nor legal guardian in the United States “available” to care for them. 6 U.S.C § 279(g)(2). According to the TVPRA, a UAC “may not be placed with a person or entity unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services makes a determination that the proposed custodian is capable of providing for the child’s physical and mental well-being. Such determination shall, at a minimum, include verification of the custodian’s identity and relationship to the child, if any, as well as an independent finding that the individual has not engaged in any activity that would indicate a potential risk to the child.” 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(3)(A). 3 4 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1728 Page 6 of 189 Page 5 of 24 1 Chicago over a thousand miles away from her mother. 2 determined Ms. L. had a credible fear of persecution and placed her in removal 3 proceedings, where she could pursue her asylum claim. During this period, Ms. L. was 4 able to speak with her daughter only “approximately 6 times by phone, never by video.” 5 (Am. Compl. ¶ 45.) Each time they spoke, S.S. “was crying and scared.” (Id. ¶ 43.) Ms. 6 L. was “terrified that she would never see her daughter again.” (Id. ¶ 45.) After the present 7 lawsuit was filed, Ms. L. was released from ICE detention into the community. The Court 8 ordered the Government to take a DNA saliva sample (or swab), which confirmed that Ms. 9 L. was the mother of S.S. Four days later, Ms. L. and S.S. were reunited after being 10 Immigration officials later separated for nearly five months. 11 In an Amended Complaint filed on March 9, 2018, this case was expanded to include 12 another Plaintiff, Ms. C. She is a citizen of Brazil, and unlike Ms. L., she did not present 13 at a port of entry. Instead, she and her 14-year-old son J. crossed into the United States 14 “between ports of entry,” after which they were apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol. Ms. 15 C. explained to the agent that she and her son were seeking asylum, but the Government, 16 as was its right under federal law, charged Ms. C. with entering the country illegally and 17 placed her in criminal custody. This rendered J. an “unaccompanied minor” and he, like 18 S.S., was transferred to the custody of ORR, where he, too, was housed in a facility in 19 Chicago several hundred miles away from his mother. Ms. C. was thereafter convicted of 20 misdemeanor illegal entry and served 25 days in criminal custody. After completing that 21 sentence, Ms. C. was transferred to immigration detention for removal proceedings and 22 consideration of her asylum claim, as she too had passed a credible fear screening. Despite 23 being returned to immigration custody, Ms. C. was not reunited with J. During the five 24 months she was detained, Ms. C. did not see her son, and they spoke on the phone only “a 25 handful of times[.]” (Id. ¶ 58.) Ms. C. was “desperate” to be reunited with her son, worried 26 about him constantly and did not know when she would be able to see him. (Id.) J. had a 27 difficult time emotionally during the period of separation from his mother. (Id. ¶ 59.) Ms. 28 C. was eventually released from immigration detention on bond, and only recently reunited 5 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1729 Page 7 of 189 Page 6 of 24 1 with J. Their separation lasted more than eight months despite the lack of any allegations 2 or evidence that Ms. C. was unfit or otherwise presented a danger to her son.4 3 Ms. L. and Ms. C. are not the only migrant parents who have been separated from 4 their children at the border. Hundreds of others, who have both lawfully presented at ports 5 of entry (like Ms. L.) and unlawfully crossed into the country (like Ms. C.), have also been 6 separated. Because this practice is affecting large numbers of people, Plaintiffs sought 7 certification of a class consisting of similarly situated individuals. The Court certified that 8 class with minor modifications,5 and now turns to the important question of whether 9 Plaintiffs are entitled to a classwide preliminary injunction that (1) halts the separation of 10 class members from their children absent a determination that the parent is unfit or presents 11 a danger to the child, and (2) reunites class members who are returned to immigration 12 custody upon completion of any criminal proceedings absent a determination that the 13 parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child. 14 Since the present motion was filed, several important developments occurred, as 15 previously noted. First, on May 7, 2018, the Government announced its zero tolerance 16 policy for all adult persons crossing the border illegally, which resulted in the separation 17 of hundreds of children who had crossed with their parents. This is what happened with 18 Ms. C., though she crossed prior to the public announcement of the zero tolerance policy. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 As stated in the Court’s Order on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs do not challenge Ms. C.’s initial separation from J. as a result of the criminal charge filed against her. Plaintiffs’ only complaint with regard to Ms. C. concerns the Government’s failure to reunite her with J. after she was returned to immigration custody. 5 The class is defined to include: “All adult parents who enter the United States at or between designated ports of entry who (1) have been, are, or will be detained in immigration custody by the [DHS], and (2) have a minor child who is or will be separated from them by DHS and detained in ORR custody, ORR foster care, or DHS custody absent a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child.” (See Order Granting in Part Mot. for Class Cert. at 17.) The class does not include parents with criminal history or communicable disease, or those apprehended in the interior of the country or subject to the EO. (See id. at 4 n.5.) 4 6 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1730 Page 8 of 189 Page 7 of 24 1 She is not alone. There are hundreds of similarly situated parents, and there are more than 2 2,000 children that have now been separated from their parents. 3 When a parent is charged with a criminal offense, the law ordinarily requires 4 separation of the family. This separation generally occurs regardless of whether the parent 5 is charged with a state or federal offense. The repercussions on the children, however, can 6 vary greatly depending on status. For citizens, there is an established system of social 7 service agencies ready to provide for the care and well-being of the children, if necessary, 8 including child protective services and the foster care system. This is in addition to any 9 family members that may be available to provide shelter for these minor children. 10 Grandparents and siblings are frequently called upon. Non-citizens may not have this kind 11 of support system, such as other family members who can provide shelter for their children 12 in the event the parent is detained at the border. This results in immigrant children going 13 into the custody of the federal government, which is presently not well equipped to handle 14 that important task. 15 For children placed in federal custody, there are two options. One of those options 16 is ORR, but it was established to address a different problem, namely minor children who 17 were apprehended at the border without their parents, i.e., true “unaccompanied alien 18 children.” It was not initially designed to address the problem of migrant children detained 19 with their parents at the border and who were thereafter separated from their parents. The 20 second option is family detention facilities, but the options there are limited. Indeed, at the 21 time of oral argument on this motion, Government counsel represented to the Court that 22 the “total capacity in [family] residential centers” was “less than 2,700.” (Rep. Tr. at 9, 23 May 9, 2018, ECF No. 70.) For male heads of households, i.e., fathers traveling with their 24 children, there was only one facility with “86 beds.” (Id. at 43.) 25 The recently issued EO confirms the government is inundated by the influx of 26 children essentially orphaned as a result of family separation. The EO now directs “[h]eads 27 of executive departments and agencies” to make available “any facilities … appropriate” 28 for the housing and care of alien families. EO § 3(d). The EO also calls upon the military 7 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1731 Page 9 of 189 Page 8 of 24 1 by directing the Secretary of Defense to make available “any existing” facility and to 2 “construct such facilities[,]” if necessary, id. § 3(c), which is an extraordinary measure. 3 Meanwhile, “tent cities” and other make-shift facilities are springing up. That was the 4 situation into which Plaintiffs, and hundreds of other families that were separated at the 5 border in the past several months, were placed. 6 This situation has reached a crisis level. The news media is saturated with stories of 7 immigrant families being separated at the border. People are protesting. Elected officials 8 are weighing in. Congress is threatening action. Seventeen states have now filed a 9 complaint against the Federal Government challenging the family separation practice. See 10 State of Washington v. United States, Case No. 18cv0939, United States District Court for 11 the Western District of Washington. And the President has taken action. 12 Specifically, on June 20, 2018, the President signed the EO referenced above. The 13 EO states it is the Administration’s policy “to maintain family unity, including by detaining 14 alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources.” 15 Id. § 1.6 In furtherance of that policy, the EO indicates that parents and children who are 16 apprehended together at the border will be detained together “during the pendency of any 17 criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings” to the extent permitted by law. Id. § 18 3. The language of the EO is not absolute, however, as it states that family unity shall be 19 maintained “where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources[,]” id. § 1, 20 and “to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations[.]” Id. 21 § 3. The EO also indicates rigorous enforcement of illegal border crossers will continue. 22 Id. § 1 (“It is the policy of this Administration to rigorously enforce our immigration 23 laws.”). And finally, although the Order speaks to a policy of “maintain[ing] family unity,” 24 25 26 27 28 The Order defines “alien family” as “any person not a citizen or national of the United States who has not been admitted into, or is not authorized to enter or remain in, the United States, who entered this country with an alien child or alien children at or between designated ports of entry and who was detained[.]” Id. § 2(a)(i). 6 8 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 8327-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1732 Page 10 ofPage 189 9 of 24 1 it is silent on the issue of reuniting families that have already been separated or will be 2 separated in the future.” Id. 3 In light of these recent developments, and in particular the EO, the Court held a 4 telephonic status conference with counsel on June 22, 2018. During that conference, the 5 Court inquired about communication between ORR and DHS, and ORR and the 6 Department of Justice (“DOJ”), including the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), as it relates to 7 these separated families. 8 whether there was any affirmative reunification procedure for parents and children after 9 parents were returned to immigration detention following completion of criminal 10 proceedings. Government counsel explained the communication procedures that were in 11 place, and represented, consistent with her earlier representation to the Court, that there 12 was no procedure in place for the reunification of these families.7 Reunification procedures were also discussed, specifically 13 The day after the status conference, Saturday, June 23, DHS issued the Fact Sheet 14 referenced above. This document focuses on several issues addressed during the status 15 conference, e.g., processes for enhanced communication between separated parents and 16 children, but only “for the purposes of removal.” It also addresses coordination between 17 and among three agencies, CBP, ICE, and HHS agency ORR, but again for the purpose of 18 removal. The Fact Sheet does not address reunification for other purposes, such as 19 immigration or asylum proceedings, which can take months. It also does not mention other 20 vital agencies frequently involved during criminal proceedings: DOJ and BOP. 21 At the conclusion of the recent status conference, the Court requested supplemental 22 briefing from the parties. Those briefs have now been submitted. After thoroughly 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court: “Is there currently any affirmative reunification process that the government has in place once parent and child are separated? Government counsel: I would say … when a parent is released from criminal custody and taken into ICE custody is the practice to reunite them in family detention[?] And at that [previous hearing] I said no, that that was not the practice. I think my answer on that narrow question would be the same.” (Rep. Tr. at 29-30, June 22, 2018, ECF No. 77.) 7 9 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1733 Page 11 ofPage 189 10 of 24 1 considering all of the parties’ briefs and the record in this case, and after hearing argument 2 from counsel on these important issues, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for a classwide 3 preliminary injunction. 4 II. 5 DISCUSSION 6 Plaintiffs seek classwide preliminary relief that (1) enjoins Defendants’ practice of 7 separating class members from their children absent a determination that the parent is unfit 8 or presents a danger to their child, and (2) orders the government to reunite class members 9 with their children when the parent is returned to immigration custody after their criminal 10 proceedings conclude, absent a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger 11 to the child. Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon 12 a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. 13 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). To meet that showing, Plaintiffs must demonstrate 14 “‘[they are] likely to succeed on the merits, that [they are] likely to suffer irreparable harm 15 in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in [their] favor, and 16 that an injunction is in the public interest.’” Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. City of Los Angeles, 17 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20).8 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 The Ninth Circuit applies separate standards for injunctions depending on whether they are prohibitory, i.e., whether they prevent future conduct, or mandatory, i.e., “they go beyond ‘maintaining the status quo[.]’” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 997 (9th Cir. 2017). The standard set out above applies to prohibitory injunctions, which is what Plaintiffs seek here. To the extent Plaintiffs are also requesting mandatory relief, that request is “subject to a higher standard than prohibitory injunctions,” namely that relief will issue only “when ‘extreme or very serious damage will result’ that is not capable of compensation in damages,’ and the merits of the case are not ‘doubtful.’” Id. at 999 (quoting Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879 (9th Cir. 2009)). The Ninth Circuit recognizes that application of these different standards “is controversial[,]” and that other Circuits have questioned this approach. Id. at 997-98. This Court need not, and does not, address that discrepancy here. Suffice it to say that to the extent some portion of Plaintiffs’ requested relief is subject to a standard higher than 10 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1734 Page 12 ofPage 189 11 of 24 1 Before turning to these factors, the Court addresses directly Defendants’ argument 2 that an injunction is not necessary here in light of the EO and the recently released Fact 3 Sheet. Although these documents reflect some attempts by the Government to address 4 some of the issues in this case, neither obviates the need for injunctive relief here. As 5 indicated throughout this Order, the EO is subject to various qualifications. For instance, 6 Plaintiffs correctly assert the EO allows the government to separate a migrant parent from 7 his or her child “where there is a concern that detention of an alien child with the child’s 8 alien parent would pose a risk to the child’s welfare.” EO § 3(b) (emphasis added). 9 Objective standards are necessary, not subjective ones, particularly in light of the history 10 of this case. Furthermore, the Fact Sheet focuses on reunification “at time of removal[,]” 11 U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., supra, note 2, stating that the parent slated for removal will 12 be matched up with their child at a location in Texas and then removed. It says nothing 13 about reunification during the intervening time between return from criminal proceedings 14 to ICE detention or the time in ICE detention prior to actual removal, which can take 15 months. Indeed, it is undisputed “ICE has no plans or procedures in place to reunify the 16 parent with the child other than arranging for them to be deported together after the parent’s 17 immigration case is concluded.” (Pls.’ Supp. Mem. in Supp. of Classwide Prelim. Inj., Ex. 18 31 ¶ 11.) Thus, neither of these directives eliminates the need for an injunction in this case. 19 With this finding, the Court now turns to the Winter factors. 20 A. Likelihood of Success 21 “The first factor under Winter is the most important—likely success on the merits.” 22 Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015). While Plaintiffs carry the burden 23 of demonstrating likelihood of success, they are not required to prove their case in full at 24 the preliminary injunction stage but only such portions that enable them to obtain the 25 injunctive relief they seek. See Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). 26 27 28 the traditional standard for injunctive relief, Plaintiffs have met their burden for the reasons set out below. 11 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1735 Page 13 ofPage 189 12 of 24 1 Here, the only claim currently at issue is Plaintiffs’ due process claim.9 Specifically, 2 Plaintiffs contend the Government’s practice of separating class members from their 3 children, and failing to reunite those parents who have been separated, without a 4 determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child violates the parents’ 5 substantive due process rights to family integrity under the Fifth Amendment to the United 6 States Constitution. To prevail on this claim, Plaintiffs must show that the Government 7 practice “shocks the conscience.” In the Order on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court 8 found Plaintiffs had set forth sufficient facts to support that claim. Ms. L., 2018 WL 9 2725736, at *7-12. The evidence submitted since that time supports that finding, and 10 demonstrates Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on this claim. 11 As explained in the Court’s Order on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the “shocks the 12 conscience” standard is not subject to a rigid list of established elements. See County of 13 Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 850 (1998) (stating “[r]ules of due process are not … 14 subject to mechanical application in unfamiliar territory.”) 15 investigation into substantive due process involves an appraisal of the totality of the 16 circumstances rather than a formalistic examination of fixed elements[.]” Armstrong v. 17 Squadrito, 152 F.3d 564, 570 (7th Cir. 1998). On the contrary, “an 18 Here, each Plaintiff presents different circumstances, but both were subjected to the 19 same government practice of family separation without a determination that the parent was 20 unfit or presented a danger to the child. Ms. L. was separated from her child without a 21 determination she was unfit or presented a danger to her child, and Ms. C. was not reunited 22 with her child despite the absence of any finding that she was unfit or presented a danger 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 In their supplemental brief, Defendants assert Plaintiffs are raising new claims based on events that transpired after the Complaints were filed, e.g., the announcement of the zero tolerance policy and the EO. The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs’ claims are not based on these events, but are based on the practice of separating class members from their children. The subsequent events are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim, but they have not changed the claim itself, which remains focused on the practice of separation. 12 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1736 Page 14 ofPage 189 13 of 24 1 to her child. Outside of the context of this case, namely an international border, Plaintiffs 2 would have a high likelihood of success on a claim premised on such a practice. See D.B. 3 v. Cardall, 826 F.3d 721, 741 (4th Cir. 2016) (citing cases finding due process violation 4 where state action interfered with rights of fit parents); Heartland Academy Community 5 Church v. Waddle, 595 F.3d 798, 808-811 (8th Cir. 2010) (finding removal of children 6 from religious school absent evidence the students were “at immediate risk of child abuse 7 or neglect” was violation of clearly established constitutional right); Brokaw v. Mercer 8 County, 235 F.3d 1000, 1019 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing Croft v. Westmoreland County 9 Children and Youth Services, 103 F.3d 1123, 1126 (3d Cir. 1997) (“courts have recognized 10 that a state has no interest in protecting children from their parents unless it has some 11 definite and articulable evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that a child has been 12 abused or is in imminent danger of abuse.”) 13 The context of this case is different. The Executive Branch, which is tasked with 14 enforcement of the country’s criminal and immigration laws, is acting within its powers to 15 detain individuals lawfully entering the United States and to apprehend individuals illegally 16 entering the country. However, as the Court explained in its Order on Defendants’ motion 17 to dismiss, the right to family integrity still applies here. The context of the family 18 separation practice at issue here, namely an international border, does not render the 19 practice constitutional, nor does it shield the practice from judicial review. 20 On the contrary, the context and circumstances in which this practice of family 21 separation were being implemented support a finding that Plaintiffs have a likelihood of 22 success on their due process claim. First, although parents and children may lawfully be 23 separated when the parent is placed in criminal custody, the same general rule does not 24 apply when a parent and child present together lawfully at a port of entry seeking asylum. 25 In that situation, the parent has committed no crime, and absent a finding the parent is unfit 26 or presents a danger to the child, it is unclear why separation of Ms. L. or similarly situated 27 class members would be necessary. Here, many of the family separations have been the 28 result of the Executive Branch’s zero tolerance policy, but the record also reflects that the 13 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1737 Page 15 ofPage 189 14 of 24 1 practice of family separation was occurring before the zero tolerance policy was 2 announced, and that practice has resulted in the casual, if not deliberate, separation of 3 families that lawfully present at the port of entry, not just those who cross into the country 4 illegally. Ms. L. is an example of this family separation practice expanding beyond its 5 lawful reach, and she is not alone. (See, e.g., Pls.’ Reply Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Class 6 Cert., Exs. 22-23, 25-26) (declarations from parents attesting to separation at border after 7 lawfully presenting at port of entry and requesting asylum); Pls.’ Supp. Mem. in Supp. of 8 Classwide Prelim. Inj., Ex. 32 ¶¶ 9, 10b, 11a (listing parents who were separated from 9 children after presenting at ports of entry)). 10 As set out in the Court’s prior Order, asylum seekers like Ms. L. and many other 11 class members may be fleeing persecution and are entitled to careful consideration by 12 government officials. Particularly so if they have a credible fear of persecution. We are a 13 country of laws, and of compassion. We have plainly stated our intent to treat refugees 14 with an ordered process, and benevolence, by codifying principles of asylum. See, e.g., 15 The Refugee Act, PL 96-212, 94 Stat. 102 (1980). The Government’s treatment of Ms. L. 16 and other similarly situated class members does not meet this standard, and it is unlikely 17 to pass constitutional muster. 18 Second, the practice of separating these families was implemented without any 19 effective system or procedure for (1) tracking the children after they were separated from 20 their parents, (2) enabling communication between the parents and their children after 21 separation, and (3) reuniting the parents and children after the parents are returned to 22 immigration custody following completion of their criminal sentence. This is a startling 23 reality. The government readily keeps track of personal property of detainees in criminal 24 and immigration proceedings. Money, important documents, and automobiles, to name a 25 few, are routinely catalogued, stored, tracked and produced upon a detainees’ release, at 26 all levels—state and federal, citizen and alien. Yet, the government has no system in place 27 to keep track of, provide effective communication with, and promptly produce alien 28 children. The unfortunate reality is that under the present system migrant children are not 14 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1738 Page 16 ofPage 189 15 of 24 1 accounted for with the same efficiency and accuracy as property. Certainly, that cannot 2 satisfy the requirements of due process. See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-59 3 (1982) (quoting Lassiter v. Dept. of Soc. Services of Durham County, N.C., 452 U.S. 18, 4 (1981)) (stating it is “‘plain beyond the need for multiple citation’ that a natural parent’s 5 ‘desire for and right to the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her 6 children’ is an interest far more precious than any property right.”) (internal quotation 7 marks omitted). 8 The lack of effective methods for communication between parents and children who 9 have been separated has also had a profoundly negative effect on the parents’ criminal and 10 immigration proceedings, as well as the childrens’ immigration proceedings. See United 11 States v. Dominguez-Portillo, No:EP-17-MJ-4409-MAT, 2018 WL 315759, at *1-2 (W.D. 12 Tex. Jan. 5, 2018) (explaining that criminally charged defendants “had not received any 13 paperwork or information concerning the whereabouts or well-being of” their children). In 14 effect, these parents have been left “in a vacuum, without knowledge of the well-being and 15 location of their children, to say nothing of the immigration proceedings in which those 16 minor children find themselves.” Id. at *14. This situation may result in a number of 17 different scenarios, all of which are negative – some profoundly so. For example, “[i]f 18 parent and child are asserting or intending to assert an asylum claim, that child may be 19 navigating those legal waters without the benefit of communication with and assistance 20 from her parent; that defendant, too, must make a decision on his criminal case with total 21 uncertainty about this issue.” Id. Furthermore, “ a defendant facing certain deportation 22 would be unlikely to know whether he might be deported before, simultaneous to, or after 23 their child, or whether they would have the opportunity to even discuss their 24 deportations[.]” Id. Indeed, some parents have already been deported without their 25 children, who remain in government facilities in the United States.10 26 27 See, e.g., Pls.’ Supp. Mem. in Supp. of Classwide Prelim. Inj., Ex. 32 ¶ 16k, Ex. 36 ¶ 7a; Nelson Renteria, El Salvador demands U.S. return child taken from deported father, 10 28 15 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1739 Page 17 ofPage 189 16 of 24 1 The absence of established procedures for dealing with families that have been 2 separated at the border, and the effects of that void on the families involved, is borne out 3 in the cases of Plaintiffs here. Ms. L. was separated from her child when immigration 4 officials claimed they could not verify she was S.S.’s mother, and detained her for 5 expedited removal proceedings. That rendered S.S. “unaccompanied” under the TVPRA 6 and subject to immediate transfer to ORR, which accepted responsibility for S.S. There 7 was no further communication between the agencies, ICE and ORR. The filing of the 8 present lawsuit prompted release and reunification of Ms. L. and her daughter, a process 9 that took close to five months and court involvement. Ms. C. completed her criminal 10 sentence in 25 days, but it took nearly eight months to be reunited with her son. She, too, 11 had to file suit to regain custody of her son from ORR. 12 These situations confirm what the Government has already stated: it is not 13 affirmatively reuniting parents like Plaintiffs and their fellow class members for purposes 14 other than removal. Outside of deportation, the onus is on the parents, who, for the most 15 part, are themselves in either criminal or immigration proceedings, to contact ORR or 16 otherwise search for their children and make application for reunification under the 17 TVPRA. However, this reunification procedure was not designed to deal with the present 18 circumstances. (See Pls.’ Supp. Mem. in Supp. of Classwide Prelim. Inj., Ex. 33 ¶¶ 6-9.) 19 Rather, “ORR’s reunification process was designed to address the situation of children who 20 come to the border or are apprehended outside the company of a parent or legal guardian.” 21 (Id. ¶ 6.) Placing the burden on the parents to find and request reunification with their 22 children under the circumstances presented here is backwards. When children are 23 24 25 26 27 28 REUTERS (June 21, 2018, 4:03 PM), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigrationel-salvador/el-salvador-demands-us-return-child-taken-from-deported-fatheridUSKBN1JH3ER; Miriam Jordan, ‘I Can’t Go Without My Son’: A Deported Mother’s Plea, N.Y. TIMES (June 17, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/us/immigrationdeported-parents.html. 16 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1740 Page 18 ofPage 189 17 of 24 1 separated from their parents under these circumstances, the Government has an affirmative 2 obligation to track and promptly reunify these family members. 3 This practice of separating class members from their minor children, and failing to 4 reunify class members with those children, without any showing the parent is unfit or 5 presents a danger to the child is sufficient to find Plaintiffs have a likelihood of success on 6 their due process claim. When combined with the manner in which that practice is being 7 implemented, e.g., the lack of any effective procedures or protocols for notifying the 8 parents about their childrens’ whereabouts or ensuring communication between the parents 9 and children, and the use of the children as tools in the parents’ criminal and immigration 10 proceedings, (see Pls.’ Supp. Mem. in Supp. of Classwide Prelim. Inj., Ex. 29 ¶¶ 8, 14), a 11 finding of likelihood of success is assured. A practice of this sort implemented in this way 12 is likely to be “so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the 13 contemporary conscience,” Lewis, 523 U.S. at 847 n.8, interferes with rights “‘implicit in 14 the concept of ordered liberty[,]’” Rochin v. Cal., 342 U.S. 165, 169 (1952) (quoting Palko 15 v. State of Conn., 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937)), and is so “‘brutal’ and ‘offensive’ that it 16 [does] not comport with traditional ideas of fair play and decency.” Breithaupt v. Abram, 17 352 U.S. 432, 435 (1957). For all of these reasons, the Court finds there is a likelihood of success on Plaintiffs’ 18 19 due process claim. 20 B. Irreparable Injury 21 Turning to the next factor, Plaintiffs must show they are “‘likely to suffer irreparable 22 harm in the absence of preliminary relief.’” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 994 (9th 23 Cir. 2017) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). “‘It is well established that the deprivation of 24 constitutional rights unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” 25 Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks 26 omitted). As explained, Plaintiffs have demonstrated the likelihood of a deprivation of 27 their constitutional rights, and thus they have satisfied this factor. Id. (quoting 28 17 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1741 Page 19 ofPage 189 18 of 24 1 The injury in this case, however, deserves special mention. That injury is the 2 separation of a parent from his or her child, which the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly found 3 constitutes irreparable harm. See Leiva–Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 969–70 (9th Cir. 4 2011); Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1169 (9th Cir. 2017) (identifying “separated 5 families” as an irreparable harm). 6 Furthermore, the record in this case reflects that the separations at issue have been 7 agonizing for the parents who have endured them. One of those parents, Mr. U., an asylum 8 seeker from Kyrgyzstan, submitted a declaration in this case in which he stated that after 9 he was told he was going to be separated from his son he “felt as though [he] was having 10 a heart attack.” (Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Class Cert., Ex. 21 ¶ 4.) Another asylum- 11 seeking parent from El Salvador who was separated from her two sons writes, 12 13 14 15 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. [My children] are so attached to me. [One of my children] used to sleep in bed with me every night while [my other child] slept in his own bed in the same room.… It hurts me to think how anxious and distressed they must be without me. 16 17 (Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Class Cert., Ex. 24 ¶ 9.) And another asylum-seeking parent 18 from Honduras described having to place her crying 18-month old son in a car seat in a 19 government vehicle, not being able to comfort him, and her crying as the officers “took 20 [her] son away.” (Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Class Cert., Ex. 25 ¶ 7.) There has even been 21 a report that one father committed suicide in custody after being separated from his wife 22 and three-year-old child. 23 Separated From Family is Found Dead in Texas Jail in an Apparent Suicide, L.A. TIMES 24 (June 9, 2018, 5:35 PM), http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-patrol-suicide- 25 20180609-story.html. 26 27 See Molly Hennessy-Fiske, Honduran Migrant Who Was The parents, however, are not the only ones suffering from the separations. One of the amici in this case, Children’s Defense Fund, states, 28 18 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1742 Page 20 ofPage 189 19 of 24 1 2 3 4 5 there is ample evidence that separating children from their mothers or fathers leads to serious, negative consequences to children’s health and development. Forced separation disrupts the parent-child relationship and puts children at increased risk for both physical and mental illness.... And the psychological distress, anxiety, and depression associated with separation from a parent would follow the children well after the immediate period of separation— even after eventual reunification with a parent or other family. 6 7 (ECF No. 17-11 at 3.) Other evidence before the Court reflects that “separating children 8 from parents is a highly destabilizing, traumatic experience that has long term 9 consequences on child well-being, safety, and development.” (ECF No. 17-13 at 2.) That 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 evidence reflects: Separation from family leaves children more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse, no matter what the care setting. In addition, traumatic separation from parents creates toxic stress in children and adolescents that can profoundly impact their development. Strong scientific evidence shows that toxic stress disrupts the development of brain architecture and other organ systems, and increases the risk for stress-related disease and cognitive impairment well into adult years. Studies have shown that children who experience such traumatic events can suffer from symptoms of anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, have poorer behavioral and educational outcomes, and experience higher rates of poverty and food insecurity. 18 19 (ECF No. 17-13 at 2.) And Martin Guggenheim, the Fiorello LaGuardia Professor of 20 Clinical Law at New York University School of Law and Founding Member of the Center 21 for Family Representation, states: 22 23 24 25 Children are at risk of suffering great emotional harm when they are removed from their loved ones. And children who have traveled from afar and made their way to this country to seek asylum are especially at risk of suffering irreversible psychological harm when wrested from the custody of the parent or caregiver with whom they traveled to the United States. 26 (Mem. in Supp. of Classwide Prelim. Inj., Ex. 17 ¶ 16.) All of this evidence, combined 27 with the constitutional violation alleged here, conclusively shows that Plaintiffs and the 28 19 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1743 Page 21 ofPage 189 20 of 24 1 class members are likely to suffer irreparable injury if a preliminary injunction does not 2 issue. 3 C. Balance of Equities 4 Turning to the next factor, “[t]o obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must also 5 demonstrate that ‘the balance of equities tips in his favor.’” Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 995 6 (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). As with irreparable injury, when a plaintiff establishes 7 “a likelihood that Defendants’ policy violates the U.S. Constitution, Plaintiffs have also 8 established that both the public interest and the balance of the equities favor a preliminary 9 injunction.” Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1069 (9th Cir. 2014). 10 Plaintiffs here assert the balance of equities weighs in favor of an injunction in this 11 case. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue Defendants would not suffer any hardship if the 12 preliminary injunction is issued because the Government “cannot suffer harm from an 13 injunction that merely ends an unlawful practice[.]” Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127, 14 1145 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Arizona Dream Act Coalition, 757 F.3d at 1069 (quoting 15 Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012)) (stating balance of equities favors 16 “‘prevent[ing] the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.’”). When the absence of harm 17 to the Government is weighed against the harms to Plaintiffs set out above, Plaintiffs argue 18 this factor weighs in their favor. The Court agrees. 19 The primary harm Defendants assert here is the possibility that an injunction would 20 have a negative impact on their ability to enforce the criminal and immigration laws. 21 However, the injunction here—preventing the separation of parents from their children and 22 ordering the reunification of parents and children that have been separated—would do 23 nothing of the sort. The Government would remain free to enforce its criminal and 24 immigration laws, and to exercise its discretion in matters of release and detention 25 consistent with law. See EO §§ 1, 3(a) & (e) (discussing Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544); 26 see also Comm. of Cent. Am. Refugees v. I.N.S., 795 F.2d 1434, 1439-40 (9th Cir. 1986) 27 (stating “prudential considerations preclude[] interference with the Attorney General’s 28 [exercise of] discretion” in selecting the detention facilities where aliens are to be 20 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1744 Page 22 ofPage 189 21 of 24 1 detained). It would just have to do so in a way that preserves the class members’ 2 constitutional rights to family association and integrity. See Rodriguez, 715 F.3d at 1146 3 (“While ICE is entitled to carry out its duty to enforce the mandates of Congress, it must 4 do so in a manner consistent with our constitutional values.”) Thus, this factor also weighs 5 in favor of issuing the injunction. 6 D. Public Interest 7 The final factor for consideration is the public interest. See Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 8 996 (quoting Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1139 (9th Cir. 2009)) (“When, as 9 here, ‘the impact of an injunction reaches beyond the parties, carrying with it a potential 10 for public consequences, the public interest will be relevant to whether the district court 11 grants the preliminary injunction.’”) To obtain the requested relief, “Plaintiffs must 12 demonstrate that the public interest favors granting the injunction ‘in light of [its] likely 13 consequences,’ i.e., ‘consequences [that are not] too remote, insubstantial, or speculative 14 and [are] supported by evidence.’” Id. (quoting Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1139). “‘Generally, 15 public interest concerns are implicated when a constitutional right has been violated, 16 because all citizens have a stake in upholding the Constitution.’” Id. (quoting Preminger 17 v. Principi, 422 F.3d 815, 826 (9th Cir. 2005)). 18 This case involves two important public interests: the interest in enforcing the 19 country’s criminal and immigration laws and the constitutional liberty interest “of parents 20 in the care, custody, and control of their children[,]” which “is perhaps the oldest of the 21 fundamental liberty interests recognized by” the Supreme Court. Troxel v. Granville, 530 22 U.S. 57, 65 (2000). Both of these interests are valid and important, and both can be served 23 by the issuance of an injunction in this case. 24 As stated, the public’s interest in enforcing the criminal and immigration laws of this 25 country would be unaffected by issuance of the requested injunction. The Executive 26 Branch is free to prosecute illegal border crossers and institute immigration proceedings 27 against aliens, and would remain free to do so if an injunction were issued. Plaintiffs do 28 not seek to enjoin the Executive Branch from carrying out its duties in that regard. 21 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1745 Page 23 ofPage 189 22 of 24 1 What Plaintiffs do seek by way of the requested injunction is to uphold their rights 2 to family integrity and association while their immigration proceedings are underway. This 3 right, specifically, the relationship between parent and child, is “constitutionally 4 protected,” Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978), and “well established.” 5 Rosenbaum v. Washoe Cty., 663 F.3d 1071, 1079 (9th Cir. 2011). The public interest in 6 upholding and protecting that right in the circumstances presented here would be served 7 by issuance of the requested injunction. See Arizona Dream Act Coalition, 757 F.3d at 8 1069 (quoting Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006, 1029 (9th Cir. 2013) (“‘[I]t is 9 clear that it would not be equitable or in the public’s interest to allow the state … to violate 10 the requirements of federal law, especially when there are no adequate remedies 11 available.’”) Accordingly, this factor, too, weighs in favor of issuing the injunction. 12 III. 13 CONCLUSION 14 The unfolding events—the zero tolerance policy, EO and DHS Fact Sheet—serve to 15 corroborate Plaintiffs’ allegations. The facts set forth before the Court portray reactive 16 governance—responses to address a chaotic circumstance of the Government’s own 17 making. They belie measured and ordered governance, which is central to the concept of 18 due process enshrined in our Constitution. This is particularly so in the treatment of 19 migrants, many of whom are asylum seekers and small children. The extraordinary remedy 20 of classwide preliminary injunction is warranted based on the evidence before the Court. 21 For the reasons set out above, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for classwide 22 preliminary injunction, and finds and orders as follows: 23 (1) Defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all those 24 who are in active concert or participation with them, are preliminarily enjoined from 25 detaining Class Members in DHS custody without and apart from their minor 26 children, absent a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the 27 28 22 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1746 Page 24 ofPage 189 23 of 24 1 child, unless the parent affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be 2 reunited with the child in DHS custody.11 3 (2) If Defendants choose to release Class Members from DHS custody, Defendants, and 4 their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all those who are in 5 active concert or participation with them, are preliminary enjoined from continuing 6 to detain the minor children of the Class Members and must release the minor child 7 to the custody of the Class Member, unless there is a determination that the parent 8 is unfit or presents a danger to the child, or the parent affirmatively, knowingly, and 9 voluntarily declines to be reunited with the child. 10 (3) Unless there is a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the 11 child, or the parent affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be reunited 12 with the child: 13 (a) 14 under the age of five (5) within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order; and 15 (b) 16 (5) and over within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order. 17 (4) Defendants must reunify all Class Members with their minor children who are Defendants must reunify all Class Members with their minor children age five Defendants must immediately take all steps necessary to facilitate regular 18 communication between Class Members and their children who remain in ORR 19 custody, ORR foster care, or DHS custody. Within ten (10) days, Defendants must 20 provide parents telephonic contact with their children if the parent is not already in 21 contact with his or her child. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “Fitness” is an important factor in determining whether to separate parent from child. In the context of this case, and enforcement of criminal and immigration laws at the border, “fitness” could include a class member’s mental health, or potential criminal involvement in matters other than “improper entry” under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a), (see EO § 1), among other matters. Fitness factors ordinarily would be objective and clinical, and would allow for the proper exercise of discretion by government officials. 11 23 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 83 27-1 FiledFiled 06/26/18 07/13/18 PageID.1747 Page 25 ofPage 189 24 of 24 1 (5) Defendants must immediately take all steps necessary to facilitate regular 2 communication between and among all executive agencies responsible for the 3 custody, detention or shelter of Class Members and the custody and care of their 4 children, including at least ICE, CBP, BOP, and ORR, regarding the location and 5 well-being of the Class Members’ children. 6 (6) Defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all those 7 who are in active concert or participation with them, are preliminarily enjoined from 8 removing any Class Members without their child, unless the Class Member 9 affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be reunited with the child prior 10 to the Class Member’s deportation, or there is a determination that the parent is unfit 11 or presents a danger to the child. 12 (7) This Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings and to enter such 13 further orders as may be necessary or appropriate to implement and enforce the 14 provisions of this Order and Preliminary Injunction. 15 A status conference will be held on July 6, 2018, at 12:00 noon, to discuss all 16 necessary matters. A notice of teleconference information sheet will be provided in a 17 separate order. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 26, 2018 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 26 of 189 Exhibit Government Told Immigrant Parents to Pay for DNA Tests to Get Kids Back, Advocate S... Page 1 of 4 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 27 of 189 FOLLOW CHEAT SHEET LOG IN POLITICS ENTERTAINMENT PLAY HOT ARTISTS WORLD NEWS HALF FULL ARTS AND CULTURE U.S. NEWS TECH HUNT FOR THE CURE SCIENCE SCOUTED   × ELLA MAI BOO'D UP FULL TRACK EXCLUSIVE EXCLUSIVE WE BROKE IT, YOU BUY IT Government Told Immigrant Parents to Pay for DNA Tests to Get Kids Back, Advocate Says https://www.thedailybeast.com/government-told-immigrant-parents-to-pay-for-dna-tests-to... 7/11/2018 Government Told Immigrant Parents to Pay for DNA Tests to Get Kids Back, Advocate S... Page 2 of 4 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 28 of 189 EXCLUSIVE DALLAS—U.S. government officials recently told four immigrant women that they must pay for DNA tests in order to be reunited with their children, according to the shelter that housed the women. The tests are the latest ad hoc effort by the Trump administration to reunite families it had separated—in some cases because authorities took documents from adults proving they are related to their children. The tests are being administered by a private contractor on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement, which oversees the care and housing of children. HHS has refused to name the contractor, which may be a violation of federal law. “None of them have the money [for the tests], so it’s going to fall back on us to push back on that,” said Ruben Garcia, the director of Annunciation House, an immigrant shelter in El Paso where the women are staying. Three of the women are mothers of the children, Garcia said, and the fourth is attempting to reunite with her brother, a three and half-yearold boy. Garcia said that the tests likely cost money that many immigrants entering the country with little more than the clothes on their backs don’t have. Iliana Holguin, an immigration attorney in El Paso who works with Annunciation House, said the government made some of her clients pay between $700 to $800 to prove their relationship to a relative as part of their citizenship cases. “The government wants the parents to foot the bill for the DNA testing when they’re the ones that caused the need for DNA testing,” Holguin said. “It’s incredible.” The Office of Refugee Resettlement, responsible for the DNA testing, told The Daily Beast it “provides DNA testing at no cost to verify parentage.” Solution for Self-Imposed Problem ORR requires DNA testing in some cases to verify adult immigrants are related to children in ORR’s custody, before the children can be released to the adults who have either been paroled or are to be deported. The tests are often required, according Garcia, when parents’ have had their paperwork regarding their children taken by Customs and Border Patrol or Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (CBP and ICE did not immediately respond to requests for comment.) https://www.thedailybeast.com/government-told-immigrant-parents-to-pay-for-dna-tests-to... 7/11/2018 Government Told Immigrant Parents to Pay for DNA Tests to Get Kids Back, Advocate S... Page 3 of 4 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 29 of 189 “When these families come in, Customs and Border Protection takes away the documents from parents and puts them in their file,” Garcia said. “In the cases where they’ve been separated from their children, ORR then says, ‘You’re going to need to provide the documents that CBP took.’” And when the immigrants can’t, Garcia said, ORR tells parents they must take a DNA test. It’s unclear how many immigrants have been told they’d have to pay for DNA tests. Other immigration attorneys reached by The Daily Beast said their clients had not been asked to pay for DNA tests. Greg Chen of the American Immigration Lawyers Association called the tests a “delay tactic” by a government that is “primarily interested in detaining the children and parents to put pressure on them to accept deportation before they have the opportunity to get a fair hearing on their asylum claims and other claims for relief.” GET THE BEAST IN YOUR INBOX! Enter your email address By clicking “Subscribe,” you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy SUBSCRIBE “In a specific case when there’s evidence of fraud DNA testing may be warranted, but it should not be done across the board especially when proof of familial relationship can be demonstrated in other ways,” Chen said. Those other ways include the government documents that are taken from immigrants once they’re caught for crossing the border, verification that a simple phone call from ORR to CBP or ICE could achieve, Garcia said. “But when I go to ORR, they say, ‘We don’t talk to immigration [authorities],” he said. Government Keeps Contractor Secret HHS has refused to reveal the identity of the contractor who is performing the DNA tests. A search of federal contract databases showed no recent contracts for DNA work with the HHS office which oversees ORR. “DNA contract information is not available in a readily reportable format,” HHS' Administration of Children and Families office told The Daily Beast in a statement. A day earlier, that same office said on its website it had “not consulted with the contractor” to get permission to release the contract.” Under federal law, government agencies have 30 days from the date of award to release certain basic contract information to a federal database online. “Agencies don't need permission from contractors to publicize info on the contract. This is the public's business and taxpayers dollars are being used,” Nick Schwellenbach of the Project on Government Oversight told The Daily Beast. “Agencies often make this information available immediately.” Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union and the government agreed in a court filing on Monday “the federal government will not use the DNA samples or test results for any purpose besides verifying parentage, and will ensure that the DNA samples and test results are destroyed afterwards.” In a posting on its website, HHS pledged to destroy DNA swabs and test results after parental relationships had been confirmed. Roots in the Obama Administration The Trump administration isn’t the first to use DNA tests to verify relationships between immigrants or refugees. Under the Obama administration, the Department of Homeland Security and State Department initiated a DNA testing pilot program for refugees from certain African countries in the “Priority Three” program that reunited refugees already inside the U.S. with relatives still abroad. Reports of widespread fraud in the Priority Three program (preliminary testing showed only 20 percent of tested immigrants had a biological relationship with claimed relatives abroad) prompted the closure of the program in 2008 before it was reopened in 2012. A 2010 public notice warned that applicants to the Priority Three program would be responsible for the cost of DNA testing, but “successful applicants may be eligible for reimbursement of DNA test costs.” https://www.thedailybeast.com/government-told-immigrant-parents-to-pay-for-dna-tests-to... 7/11/2018 Government Told Immigrant Parents to Pay for DNA Tests to Get Kids Back, Advocate S... Page 4 of 4 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 30 of 189 Garcia said he has heard that test fees can be waived, but has yet to hear specifically from ORR how to apply for those waivers. “I don’t know if it’s a situation where if you don’t ask about the waivers they don’t tell you,” he said. DNA tests continued in 2014, when a wave of unaccompanied children began fleeing from gang violence in Central and South America and arriving at the southern border. Then, the Obama administration instituted another initiative similar to Priority Three called the Central American Minors (CAM) program. Many refugee children arrived looking to reunite with parents or relatives already inside the U.S. The CAM program sought to provide a safer alternative to the often dangerous journey unaccompanied children took through Central America and to the border by allowing family members to apply for reunification legally. The program required DNA testing to prove a biological relationship with migrant children. As an HHS fact sheet noted, parents inside the U.S. would pay for the cost of testing up front and would “be reimbursed for testing costs ONLY if ALL claimed and tested biological relationships are confirmed by DNA test results.” The Trump administration ended the program in 2017. For now, the tests being performed on immigrants caught up in Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy are just another obstacle for mothers and fathers who have already faced plenty of them in order to be reunited with their children, Garcia said. “Here’s what I want from ORR: it’s my understanding that DNA test results can be quick or slow, depending on whichever you want. So why don’t you take the responsibility, ORR, and get this done quickly and get these kids back with their parents. Don’t give me this, ‘There’s too many to do and it’s going to take a while,’ or ‘There’s a big long line,’ because you’re the one who took the kids away in the first place, so fix it.” Justin Glawe @JustinGlawe Adam Rawnsley adam.rawnsley@thedailybeast.com Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast here. Sponsored Stories How to Remove Dark Spots Recommended by These Underwear Styles Are Taking Over Men’s Drawers JUVETRESS 7 Surprising Facts About HIV HEALTHGRADES GET.MEUNDIES.COM If You Have Good Credit, This Card Is For You CREDIT.COM Chiropractors Baffled: Simple Stretch Relieves Years of Back Pain (Watch) Living with HIV Top 10 Questions About Living With HIV HEALTHGRADES A Car Like No Other: The New Subaru Forester Explored This Radical Woman Will Become The Next U.S. President in 2020 EDMUNDS ASSETS.STANSBERRYRESEARCH.COM HEALTHHACKTIPS.COM Politics Entertainment World News Half Full Arts and Culture U.S. News Tech Hunt for the Cure Science Scouted Travel Advertise With Us https://www.thedailybeast.com/government-told-immigrant-parents-to-pay-for-dna-tests-to... 7/11/2018 Case Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 31 of 189 Exhibit Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 455 27-1 FiledFiled 07/09/18 07/13/18 PagePage 1 of 732 Page of 189ID #:18135 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. Date CV 85-4544-DMG (AGRx) July 9, 2018 Title Jenny L. Flores, et al. v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, et al. Present: The Honorable Page 1 of 7 DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE KANE TIEN Deputy Clerk NOT REPORTED Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) None Present Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ “EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LIMITED RELIEF FROM SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT” [435] On June 20, 2018, President Donald J. Trump issued an Executive Order requiring “[t]he Attorney General [to] promptly file a request with [this Court] to modify the [Flores Agreement], in a manner that would permit the Secretary [of Homeland Security], under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.” See Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation, Exec. Order No. 13841, 83 Fed. Reg. 29435, 29435 (June 20, 2018) [hereinafter Exec. Order No. 13841]. On June 21, 2018, Defendants filed an Ex Parte Application seeking the following “limited” relief: (1) an exemption from the Flores Agreement’s release provisions so that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) may detain alien minors who have arrived with their parent or legal guardian together in ICE family residential facilities, and (2) an exemption from the Flores Agreement’s state licensure requirement. [Doc. # 435.] Defendants claim that such relief is warranted under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) and 60(b)(6). See Ex Parte Appl. at 10 [Doc. # 435-1].1 Although Defendants did not notice their Ex Parte Application for a hearing, they seek “a prompt hearing on [their] request for immediate relief, together with any additional proceedings the Court believes appropriate.” See id. at 21. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Ex Parte Application [Doc. # 450], as did the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) [Doc. # 451] and the City of Los Angeles, the City of Chicago, the City of New York, and the City & County of San Francisco (“The Cities”) [Doc. # 453] as amici curiae. Defendants’ Ex Parte Application is a thinly veiled motion for reconsideration without any meaningful effort to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 7-18. On July 24, 2015, 1 CV-90 All page references herein are to page numbers inserted by the CM/ECF system. CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk KT Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 455 27-1 FiledFiled 07/09/18 07/13/18 PagePage 2 of 733 Page of 189ID #:18136 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. CV 85-4544-DMG (AGRx) Title Jenny L. Flores, et al. v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, et al. Date July 9, 2018 Page 2 of 7 the Court denied Defendants’ motion seeking to modify the Flores Agreement on the same grounds now raised anew in Defendants’ Ex Parte Application. See Defs.’ Motion to Amend at 13, 17–21, 27–28, 30–33 [Doc. # 120]; July 24, 2015 Order at 19–25 [Doc. # 177]; Ex Parte Appl. at 15–16 [Doc. # 435-1] (repeating Defendants’ position that detaining family units in unlicensed family residential facilities deters others from unlawfully entering the country). In short, Defendants have run afoul of Local Rule 7-18 because the Ex Parte Application “repeat[s] . . . oral or written argument made in support of” the earlier Motion to Amend. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18. Even if Local Rule 7-18 did not bar Defendants’ Ex Parte Application, it would still fail under a Rule 60(b) analysis. The Court’s July 24, 2015 Order analyzed in great detail the relevant Flores Agreement language and applicable legal authorities, responding to the same issues raised in Defendants’ current Ex Parte Application. In the absence of a showing of changed circumstances that the parties could not have foreseen at the time of their Agreement, it is unnecessary to replow the same familiar territory. See Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383 (1992) (“Ordinarily, . . . modification should not be granted where a party relies upon events that actually were anticipated at the time it entered into a decree. . . . [A] party seeking modification of a consent decree [under Rule 60(b)(5)] bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree.”); United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993) (“[Rule 60(b)(6)] is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.”). At bottom, Defendants’ arguments rest in part on the premise that the July 24, 2015 Order resulted in a “3 to 5-fold increase in the number of illegal family border crossings” because it led arriving families to believe that Defendants would rather release them than separate the children from their families. See, e.g., Ex Parte Appl. at 3 [Doc. # 435-1]. Assuming arguendo that Defendants’ representations regarding the increase in border crossings are correct (i.e., 68,445 apprehensions in 2014; 39,838 in 2015; 77,674 in 2016; and 75,622 in 2017), they do not establish that the Court’s July 24, 2015 Order in any way caused this “surge.” See id. at 3, 9. Defendants’ reasoning suffers from the “‘logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc’ . . . literally, ‘after this, therefore because of this[.]’” See Kozulin v. INS, 218 F.3d 1112, 1117 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Huskey v. City of San Jose, 204 F.3d 893, 899 (9th Cir. 2000)). Any number of other factors could have caused the increase in illegal border crossings, including civil strife, economic degradation, and fear of death in the migrants’ home countries. See, e.g., Govindaiah Decl. at ¶¶ 1–3 (between July 1, 2017 and June 16, 2018, RAICES provided legal assistance to 5,177 family units detained at Karnes County Residential Center; approximately 5,000 of those family units received positive credible fear determinations from an asylum officer CV-90 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk KT Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 455 27-1 FiledFiled 07/09/18 07/13/18 PagePage 3 of 734 Page of 189ID #:18137 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. CV 85-4544-DMG (AGRx) Title Jenny L. Flores, et al. v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, et al. Date July 9, 2018 Page 3 of 7 or an immigration judge) [Doc. # 451-1]; Adam Cox & Ryan Goodman, Detention of Migrant Families as “Deterrence”: Ethical Flaws & Empirical Doubts, justsecurity.org (June 22, 2018), https://www.justsecurity.org/58354/detention-migrant-families-deterrenceethical-flaws-empirical-doubts/ (concluding that “there’s not even a correlational relationship between [the July 24, 2015 Order] and family migration,” and pointing out that the apprehension patterns for accompanied and unaccompanied minors after the decision did not differ from one another). As it did before, the Court finds Defendants’ logic “dubious” and unconvincing.2 See July 24, 2015 Order at 11 [Doc. # 177]. Moreover, the Flores Agreement has required accompanied minors to be placed in licensed facilities since 1997. See Flores Agreement at ¶ 19 [Doc. # 101]. Defendants did not request an alteration of their legal obligations until many years later in 2015 and again now. The Court’s July 24, 2015 Order merely reaffirmed Defendants’ pre-existing obligations under the Agreement, and could not have caused the surge in border crossings any more than the implementation of the Flores Agreement itself caused the numerous surges that occurred after 1997. See Ex Parte Appl. at 3 [Doc. # 435-1]. Additionally, the relief Defendants seek is improper because their proposed modifications are not “suitably tailored to the changed circumstance[,]” if any. Rufo, 502 U.S. at 391 (emphasis added). Instead, Defendants seek to light a match to the Flores Agreement and ask this Court to upend the parties’ agreement by judicial fiat. The Flores Agreement allows Defendants up to five days to place minors in licensed programs if they are apprehended in districts that do not have those programs, or “as expeditiously as possible” if there is an “influx of minors into the United States[.]” See Flores Agreement at ¶ 12.A. In 2015, the Court found that the Flores Agreement could accommodate Defendants’ request for a 20-day deadline during an influx.3 Yet, Defendants now seek to hold 2 Because Defendants fail to show that the Flores Agreement and the July 24, 2015 Order are responsible for the so-called “surge” in illegal family border crossings, the Court need not address Plaintiffs’ and the ACLU’s argument that general deterrence is not a permissible purpose of civil detention. See Pls.’ Opp’n at 11 [Doc. # 450]; ACLU’s Opp’n at 8–11 [Doc. # 451]; see also July 24, 2015 Order at 24 n.11 (declining to address this issue because Defendants failed to show that detaining families would deter future illegal border crossings) [Doc. # 177]. 3 Paragraph 12.A provides in pertinent part that “[t]he INS will transfer a minor . . . to a [licensed program] . . . within five (5) days [if the minor is apprehended in a district that does not have a licensed program with space available], except . . . in the event of an emergency or influx of minors into the United States, in which case the INS shall place all minors [into licensed placements] as expeditiously as possible[.]” The Court previously observed that, during an influx, a 20-day delay in placement may comply with Paragraph 12.A if that is “as fast as Defendants, in good faith and in the exercise of due diligence, can possibly go in screening family members for CV-90 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk KT Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 455 27-1 FiledFiled 07/09/18 07/13/18 PagePage 4 of 735 Page of 189ID #:18138 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. CV 85-4544-DMG (AGRx) Title Jenny L. Flores, et al. v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, et al. Date July 9, 2018 Page 4 of 7 minors in indefinite detention in unlicensed facilities, which would constitute a fundamental and material breach of the parties’ Agreement. Cf. Flores v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 898, 910 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that exempting accompanied minors from the Flores Agreement was not a suitably tailored response to the influx in family units crossing the border). Defendants also assert that “families frequently fail to appear at the required proceedings” if they are released from custody. See Ex Parte Appl. at 2–3 (citing Homan Decl. at ¶ 30 (attesting that from July 2014 to July 2015, there were 41,297 cases involving family apprehensions and 11,976 removal orders issued in absentia) [Doc. # 184-1]) [Doc. # 435-1]. But see Ingrid Eagly, et al., Detaining Families: A Study of Asylum Adjudication in Family Detention, 106 Calif. L. Rev. 785, 847–48 (2018), available at http://www.californialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/4-Eagly_Shafer_Whalley.pdf (Executive Office of Immigration Review data shows that between 2001 and 2016, 86% of family detainees attended all of their court hearings). The evidentiary record is unclear as to the accuracy of Defendants’ assertion. Even assuming Defendants are correct, however, this risk was plainly contemplated by the parties when they executed the Flores Agreement in 1997. See, e.g., Flores Agreement at ¶ 24.A (providing that a minor in deportation proceedings shall be afforded a bond redetermination hearing). It does not support a blanket non-release policy or warrant the Agreement’s modification or abrogation. After submitting their Ex Parte Application, Defendants filed a “Notice of Compliance[,]” wherein they contend that a preliminary injunction recently entered in Ms. L v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, No. CV 18-0428 DMS (MDD), 2018 WL 3129486 (S.D. Cal. June 26. 2018), allows them to nullify the release and state licensure provisions of the Flores Agreement. See Notice of Compl. at 5–8 [Doc. # 447]. Ms. L concluded that a class of certain parents would likely succeed on the merits of their due process challenge to the “practice of separating [certain parents] from their minor children, and failing to reunify [parents] with those children, without any showing the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child[.]” See Ms. L, 2018 WL 3129486, at *7. The District Court ordered ICE and other governmental officers and agencies to reunite these parents with their children (the former of whom were in Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) custody) within 14 to 30 days of that Order, unless (inter alia) “the parent affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be reunited with the child in DHS custody.” See id. at *11–12. reasonable or credible fear[.]” See Order re Resp. to Order to Show Cause at 10 [Doc. # 189]. The 20-day deadline arose from Defendants’ own request for that additional time to comply with their contractual obligations during an influx. See Def.’s Resp. to Order to Show Cause at 14, 23–24, 34 n.33 [Doc. # 184]. CV-90 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk KT Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 455 27-1 FiledFiled 07/09/18 07/13/18 PagePage 5 of 736 Page of 189ID #:18139 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. CV 85-4544-DMG (AGRx) Title Jenny L. Flores, et al. v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, et al. Date July 9, 2018 Page 5 of 7 Defendants advance a tortured interpretation of the Flores Agreement in an attempt to show that the Ms. L preliminary injunction permits them to suspend the Flores release and licensure provisions. They claim that detaining Flores Class Members with their parents complies with Paragraph 14’s command that Class Members be “release[d] from . . . custody without unnecessary delay” because separating a Class Member from a parent would violate the Ms. L Order. See Notice of Compl. at 6 (emphasis in original) (quoting Flores Agreement at ¶ 14 [Doc. # 101]) [Doc. # 447]. Similarly, Defendants contend that indefinite detention in ICE unlicensed family residential facilities is consistent with: (1) their obligation to transfer minors to licensed placements “as expeditiously as possible” if there is an influx of minors, and (2) Paragraph 12.A’s proviso that such transfer is unnecessary when “any court decree or courtapproved settlement” provides otherwise. See id. at 7 n.1 (quoting Flores Agreement at ¶ 12.A.2–3 [Doc. # 101]). The Court rejects this strained construction of the Flores Agreement it renders meaningless paragraph 12.A (deadlines for transfers to licensed placements), paragraph 14 (persons to whom Class Members may be released), paragraph 18 (efforts toward release and reunification), and paragraph 19 (placement of Class Members in licensed programs).4 See Pinel v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 814 F. Supp. 2d 930, 943 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“Courts must interpret contractual language in a manner [that] gives force and effect to every provision, and not in a way [that] renders some clauses nugatory, inoperative or meaningless.” (alteration in original) (quoting City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 68 Cal. App. 4th 445, 473 (1998))); O’Neil v. Bunge Corp., 365 F.3d 820, 822 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by principles of local law which apply to interpretation of contracts generally.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United Commercial Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 1992))). To the extent Defendants claim that the Ms. L Order supports their request for modification, their argument fares no better because they have not shown that Ms. L required Defendants to violate the Flores Agreement or that compliance with the Ms. L Order would “directly conflict” with the Flores Agreement’s release and state licensure provisions. See Flores v. Sessions, 862 F.3d 863, 874 (9th Cir. 2017) (noting that this is the standard for modifying a decree on change of law grounds). Absolutely nothing prevents Defendants from reconsidering their current blanket policy of family detention and reinstating prosecutorial discretion. See Exec. Order No. 13841, 83 Fed. Reg. at 29435; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)(A) (providing that the Attorney General has the discretion to release certain aliens 4 There is yet another flaw in Defendants’ reasoning—i.e., they seek to indefinitely detain all migrant children who have arrived with their parents or legal guardians, see Ex Parte Appl. at 21 [Doc. # 435-1], even though the Ms. L preliminary injunction by its terms excludes a number of family units from its scope, including those who are subject to Executive Order 13841, see Ms. L, 2018 WL 3129486, at *3 n.5. CV-90 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk KT Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 455 27-1 FiledFiled 07/09/18 07/13/18 PagePage 6 of 737 Page of 189ID #:18140 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. CV 85-4544-DMG (AGRx) Title Jenny L. Flores, et al. v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, et al. Date July 9, 2018 Page 6 of 7 on a bond of at least $1,500); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) (providing that the Attorney General has the discretion to parole certain aliens). Further, detained parents who are entitled to reunification under the Ms. L Order may “affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily decline[] to be reunited” with their children, see Ms. L., 2018 WL 3129486, at *11, and all parties admit that these parents may also affirmatively waive their children’s rights to prompt release and placement in state-licensed facilities, see Notice of Compl. at 9 (“[P]laintiffs in this case have always agreed that detention of the family together is permissible if the parent consents.” (emphasis added)) [Doc. # 447]; Pls.’ Opp’n to Ex Parte Appl. at 7 (asserting that Class Members’ have the right—“subject to opt out by a parent—to be released or placed under the terms of the Agreement” (emphasis added)) [Doc. # 450]; see also Fields v. Palmdale Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 1197, 1204 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.”); Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys., 135 F.3d 658, 662 (9th Cir. 1998) (“It is a well settled maxim that a party may waive the benefit of any condition or provision made in his behalf, no matter to what manner it may have been made or secured.” (emphasis omitted) (quoting Knarston v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 140 Cal. 57, 63 (1903))); Jeffrey Kavin, Inc. v. Frye, 264 Cal. App. 4th 35, 45 (2012) (“It is well settled a contracting party may waive conditions placed in a contract solely for that party’s benefit.” (quoting Sabo v. Fasano, 154 Cal. App. 3d 502, 505 (1984)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Given the situation arising from Defendants’ earlier family separation policy, detained parents may choose to exercise their Ms. L right to reunification or to stand on their children’s Flores Agreement rights. Defendants may not make this choice for them.5 Lastly, Defendants have known for years that there is “no state licensing readily available for facilities that house both adults and children.” See Defs.’ Motion to Amend at 32 (filed on Feb. 27, 2015) [Doc. # 120]. Yet, Defendants have not shown that they made any efforts to resolve this issue since July 2015, let alone 1997, nor have they demonstrated that any such attempt would be futile. To the contrary, certain local governments charged with enforcing state child welfare laws have indicated their “strong interest . . . in the continued licensed regulation of Defendants’ child welfare programs.” See The Cities’ Opp’n at 13 [Doc. # 453]. Given that the Flores Agreement has “unambiguously applie[d] both to accompanied and unaccompanied minors” for over 20 years, see Flores, 828 F.3d at 901, Defendants cannot now complain that the 5 The Court also observes that there is no inconsistency between the Flores Agreement and Executive Order No. 13841. See Exec. Order No. 13841, 83 Fed. Reg. at 29435 (“The Secretary of Homeland Security . . . shall, to the extent permitted by law . . . maintain custody of alien families during the pendency of any criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their members.” (emphasis added)). CV-90 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk KT Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 455 27-1 FiledFiled 07/09/18 07/13/18 PagePage 7 of 738 Page of 189ID #:18141 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. CV 85-4544-DMG (AGRx) Title Jenny L. Flores, et al. v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, et al. Date July 9, 2018 Page 7 of 7 Agreement leaves them no choice but to separate parents from their children and violate the Ms. L Order. It is apparent that Defendants’ Application is a cynical attempt, on an ex parte basis, to shift responsibility to the Judiciary for over 20 years of Congressional inaction and ill-considered Executive action that have led to the current stalemate. The parties voluntarily agreed to the terms of the Flores Agreement more than two decades ago. The Court did not force the parties into the agreement nor did it draft the contractual language. Its role is merely to interpret and enforce the clear and unambiguous language to which the parties agreed, applying wellestablished principles of law. Regardless, what is certain is that the children who are the beneficiaries of the Flores Agreement’s protections and who are now in Defendants’ custody are blameless. They are subject to the decisions made by adults over whom they have no control. In implementing the Agreement, their best interests should be paramount. In sum, Defendants have not shown that applying the Flores Agreement “prospectively is no longer equitable[,]” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5), or that “manifest injustice” will result if the Agreement is not modified, see United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). Of course, the parties are always free to meet and confer regarding any contractual amendments on which they can mutually agree. This is basic contract law. In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES the Ex Parte Application because it is procedurally improper and wholly without merit. IT IS SO ORDERED. CV-90 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk KT Case Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 39 of 189 Exhibit Case Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 40 of 189 The Situation Room a @CNNSitRoom "We have nothing to hide about how we operate these facilities it is one of the great acts of American generosity and charity, what we are doing for these unaccompanied kids" HHS Secretary Alex Azar says cnn.it/2zrmoNL PM El" i7 BREAKING NEws TRUMP ADMIN MISSING DEADLINE T0 HEUNITE KIDS 3 33 1 02 It views fulfu? 4:01 PM Jul 2018 Case Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 41 of 189 Exhibit Trump's solution for reunifying migrant families: 'Don't come to our country illegally' - P... Page 1 of 3 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 42 of 189    Trump's solution for reunifying migrant families: 'Don't come to our country illegally' By LOUIS NELSON 07/10/2018 09:23 AM EDT President Donald Trump said Tuesday that the solution to the government’s failure to meet a deadline for reunifying separated undocumented parents with their children is for such migrants to stop entering the U.S. illegally in the first place. “Well, I have a solution. Tell people not to come to our country illegally. That's the solution. Don't come to our country illegally. Come like other people do. Come legally,” he told reporters on the White House’s south lawn Tuesday morning as he departed for his https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/10/trump-migrant-families-separated-706144 7/11/2018 Trump's solution for reunifying migrant families: 'Don't come to our country illegally' - P... Page 2 of 3 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 43 of 189 weeklong trip to Europe. “I'm saying this very simply: We have laws. We have borders. Don't come to our country illegally. It's not a good thing.” The president and his administration have come under heavy bipartisan criticism in recent weeks over their policy of referring for criminal prosecution all people crossing the border illegally, a practice that led to the separation of thousands of children from their parents. After initially defending the practice and falsely insisting that only Congress could end it, the president bowed to public pressure and signed an executive order mandating that families be kept together. The most reliable politics newsletter. Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning — in your inbox.  Your email… By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. Despite the president’s order, the status of the already separated families remains unclear, and the Trump administration on Monday missed a court-mandated deadline for reunifying roughly 100 children under the age of 5 with their parents. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, told CNN on Monday that the lack of progress on reunifying families “boggles my mind.” The family separations have prompted calls from some Democrats to abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency whose charges include deportations. Trump, in his Tuesday morning remarks to reporters, slammed calls to do away with ICE. “The people that are fighting ICE, it's a disgrace. These people go into harm's way. There is nobody under greater danger than the people from ICE,” he said. “We ought to support ICE, not do what the Democrats are doing. Democrats want open borders, and they don't mind crime. We want no crime, and we want borders where borders mean something, all right?” About Us Advertising https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/10/trump-migrant-families-separated-706144 7/11/2018 Trump's solution for reunifying migrant families: 'Don't come to our country illegally' - P... Page 3 of 3 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 44 of 189 Breaking News Alerts Careers Credit Card Payments Digital Edition FAQ Feedback Headlines Photos POWERJobs Press Print Subscriptions RSS Site Map Terms of Service Privacy Policy © 2018 POLITICO LLC https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/10/trump-migrant-families-separated-706144 7/11/2018 Case Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 45 of 189 Exhibit Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 46 of 189 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BEFORE HONORABLE DANA M. SABRAW, JUDGE PRESIDING _______________________________________ ) MS. L. AND MS. C., ) )CASE NO. 18CV0428-DMS PETITIONERS-PLAINTIFFS, ) ) VS. ) )SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS )TUESDAY JULY 10, 2018 ENFORCEMENT ("ICE"); U.S. DEPARTMENT ) 11:00 A.M. CALENDAR 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; 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. ) ---------------------------------------REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS STATUS CONFERENCE Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 47 of 189 COUNSEL APPEARING: FOR PLAINTIFF: LEE GELERNT, ESQ. ACLU IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 125 BROAD STREET 18TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10004 BADIS VAKILI, ESQ. ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES P.O. BOX 87131 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92138 STEPHAN B. KANG, ESQ. ACLU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 39 DRUMM STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 FOR DEFENDANT: SARAH B. FABIAN, ESQ. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION P.O. BOX 868 BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, DC 20044 ADAM L. BRAVERMAN INTERIM UNITED STATES ATTORNEY BY: SAM BETTWY ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY 880 FRONT STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 REPORTED BY: LEE ANN PENCE, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 333 WEST BROADWAY, ROOM 1393 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 48 of 189 1 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA - TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2018 - 11:07 A.M. * 2 3 3 * * NO. 1 ON CALENDAR, CASE NO.18CV0428, THE CLERK: 4 MS. L. VERSUS U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; ON FOR 5 STATUS CONFERENCE. GOOD MORNING. 6 THE COURT: 7 MAY I HAVE APPEARANCES, PLEASE? 8 MR. GELERNT: 9 GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. GELERNT, FROM THE ACLU, FOR PLAINTIFFS. STEPHAN KANG, YOUR HONOR, FOR PLAINTIFFS. 10 MR. KANG: 11 MR. BALAKRISHNAN: 12 THE COURT: 14 MR. VAKILI: 16 17 18 19 GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. ANAND BALAKRISHNAN FOR PLAINTIFFS. 13 15 LEE THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. BARDIS GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. SARAH VAKILI FOR PLAINTIFFS. MS. FABIAN: FABIAN, WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FOR DEFENDANTS. MR. STEWART: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. SCOTT STEWART FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THANK YOU. AND GOOD MORNING. 20 THE COURT: 21 I HAVE READ ALL OF THE BRIEFING THAT WAS SUBMITTED, 22 23 WHICH I APPRECIATE. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS PROVIDE A NUMBER OF 24 RULINGS FROM THE BENCH SO THAT THE PARTIES HAVE THE BENEFIT OF 25 THE COURT'S DETERMINATIONS AND CAN PROCEED ACCORDINGLY. JULY 10, 2018 AND Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 49 of 189 4 1 THEN I WILL ISSUE A SHORT WRITTEN ORDER LATER TODAY SETTING 2 OUT THE DETERMINATIONS THAT I AM GOING TO MAKE IN A MOMENT. 3 ON THE CLASS NOTICE ISSUE, I AM GOING TO ADOPT THE 4 PLAINTIFFS' VERSION, SO THAT NOTICE MAY ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE 5 WITH THE PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSAL. 6 ON THE BALANCE OF THE ISSUES, I INTEND TO STAND ON 7 THE DEADLINE ON MOST OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN 8 IDENTIFIED OF THE UNDER-FIVE GROUP, AND WOULD BE ADOPTING IN 9 SIGNIFICANT PART A STREAMLINED APPROACH. 10 AND THE REASONS FOR THAT IS, WHEN ONE LOOKS TO THE 11 MANNER IN WHICH ICE MAKES THESE CONSIDERATIONS, SO IF WE STEP 12 BACK IN TIME AND WE LOOK AT THE CASES OF MS. L. AND MS. C. 13 SPECIFICALLY, THESE INDIVIDUALS GO INTO ICE DETENTION. 14 ARRIVE AS A FAMILY UNIT, AND ICE MAKES DETERMINATIONS AS TO 15 WHETHER TO KEEP THE FAMILY TOGETHER OR TO SEPARATE THEM. THEY 16 AND WHEN THIS CASE WAS INITIATED, MR. ORTIZ, MARIO 17 ORTIZ, FILED A DECLARATION WITH THE COURT ON MARCH 15, 2018. 18 AND MR. ORTIZ IS A DETENTION OFFICER FOR THE SAN DIEGO 19 DISTRICT OF ICE, THE ENFORCEMENT AND REMOVAL OPERATIONS 20 DIVISION, SINCE 1996. 21 PROCEDURES THAT ERO SAN DIEGO FAMILY UNIT CURRENTLY FOLLOWS. 22 AND THAT FAMILY UNIT ENDEAVORS TO DO PRECISELY WHAT WE ARE 23 TRYING TO DO IN A CONTEXT THAT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE 24 CONTEXT, AGAIN, IS THE APPREHENSION OF FAMILY UNITS, AND THEN 25 A DETERMINATION AT THAT TIME WITH THE INFORMATION THAT IS HE SET OUT IN HIS DECLARATION THE JULY 10, 2018 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 50 of 189 1 2 5 AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME WHETHER TO SEPARATE OR NOT. AND WHAT HE SAYS IS THE FOLLOWING, AND I AM GOING TO 3 QUOTE FROM HIS DECLARATION IN PERTINENT PARTS: WHEN ALIENS 4 WHO ENTER ICE CUSTODY CLAIM TO BE PARENT AND CHILD, THEY ARE 5 REFERRED TO THE FAMILY UNIT. 6 IS TO MAKE APPROPRIATE PLACEMENT DECISIONS FOR ALIENS 7 TRAVELING WITH CHILDREN WHO CLAIM FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS. 8 ALIENS CLAIMING A PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP ARE ENCOUNTERED, 9 MY UNIT'S PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS ARE, FIRST, WHETHER THERE IS 10 ANY DOUBT ABOUT WHETHER THEY ARE PARENT AND CHILD AND, SECOND, 11 WHETHER THERE IS INFORMATION THAT CAUSES A CONCERN ABOUT THE 12 WELFARE OF THE CHILD SUCH AS THE ADULT HAVING A SIGNIFICANT 13 CRIMINAL HISTORY. 14 SPECIFIC CASE, IF THERE ARE NOT CONCERNS ABOUT THE FAMILY 15 RELATIONSHIP OR WELFARE OF THE CHILD, THE ALIENS MAY BE 16 DETAINED IN A FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CENTER OR, IF APPROPRIATE, 17 RELEASED TO A SPONSOR OR NONGOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION. 18 ARE CONCERNS, THE CHILD MAY BE TRANSFERRED TO O.R.R. THE MISSION OF THE FAMILY UNIT WHEN BASED ON THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN A IF THERE 19 AND I THINK, GIVEN THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT, 20 THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THIS PRACTICE THAT ICE HAS USED 21 FOR MANY YEARS HAS NOT WORKED SUCCESSFULLY. 22 MAKING THESE KINDS OF DETERMINATIONS FOR YEARS. 23 BEEN SUBJECT TO THE TVPRA, WHICH IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT 24 STATUTORY CONSTRUCT THAT IS DESIGNED FOR A DIFFERENT 25 SITUATION. JULY 10, 2018 THEY HAVE BEEN THEY HAVE NOT Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 51 of 189 6 THE TVPRA, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED THROUGHOUT THIS 1 2 LITIGATION, IT WAS PRINCIPALLY PROMULGATED TO DEAL WITH 3 UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN WHO CROSSED ON THEIR OWN, WERE 4 APPREHENDED, AND THEN THE GOVERNMENT HAD TO TAKE CUSTODY AND 5 CARE OF THOSE CHILDREN. AND IN FULFILLING THAT OBLIGATION IT WAS FUNCTIONING 6 7 MUCH LIKE FOSTER CARE FACILITIES DO OR STATE AND COUNTY 8 GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES THAT ARE LOOKING AFTER THE WELFARE OF A 9 CHILD, IT WAS FUNCTIONING AS A CHILD WELFARE AGENCY. AND IN 10 MAKING PLACEMENTS OFTENTIMES THERE ARE NOT PARENTS AVAILABLE 11 BECAUSE THESE ARE CHILDREN WHO CAME OVER ON THEIR OWN, SO THEY 12 ARE LOOKING TO PLACE CHILDREN OFTENTIMES WITH NONPARENT 13 CUSTODIANS. 14 FULFILL THOSE OBLIGATIONS CAREFULLY, THROUGH A RELATIVELY 15 TIME-INTENSIVE PROCESS OF INTERVIEWING SPONSORS, LOOKING INTO 16 THE FAMILY SITUATION, RUNNING BACKGROUND CHECKS; ALL OF THOSE 17 THINGS THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT WHEN YOU PLACE A CHILD IN LIKE A 18 FOSTER HOME TYPE ENVIRONMENT. AND IT ONLY MAKES SENSE THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO THAT'S NOT THE CONTEXT HERE. WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE IS THE CONTEXT IN 19 20 WHICH THE SEPARATIONS OCCURRED, AND THAT IS GOING BACK TO THE 21 CLASS DEFINITION THAT THESE ARE CHILDREN WHO ARRIVED WITH A 22 PARENT. 23 AND SO, NECESSARILY, THE DETERMINATION OUGHT TO BE, 24 AND IN PARTICULAR IN LIGHT OF THE CLAIMS IN THIS CASE THAT 25 THESE FAMILIES WERE IMPROPERLY SEPARATED, THE DETERMINATION JULY 10, 2018 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 52 of 189 7 1 OUGHT TO BE WHETHER THERE IS ANYTHING ABOUT THE PARENT THAT 2 RENDERS THAT PARENT UNFIT OR A DANGER. 3 ASSUMES THEY ARE THE PARENT. 4 MADE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT ICE HAS BEEN DOING ALL ALONG. 5 THIS, OF COURSE, AND THOSE CONSIDERATIONS CAN BE IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ADOPT WHOLESALE THE TVPRA AND 6 PLUG IT INTO THIS CONTEXT, WHICH IS COMPLETELY DISSIMILAR TO 7 THE UNACCOMPANIED MINOR SITUATION. 8 9 THE GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE FAMILIES WERE SEPARATED, HAS AN AFFIRMATIVE OBLIGATION TO 10 REUNIFY, TO DO IT EFFICIENTLY AND TO DO IT SAFELY. 11 CHILD'S INTEREST IS PARAMOUNT. 12 WHOLESALE ADOPTION OF THE TVPRA PROCEDURES. 13 THE BUT IT CAN BE DONE WITHOUT A AND I AM MAKING THESE ASSUMPTIONS, GIVEN THE BENEFIT 14 OF THE BRIEFING, THAT WHAT IS AT ISSUE ARE A NUMBER OF POLICY 15 CONSIDERATIONS. 16 RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY. 17 WAY WITH A FEDERAL STATUTE OR RULES THAT HAVE BEEN PROMULGATED 18 THROUGH THE APA AND OTHER FORMALIZED PROCEDURES. 19 POLICIES THAT THE HHS HAS ADOPTED, IS THE UNDERSTANDING I HAVE 20 FROM THE BRIEFING, TO FULFILL ITS MISSION UNDER THE TVPRA FOR 21 UNACCOMPANIED MINOR CHILDREN. IT IS NOT THE STATUTE ITSELF, IT IS NOT SO THE COURT IS NOT INTERVENING IN ANY THESE ARE 22 THAT'S THE ESSENTIAL BACKGROUND. 23 HERE THE PARTIES HAVE INDICATED THAT THERE IS ONLY 24 ONE STATUTORY PROVISION WHICH WOULD APPLY, AND THAT IS WHERE 25 THE TVPRA REQUIRES HOME STUDIES WHERE THERE ARE INDICATIONS OF JULY 10, 2018 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 53 of 189 8 1 TRAFFICKING OR ABUSE UNDER 8, USC, SECTION 1232(C)(3)(B), AND 2 THAT WOULD BE LEFT UNINTERRUPTED BY TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS AND 3 THE INJUNCTION THAT IS IN PLACE. 4 CONSIDERATIONS, IF THERE IS EVIDENCE OF TRAFFICKING OR ABUSE, 5 THOSE PARENTS ARE NOT GOING TO BE IN THIS CLASS, IN ANY EVENT. 6 SO I THINK WHAT'S IN PLACE WITH THE CLASS DEFINITION AND IN ADDITION THOSE 7 AND THE PROPOSALS THAT THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE SET OUT, BY AND 8 LARGE, AND THAT ICE HAS USED FOR MANY YEARS, IS COMPLETELY 9 CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE TVPRA; BUT IS MUCH MORE 10 SUITABLE FOR THE SPECIFIC CONTEXT OF THIS CASE, AND THAT IS 11 FAMILY SEPARATION AT THE BORDER, FAMILY UNITS ARRIVING 12 TOGETHER. 13 WITH THAT BACKGROUND, LET ME RUN THROUGH THE AREAS 14 OF DISPUTE. AND WITH AN INDICATION THAT THERE IS STILL MUCH 15 TIME LEFT TODAY, THAT THESE REUNIFICATIONS OCCUR. 16 ARE FIRM DEADLINES, THEY ARE NOT ASPIRATIONAL GOALS. 17 WE GO THROUGH I CAN BE MORE SPECIFIC AS TO WHO IS IN THE CLASS 18 AND WHO IS NOT, AND WHICH PARENTS AND CHILDREN WE WOULD BE 19 FOCUSING ON FOR PURPOSES OF REUNIFICATION TODAY. THAT THESE AND AS 20 THE FIRST AREA OF DISPUTE RELATES TO DNA. 21 GOVERNMENT IS INDICATING THAT IT WOULD LIKE TO TAKE DNA CHEEK 22 SWABS FROM EVERYONE. 23 THE AND HERE THAT RELATES -- ACCORDING TO THE PRESENT 24 NUMBERS, 34 FAMILIES ARE READY TO BE REUNITED TODAY. 25 OTHERS ARE LIKELY TO BE REUNITED. 17 16 ARE PENDING CONFIRMATION JULY 10, 2018 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 54 of 189 1 OF PARENTAGE, AND SO THAT MAY BE THE GROUP THAT THIS DNA 2 TESTING RELATES TO. 9 BUT AS TO THAT AREA OF DISPUTE, I WOULD PERMIT DNA 3 4 TESTING, WHEN NECESSARY, WHEN THERE IS A LEGITIMATE, GOOD 5 FAITH CONCERN ABOUT PARENTAGE, OR IF THERE IS A LEGITIMATE 6 CONCERN THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT MEET THE REUNIFICATION 7 DEADLINE, AND THAT MAY BE THE SITUATION WE ARE HERE IN TODAY. 8 THEN THE GOVERNMENT, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PARENT, CAN TAKE 9 A DNA SAMPLE, SUBJECT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER THAT IS PROPOSED 10 BY THE PARTIES. I THINK THE PROTECTIVE ORDER COMPLETELY PROVIDES THE 11 12 NECESSARY PROTECTION WITH RESPECT TO HOW DNA SAMPLING MAY BE 13 USED. 14 SAMPLING IS DESTROYED WITHIN SEVEN DAYS AND IT IS NOT USED FOR 15 ANY OTHER PURPOSE. 16 THERE HAS TO BE CONSENT BY THE PARENT, AND THEN THE SO WITH THAT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT 17 IS USING THE DNA TESTING ONLY WHEN NECESSARY AND/OR WHEN 18 NECESSARY TO MEET COURT-IMPOSED DEADLINES, THAT IT MAY BE 19 DONE, SUBJECT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER. 20 MS. FABIAN: CAN I ASK A POINT OF CLARIFICATION? 21 THE COURT: LET ME RUN THROUGH THESE, AND THEN WE 22 23 24 25 CAN GO BACK AND CLARIFY AS NECESSARY. THE SECOND AREA RELATES TO RESTRICTIONS ON HHS INFORMATION-GATHERING ABOUT CHILD WELFARE. HERE, I WOULD ADOPT A STREAMLINE APPROACH, NOT THE JULY 10, 2018 10 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 55 of 189 1 TVPRA STANDARD. 2 THE TVPRA, FROM ITS INCEPTION, IS ALL ABOUT A CUSTODIAN 3 APPLYING AND SEEKING APPROVAL TO BE A SPONSOR OR A RECOGNIZED 4 CUSTODIAN; THIS IS NOT THAT SITUATION. 5 THAT, IN THIS CONTEXT, IS BACKWARDS, BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS AN OBLIGATION TO REUNIFY CHILD 6 WITH PARENT. 7 IN THIS CONTEXT. 8 IT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION TO MAKE IT SO, UNLESS THERE 9 ARE ISSUES OF FITNESS OR DANGER. 10 THE IDEA OF AN APPLICATION PROCESS DOESN'T FIT THE PARENT HAS A RIGHT TO BE REUNIFIED AND SO ON ADDITIONAL INFORMATION-GATHERING, THAT WOULD 11 NOT BE NECESSARY IN THE UNIQUE CONTEXT OF THIS CASE. 12 NOT THE ORDINARY TVPRA TYPE OF CASE. 13 THIS IS IN ADDITION, IF THE GOVERNMENT IS AWARE OF 14 INFORMATION BEFORE THE COURT-IMPOSED DEADLINE THAT RAISES 15 ISSUES OF FITNESS OR DANGER -- AND THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES 16 THAT HAVE BEEN SET OUT IN THE PARTIES' FILINGS TODAY OF 17 PARENTS THAT PRESENT ISSUES OF FITNESS OR DANGER -- 18 REUNIFICATION DOES NOT HAVE TO OCCUR TODAY. 19 CAN WITHHOLD REUNIFICATION, AGAIN ASSUMING ABSOLUTE GOOD FAITH 20 AND ARTICULABLE REASONS FOR IT. 21 THEN -- WILL THEN BE IMMEDIATELY PROVIDED TO PLAINTIFFS' 22 COUNSEL SO THAT THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THE 23 GOVERNMENT'S DETERMINATION. 24 25 THE GOVERNMENT AND THAT INFORMATION IS AND I WILL COME TO THE PROCESS BY WHICH WE WILL RESOLVE ANY OF THESE DISPUTES, BUT I AM OPTIMISTIC THAT MOST JULY 10, 2018 11 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 56 of 189 1 ALL WILL RESOLVE THROUGH THE MEET-AND-CONFER PROCESS. THE THIRD AREA RELATES TO BACKGROUND CHECKS ON OTHER 2 3 ADULTS IN THE HOUSEHOLD. THIS GOES TO THIS IDEA OF IF WE ARE 4 GOING TO PLACE AN UNACCOMPANIED MINOR WHO SHOWED UP ON HIS OWN 5 AND WAS APPREHENDED, WE ARE NOT GOING TO PUT HIM OR HER IN A 6 HOME UNLESS WE KNOW ABOUT EVERYONE IN THE HOME. THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT NEEDING 7 8 TO RETURN A CHILD TO HIS OR HER PARENT, ASSUMING THE PARENT IS 9 FIT AND NOT A DANGER. THESE PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR 10 OWN CHILDREN, AND MANY OF THESE DETERMINATIONS, WE MUST 11 ASSUME, ARE SUBJECT TO THE PARENTS' JUDGMENT AND 12 CONSIDERATION. 13 SO I WOULD ADOPT A STREAMLINE APPROACH HERE. 14 AND THERE MAY BE INDIVIDUALS -- THE GOVERNMENT HAS 15 IDENTIFIED SEVERAL PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS WHO HAVE CRIMINAL 16 HISTORY: 17 ENDANGERMENT, ANOTHER IS NARCOTICS TRAFFICKING, ANOTHER HAS A 18 PENDING OR AN ALLEGED HOMICIDE. 19 OUTSIDE OF THE CLASS. 20 NECESSARILY ADDRESS MANY OF THE GOVERNMENT'S LEGITIMATE 21 CONCERNS ABOUT PROTECTING THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN. 22 ONE IS ALIEN SMUGGLING, ANOTHER IS CHILD THESE INDIVIDUALS FALL SO THE CLASS DEFINITION WILL AND IF THE GOVERNMENT HAS SPECIFIC INFORMATION THERE 23 IS -- FOR EXAMPLE, THERE IS AN IDENTIFICATION OF A PARENT, A 24 SITUATION WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL IN ONE OF THE HOUSEHOLDS HAS AN 25 OUTSTANDING WARRANT FOR AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL SEXUAL ABUSE. JULY 10, 2018 THE 12 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 57 of 189 1 GOVERNMENT HAS A LOT OF INFORMATION, A LOT OF RESOURCES 2 AVAILABLE. 3 IS NOT A NEED TO REUNIFY. 4 GOVERNMENT PROPERLY WITHHOLDING REUNIFICATION, ADDRESSING IT 5 WITH PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL. 6 CANNOT BE RESOLVED BETWEEN THE PARTIES, BRINGING IT TO THE 7 ATTENTION OF THE COURT FOR RESOLUTION. 8 9 10 11 WHEN THAT KIND OF INFORMATION COMES FORWARD THERE THAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF THE AND THEN, IF NECESSARY, IF IT BUT THE TVPRA PROCESS OF THE FULL BACKGROUND CHECK OF EVERYONE IN THE HOUSEHOLD IS NOT NECESSARY UNDER THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. NUMBER FOUR IS PROOF OF ADDRESS, SPONSOR CARE PLANS, 12 AND ALTERNATE CAREGIVERS. 13 THESE AREAS ARE NOT OBJECTED TO IN PART. 14 OBJECTION TO PROVIDING PROOF OF ADDRESS BUT THERE IS OBJECTION 15 TO A SPONSOR CARE PLAN. 16 OBJECTION. 17 THERE IS NO OBJECTION. MANY OF HERE THERE IS NO AND I WOULD AGREE OR SUSTAIN THAT HERE AGAIN, THE PARENTS ARE NOT APPLYING FOR -- THEY 18 DON'T HAVE TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE A GOOD SPONSOR. 19 WHAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO LOOK TO IS WHETHER THE PARENT IS 20 UNFIT OR A DANGER, SO IT IS GOING ABOUT IT A DIFFERENT WAY. 21 THE TVPRA, WITH RESPECT TO THESE INDIVIDUAL CLASS 22 MEMBERS, IS BACKWARDS. AND FOR THOSE REASONS I WOULD AGREE 23 WITH PLAINTIFFS ON A STREAMLINED APPROACH. 24 AND HERE AGAIN, IF THERE IS ANY INFORMATION THAT THE 25 GOVERNMENT HAS THAT GIVES CONCERNS, IT CAN BE PROPERLY BROUGHT JULY 10, 2018 13 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 58 of 189 1 TO THE ATTENTION OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL AND THE COURT AT A 2 LATER TIME. 3 THE FIFTH AREA RELATES TO LEGAL ORIENTATION AND 4 SPONSOR CARE AGREEMENT. 5 LEGAL ORIENTATION PROGRAMS AND/OR SIGNING A SPONSOR CARE 6 AGREEMENT SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT DELAY REUNIFICATION. 7 AGREE WITH THAT. 8 9 10 11 12 13 THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO ATTENDING AND I SO REUNIFICATION WOULD BE PRIMARY, AND THEN SIGNING ON TO LEGAL ORIENTATION AND SPONSOR CARE AGREEMENTS CAN BE DONE AT A LATER TIME, AFTER REUNIFICATION. THE FINAL AREA IS WHERE A CHILD MAY PRESENT A DANGER TO HIM OR HERSELF OR TO OTHERS. THIS IS NOT A CONCERN FOR CHILDREN UNDER AGE FIVE, 14 IT IS A CONCERN FOR CHILDREN OVER AGE FIVE. AND PROBABLY THE 15 TARGET GROUP HERE WOULD BE CHILDREN OVER AGE 12. 16 INVITE THE PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER ON THAT. BUT I WOULD 17 HERE AGAIN, IF THE GOVERNMENT HAS ARTICULABLE 18 REASONS OF A CHILD -- AND WHAT COMES TO MIND WOULD BE A 19 TEENAGER WHO PRESENTS A DANGER TO HIMSELF OR OTHERS. 20 GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO BE FREE TO MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS, 21 PROPERLY SO, AND TO KEEP THAT CHILD IN SECURE CUSTODY, NOT BE 22 REUNIFIED. 23 THE BUT HERE AGAIN WHAT I WOULD EXPECT IS THE PARTIES 24 MEET AND CONFER. THERE WOULD LIKELY BE AGREEMENT. 25 THE PARTIES CAN BRING THE MATTER TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION. JULY 10, 2018 IF NOT, 14 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 59 of 189 1 AND AS FAR AS THE PROCESS, I WOULD LIKE THE PROCESS TO 2 CONTINUE, OF COURSE, AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS IT HAS BEEN. 3 COURSE WITH A PARAMOUNT FOCUS BEING ON THE CHILDREN'S WELFARE. 4 BUT THAT CAN BE DONE IN THE MANNER WHICH THE COURT HAS 5 ADDRESSED THESE ISSUES. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COUNSEL BE AVAILABLE FROM HERE 6 7 THROUGH THE REUNIFICATION PROCESS. 8 AVAILABLE. 9 REPORTS AND STATUS CONFERENCES. 10 AND OF THE COURT WILL BE I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO HAVE REGULAR STATUS AND I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT IN OPEN COURT. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE YOU, MS. FABIAN, OR YOU, MR. 11 12 GELERNT, IT COULD BE SOME OF THESE ABLE BODIES NEXT TO YOU. 13 BUT I WOULD LIKE A PERSON IN COURT WHO CAN STAND UP AND MAKE 14 REPRESENTATIONS, AND OTHERS CAN PARTICIPATE TELEPHONICALLY. 15 BUT I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT ON A REGULAR BASIS. THERE IS A LOT OF WORK TO DO WITH RESPECT TO THE 16 17 OVER-FIVE GROUP. AND I AM ANTICIPATING THAT A LOT OF THAT 18 WORK IS WELL UNDERWAY, AND IT WILL CONTINUE ALONG THE LINES 19 THAT WE HAVE SET OUT HERE WITH THE UNDER-FIVE GROUP. WHAT I AM CONTEMPLATING IS THAT AS WE GO THROUGH 20 21 THIS PROCESS -- AND IT WOULD START WITH BOTH THE UNDER-FIVE 22 AND THEN THE OVER-FIVE GROUP -- IS WHERE THE PARTIES MEET AND 23 CONFER. 24 TO FIVE PAGES. 25 LETTER BRIEF. IF THERE IS SOME DISPUTE, YOU CAN SUBMIT BRIEFING UP IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE FANCY, IT CAN BE A IT CAN JUST GET RIGHT TO THE ISSUES SETTING OUT JULY 10, 2018 15 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 60 of 189 1 THE PARTIES' BASIC POSITIONS. I WOULD REQUEST A JOINT FILING 2 ON ANY DISPUTE, SO UP TO TEN PAGES TOTAL, FIVE AND FIVE. AND THE COURT WOULD EITHER CONVENE A STATUS 3 4 CONFERENCE TELEPHONICALLY OR I WOULD SIMPLY RULE ON THE BRIEF 5 THAT IS SUBMITTED, AND WE CAN GO CASE BY CASE. BUT I AM VERY OPTIMISTIC THAT THAT WILL BE SELDOMLY 6 7 USED. 8 THE SAME DIRECTION HERE, AND IT IS JUST A MATTER OF, I THINK, 9 STREAMLINING THE PROCESS AND PROVIDING CLEAR DIRECTION AS TO 10 11 12 13 THAT WOULD BE MY EXPECTATION. EVERYONE IS ROWING IN HOW THE GOVERNMENT WILL PROCEED. I HAVE JUST A FEW FINAL COMMENTS, AND THEN WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FOR CLARIFICATION. THERE ARE, DEPENDING ON HOW ONE COUNTS, EITHER 101 14 OR 102 IN THIS UNDER-FIVE GROUP. 15 TODAY'S SUBMISSION, 75 OF THIS GROUP ARE ELIGIBLE FOR 16 REUNIFICATION. 17 BY MY COUNT, BASED ON 63 ARE ELIGIBLE FOR REUNIFICATION TODAY. 14 PARENTS ARE NOT IN THE CLASS. EIGHT HAVE 18 CRIMINAL HISTORY THAT PRECLUDES THEM, FIVE ARE NOT THE 19 PARENTS, AND ONE THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS IT HAS CREDIBLE 20 EVIDENCE OF CHILD ABUSE AND IS THEREFORE A DANGER OR UNFIT AND 21 WOULD FALL OUTSIDE OF THE CLASS. 22 THAT'S 14. THERE ARE 12 OTHERS THAT FALL -- WELL, THERE ARE TWO 23 OTHERS THAT PRESENTLY FALL OUT OF THE CLASS. ONE IS 24 CHARACTERIZED AS PRESENTING A DANGER, ONE AS HAVING A 25 COMMUNICABLE DISEASE. THE ONE WITH THE COMMUNICABLE DISEASE, JULY 10, 2018 16 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 61 of 189 1 THE PARTIES RECOGNIZE WHEN THAT MATTER IS ADDRESSED, HOPEFULLY 2 SUCCESSFULLY FROM A MEDICAL STANDPOINT, THEN REUNIFICATION CAN 3 OCCUR AT AN APPROPRIATE TIME. TEN MEMBERS OF THE CLASS ARE IN CRIMINAL CUSTODY, 4 5 STATE OR FEDERAL. 6 THIS POINT IN TIME, BUT THEY WOULD BE ONCE THEY ARE RELEASED 7 TO ICE DETENTION. SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO WAIT. THERE ARE 12 THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED. 8 9 THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REUNIFICATION AT THEY ARE PART OF THE CLASS, THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO REUNIFICATION, BUT AT A 10 LATER TIME. THAT REQUIRES A SEPARATE DISCUSSION, AND THERE 11 ARE MORE COMPLICATING ISSUES THAT HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED WITH 12 THOSE 12. 13 TO BE REUNITED, ABSENT THEIR CONSENT OTHERWISE. BUT THEY ARE PART OF THE CLASS AND THEY DO DESERVE 14 SO THAT LEAVES 63. 15 THE GOVERNMENT HAS INDICATED -- AND TO RESTATE THIS. 16 OF THE GROUP OF 101 OR 102, 75 ARE SUBJECT TO BEING REUNITED. 17 12 OF THOSE ARE REMOVED AND WILL TAKE SOME TIME. 18 THERE ARE 63 THAT I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS ON TODAY. 19 THE GOVERNMENT HAS INDICATED THAT 34 ARE READY, AND 20 THEY WILL BE REUNITED TODAY. THERE ARE 17 OTHERS THAT ARE IN ICE DETENTION. 21 16 22 NEED CONFIRMATION OF PARENTAGE, AND ONE HAS CRIMINAL HISTORY 23 PENDING. 24 25 AND IT SEEMS TO ME WITH THE PROCEDURES SET OUT TODAY THAT THOSE 17 CAN BE ADDRESSED AND REUNITED TODAY, OR WITHIN JULY 10, 2018 17 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 62 of 189 1 2 3 4 THE IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY OF TODAY. THERE ARE EIGHT THAT HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM ICE, AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THEY CAN BE REUNITED TODAY, AS WELL. AND SO IN THAT REGARD WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS 5 MEET AGAIN THIS FRIDAY AT 1:00 O'CLOCK, WITH THE PARTIES TO 6 SUBMIT A STATUS REPORT THURSDAY BY 3:00 P.M., PACIFIC TIME, 7 GIVING AN UPDATE ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNDER-FIVE GROUP AND 8 GIVING A STATUS ON THE OVER-FIVE GROUP, WHICH IS -- THAT'S 9 GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT UNDERTAKING. AND WE NEED TO HAVE 10 CONCRETE INFORMATION BY THURSDAY SO THAT MR. GELERNT AND 11 OTHERS CAN MAKE INTELLIGENT AND INFORMED DECISIONS AS TO 12 WHETHER THERE IS COMPLIANCE AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO MAKE 13 REUNIFICATION HAPPEN. 14 WE NEED ANOTHER LIST OF THE OVER-FIVE GROUP. 15 GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT UNDERTAKING. 16 INDIVIDUAL LIST, IT MAY BE BY CATEGORY. 17 HAVE THE PARTIES MEET AND CONFER IN THAT REGARD. 18 THAT'S IT MAY BE AN I WILL JUST SIMPLY IF THERE IS A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE UNDER-FIVE 19 GROUP THEN, MR. GELERNT, WHAT I ASK THAT YOU DO IS PUT THAT IN 20 THE THURSDAY SUBMISSION AND WE CAN ADDRESS IT ON FRIDAY. 21 IF YOU BELIEVE THERE IS A FAILURE TO COMPLY -- AND HERE I AM 22 REALLY FOCUSING ON THE 63. 23 MR. GELERNT: 24 THE COURT: 25 AND RIGHT. IF THERE IS A FAILURE TO COMPLY I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IT IS AND WHAT YOU ARE SEEKING BY WAY OF JULY 10, 2018 18 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 63 of 189 1 2 3 REMEDY. AND WITH THAT, MR. GELERNT, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I THINK THE GOVERNMENT MAY HAVE MORE 4 MR. GELERNT: 5 QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR. 6 HAD A COUPLE OF JUST CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 THAT ALL SEEMS FINE TO US. I THINK I WHEN YOU WERE SAYING 101 OR 102 WAS THAT BECAUSE OF THE ONE CHILD WHO THEY HAVEN'T IDENTIFIED? THE COURT: YES. THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING THAT. DO WE HAVE ANY -- THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE IS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT PUT IN ITS LAST BRIEFING? MR. GELERNT: RIGHT. AND WE ARE TRYING TO MOBILIZE EVERYONE WE CAN JUST TO FIGURE IT OUT. I DON'T KNOW IF THE GOVERNMENT HAS MORE INFORMATION 15 ABOUT THAT ONE CHILD THAT THEY GOT THIS MORNING THAT WE ARE 16 NOT AWARE OF. 17 18 19 THE COURT: THERE WAS INFORMATION THAT THAT CHILD MAY BE A U.S. CITIZEN. MS. FABIAN: IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE PARENT MAY BE A 20 U.S. CITIZEN AND THERE WAS A CRIMINAL HISTORY WITH THE PARENT. 21 BUT THAT -- BASED ON THAT IT MAY BE THAT THE CHILD IS ALSO A 22 U.S. CITIZEN. 23 INTO THAT. SO THAT IS -- I THINK THE CLIENTS ARE LOOKING 24 SO IT MAY BE THAT THE PARENT IS NOT A CLASS MEMBER, 25 BUT IN ANY EVENT THEY ARE LOOKING INTO THE SITUATION WITH THE JULY 10, 2018 19 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 64 of 189 1 CHILD TO RESOLVE IT, EVEN OUTSIDE OF THIS LITIGATION. IS THERE A LINK-UP; SO, IN OTHER WORDS, 2 THE COURT: 3 DO YOU KNOW WHO THE PARENT IS? 4 MS. FABIAN: YEAH. I BELIEVE SO. THAT THEY HAVE 5 NOW IDENTIFIED THE PERSON THEY BELIEVE IS THE PARENT, AND THAT 6 IS SORT OF -- THAT'S WHY WE WERE ABLE TO GIVE THE ADDITIONAL 7 INFORMATION IN TODAY'S FILING. 8 THE COURT: 9 WE WILL ADDRESS IT ON FRIDAY. SO ON THAT CHILD I WILL SIMPLY WAIT AND THAT'S FINE, YOUR HONOR. 10 MR. GELERNT: 11 WE WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU GIVE US AND LATEST 12 INFORMATION ON THAT, WHENEVER YOU HAVE IT. 13 A U.S. CITIZEN THEY SHOULD BE -- RIGHT. 14 MS. FABIAN: SURE. OBVIOUSLY IF IT IS WE ARE LOOKING INTO THAT 15 SITUATION. IT MAY NOT THEN BE INVOLVED IN THIS LITIGATION, 16 BUT BECAUSE WE ARE AWARE OF IT, OF COURSE WE WILL TRY TO 17 RESOLVE IT IN THE CORRECT WAY. 18 THE COURT: 19 MS. FABIAN: YES. AND IF THE CHILD IS A U.S. CITIZEN THEY 20 ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO STAY IN O.R.R. CUSTODY SO THEY -- WE WOULD 21 DO THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR A RELEASE. 22 23 THE COURT: MS. FABIAN, ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE COVERED? 24 MS. FABIAN: 25 THE COURT: I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. YES. JULY 10, 2018 20 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 65 of 189 1 AND THEN MR. STEWART DOES -- WE HAVE MS. FABIAN: 2 ONE ISSUE THAT WE WANTED TO RAISE TO THE COURT TODAY THAT HAS 3 COME UP IN LIGHT OF JUDGE GEE'S RULING IN THE FLORES CASE, SO 4 MR. STEWART WILL SPEAK TO THAT. 5 THE COURT: 6 MS. FABIAN: YES. BUT I WANTED TO RAISE A COUPLE OF 7 ISSUES JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I AM UNDERSTANDING THE COURT'S 8 RULING. 9 THE DNA, YOUR HONOR HAD NOTED THAT IT SHOULD BE 10 CONDUCTED WHEN NECESSARY. BASED ON THE DEADLINE OF TODAY, YOU 11 HAD ALSO EXPRESSED THAT IT COULD BE -- IT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE 12 WHEN NECESSARY TO MEET THE DEADLINE. 13 FOR THE 16 WHO ARE STILL PENDING DNA THEY HAVE -- IT 14 IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY HAVE IN FACT BEEN TESTED BUT THE 15 TEST RESULTS HAVE NOT BEEN RECEIVED. 16 SO THE QUESTION -- I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT I 17 EXPECT -- SOME OF THOSE HAVE COME IN OVER THE COURSE OF THE 18 MORNING AND FOLKS HAVE MOVED INTO THE RELEASE-TODAY GROUP. 19 EXPECTATION WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD CONTINUE TO DO THAT AS 20 THOSE RESULTS COME IN. 21 THEY WOULD MOVE INTO THAT GROUP. 22 MIGHT BE TOMORROW. 23 CONSISTENT WITH YOUR HONOR'S RULING TODAY. 24 25 MY ASSUMING THAT THEY ARE POSITIVE, THAT THAT MIGHT BE TODAY, IT I WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THAT IS THE COURT: I AM ASSUMING THOSE ARE RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD, SIMPLE TESTS, THAT THEY CAN BE PROVIDED OVER JULY 10, 2018 21 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 66 of 189 1 TO THE GOVERNMENT AND DETERMINATIONS CAN BE MADE TODAY. IF 2 THEY ARE PARENTS AND ALL OF THE OTHER CRITERIA ARE MET, THEN I 3 WOULD EXPECT REUNIFICATION TODAY. IF THERE IS A FAILURE, THEN IT WOULD NEED TO BE 4 5 ADDRESSED IN THE THURSDAY STATUS REPORT. 6 I AM LOOKING FOR IS GOOD FAITH, LEGITIMATE, ARTICULABLE 7 REASONS FOR ANY FAILURE TO COMPLY. 8 BE SEEKING. 9 MS. FABIAN: AND, OF COURSE, WHAT AND SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THERE IS 10 JUST SORT OF A TIME PERIOD BETWEEN WHEN THE SWABS ARE TAKEN 11 AND THEY ARE SENT TO THE COMPANY DOING THE TESTS. 12 THE COURT: 13 MS. FABIAN: 14 YES. AND RECEIVING THE RESULTS. SO WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED RESULTS FOR THOSE 16. 15 THE COURT: THEY NEED TO RESPOND. SO THIS IS NOT AN 16 INVITATION FOR THEM TO TAKE TIME DOING THE SWAB, THEY CAN DO 17 IT, THEY CAN DO IT QUICKLY. SO THEY NEED TO BE -- AND I AM SURE THEY ARE AWARE 18 19 OF THE DEADLINE. 20 PROVIDED TODAY; AND, IF NOT, THEN OF COURSE I WILL KEEP AN 21 OPEN MIND AS TO WHAT THE EXPLANATION IS. 22 23 24 25 SO I WOULD EXPECT THAT THESE TESTS WILL BE MS. FABIAN: OKAY. I WILL FIND OUT WHAT THE DELAY IS. I GUESS THE CORE QUESTION IS, IF THEY ARE NOT RECEIVED TODAY IS YOUR HONOR ORDERING THAT THOSE CHILDREN BE JULY 10, 2018 22 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 67 of 189 1 RELEASED, REGARDLESS OF RECEIVING THOSE RESULTS TODAY, OR 2 WOULD YOU PREFER WAIT PENDING RESULTS BUT GIVE YOU AN 3 EXPLANATION FOR THAT DELAY? 4 THE COURT: YES. BECAUSE THE IMPORTANT THING IS NOT 5 TO LOSE SIGHT OF THE CRITERIA, AND I THINK THE CRITERIA ARE 6 VERY CLEAR, THEY ARE OBJECTIVE, AND THEY HAVE BEEN IN PLACE 7 SINCE THE INJUNCTION WAS ISSUED, ABOUT PARENTAGE, FITNESS, 8 DANGER. THOSE CATEGORIES I THINK ARE CLEAR. UNDERSTOOD, YOUR HONOR. 9 MS. FABIAN: 10 MR. GELERNT: 11 THE COURT: 12 MR. GELERNT: YOUR HONOR, COULD I JUST ADDRESS THAT? YES. THE ONE THING WE WOULD ASK IS IT 13 SOUNDS -- I AM NOT SURE BUT COUNSEL FOR GOVERNMENT MAY BE 14 SUGGESTING THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET ALL OF THE DNA TESTS 15 TODAY AND I DON'T -- OR AT LEAST IS NOT ABLE TO PROMISE THAT 16 HERE NOW. THE ONE THING I WOULD SAY IS, YOUR HONOR HAS MADE 17 18 CLEAR THAT DNA TESTING DOESN'T NEED TO BE DONE IN EVERY CASE, 19 IT SHOULD BE DONE WHEN NECESSARY. 20 PARENTS HAD SUBMITTED BIRTH CERTIFICATES AND OTHER 21 DOCUMENTATION, THEN I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THOSE KIDS CAN BE 22 RELEASED. 23 THE COURT HAS SAID THOSE AREN'T NECESSARY IN EVERY CASE. 24 YOU HAVE DOCUMENTATION THAT THE PARENT IS THE PARENT AND THERE 25 IS ALSO -- THE CASE MANAGER WITH THE KID WILL LIKELY HAVE SOME SO IF THOSE 16 KIDS, THOSE BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING THE DNA TEST, NOW JULY 10, 2018 IF 23 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 68 of 189 1 SENSE OF IT, AS WELL. 2 WE WOULD ASK THAT IT NOT BE DELAYED IF THE 16 DNA 3 VERIFICATIONS DON'T COME IN TODAY IF YOU HAVE OTHER WAYS OF 4 VERIFYING THE PARENTAGE. 5 THE COURT: 6 MS. FABIAN: I AGREE. I AGREE WITH THAT AS WELL, YOUR HONOR. 7 AND I SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT. 8 PROCESS THAT IS ONGOING TODAY. 9 I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS ANOTHER SO WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS, IF THERE IS NOT OTHER 10 DOCUMENTATION AND NO RECEIPT OF DNA, THAT WE SHOULD WAIT UNTIL 11 COMPLETION OF THAT PROCESS EVEN IF THAT BRINGS US TO TOMORROW, 12 BUT PROVIDE A DETAILED EXPLANATION TO THE COURT AND TO 13 PLAINTIFFS AS TO WHY THAT WAS. 14 15 16 MR. GELERNT: I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY I DON'T -- THIS MAY BE JUST MORE OF A QUESTION FOR THE GOVERNMENT. IS THE GOVERNMENT USING ONE DNA SERVICE? BECAUSE I 17 KNOW THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF DNA SERVICES WHO ARE REACHING OUT 18 AND SAYING THEY WILL DO THIS, THEY WILL DO IT PRO BONO. 19 IF THINGS ARE GETTING BOTTLED-NECKED BECAUSE THERE 20 IS ONLY ONE DNA SERVICE THE GOVERNMENT IS USING, THAT WOULD 21 ALSO BE SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO RAISE. 22 IT MAY BE NOT AN ISSUE GOING FORWARD BECAUSE THE 23 COURT HAS SAID ONLY USE DNA WHEN NECESSARY IF THERE IS NO 24 OTHER VERIFICATION PROCESS THAT CAN BE -- THAT CAN BE USED. 25 BUT EVEN IF FOR NOW, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHETHER THERE IS A JULY 10, 2018 24 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 69 of 189 1 BOTTLE-NECK OF ONE. 2 THAT IS MORE A QUESTION OF GOVERNMENT COUNSEL. 3 THE COURT: 4 ON THAT ISSUE, I WILL LET YOU MEET AND CONFER. 5 MR. GELERNT: 6 THE COURT: 7 WANT TO GO THAT DEEP. 8 OUT WITH COUNSEL. 9 10 11 MS. FABIAN: OKAY. WE ARE DEEP IN THE WEEDS, BUT I DON'T SO YOU CAN WORK A LOT OF THOSE ISSUES I AGREE, YOUR HONOR. THE ONE OTHER CLARIFICATION POINT I WANTED TO MAKE, AND I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER BUT I WANT TO BE SURE. 12 THERE WAS -- YOUR HONOR HAD SAID THAT THE PROCESS OF 13 REVIEW OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS IS A PROCESS THAT YOUR HONOR FEELS 14 IS NOT NECESSARY UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDER. 15 ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WE HAD IDENTIFIED, 16 BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY IN THE REUNIFICATION PROCESS, THE 17 HOUSEHOLD MEMBER WAS DETERMINED TO HAVE A BACKGROUND OF 18 SERIOUS SEXUAL ABUSE. 19 PERSON IS NOW ON THE LIST AS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REUNIFICATION 20 BECAUSE THAT WAS AN IDENTIFIED DANGER. AND I THINK YOU WILL SEE THAT THAT 21 DOES YOUR HONOR -- SHOULD WE MOVE THAT PERSON INTO 22 THE CATEGORY FOR RELEASE BECAUSE THAT WAS IDENTIFIED THROUGH 23 THE PROCEDURE THAT IS BEING REMOVED, OR IS IT ACCEPTABLE TO 24 LEAVE THEM IN THIS CATEGORY SINCE WE HAVE AT THIS TIME 25 IDENTIFIED THAT AS A POTENTIAL DANGER? JULY 10, 2018 25 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 70 of 189 1 THE COURT: I THINK BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED 2 AS A POTENTIAL DANGER THAT THAT PERSON WOULD -- THE 3 REUNIFICATION WOULD NOT GO FORWARD ABSENT A DIFFERENT 4 PLACEMENT. 5 BUT THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE -- THAT IS THE KIND OF 6 ISSUE THAT I WOULD LIKE THE PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER, AND 7 THEN IF THERE IS DISAGREEMENT TO RAISE IT WITH THE COURT. BUT FOR PURPOSES OF THE DEADLINE TODAY, THAT PERSON 8 9 WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE REUNIFICATION GROUP BECAUSE THE 10 GOVERNMENT HAS MADE A PROFFER THAT THERE IS A DANGER TO THE 11 CHILD, AND SO IT WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE REUNIFICATION 12 CATEGORY. 13 MR. GELERNT: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING 14 WHERE WE CAN MEET AND CONFER BECAUSE IF THE INFORMATION IS 15 WRONG ABOUT THE HOUSEHOLD MEMBER WE WOULD WANT TO TELL YOU. 16 IF THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT, WE WOULD WANT TO TAKE STEPS TO 17 GET THAT MOTHER AND CHILD OUT. 18 THE COURT: 19 MR. GELERNT: RIGHT. SO THAT IS SOMETHING I HOPE THAT WE 20 CAN CONFER ABOUT TODAY AND TRY AND CLEAR THAT UP. 21 TURNS OUT THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT WE WILL TAKE STEPS TO GET 22 THAT MOTHER AND CHILD OUT. 23 THE COURT: AND IF IT BETWEEN THE TWO, THERE IS ENORMOUS 24 RESOURCES, WITH THE GOVERNMENT, AND MR. GELERNT HAS MARSHALED 25 AN ARMY OF NGO'S, FAITH-BASED GROUPS, CITIZENS ALL OVER THE JULY 10, 2018 26 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 71 of 189 1 COUNTRY WHO WANT TO HELP OUT. AND SO MUCH OF THIS CAN BE 2 WORKED OUT THROUGH A MEET-AND-CONFER PROCESS. THE GOAL, OF COURSE, IS TIMELY AND SAFE 3 4 REUNIFICATION. AND BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES IT SEEMS TO ME 5 THAT THAT CAN HAPPEN, ON TIME AND IN THE SPIRIT OF THE COURT'S 6 ORDER. 7 MR. GELERNT: 8 MS. FABIAN: 9 YES, YOUR HONOR. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION, EXCEPT THAT I NOTE THAT THE PARTIES DID HAVE A 10 QUESTION ABOUT THE TIME FRAMES FOR REMOVED PARENTS. 11 -- THAT MAY NOT BE AN ISSUE TODAY SO MAYBE IT IS ONE THAT WE 12 ADDRESS IN FUTURE STATUS CONFERENCES WHEN WE HAVE REAL 13 EXAMPLES. 14 THE COURT: YES. I DON'T THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS SOME 15 COMPLEXITY TO IT, AND I THINK BOTH SIDES INDICATED YOU WOULD 16 LIKE ADDITIONAL TIME TO CONSIDER IT. 17 BENEFIT OF MORE INFORMATION, BRIEFING ON THAT. 18 MR. GELERNT: 19 THURSDAY SUBMISSION? 20 THE COURT: 21 MR. GELERNT: I WOULD ALSO, WITH THE IS THAT SOMETHING WE COULD PUT IN THE YES. SO WE COULD CONFER ABOUT THAT. I 22 THINK WE ARE -- I THINK NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH TIME THE 23 GOVERNMENT NEEDS ONCE THE PERSON IS FOUND. 24 PUT A DEADLINE ON FINDING THE PERSON WHO HAS BEEN REMOVED, BUT 25 WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO TRY TO PUT A DEADLINE ON ONCE THE PARENT JULY 10, 2018 WE OBVIOUSLY CAN'T 27 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 72 of 189 1 IS FOUND THEN HOW MUCH TIME SHOULD THERE BE TO REUNIFY. YES. 2 THE COURT: 3 MR. GELERNT: 4 THE COURT: SO THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD TRY AND DO. THIS IS GOING TO BE A BIG ISSUE, IT 5 APPEARS, BECAUSE IF WE HAVE 12 OUT OF 101 OR 102, WHEN WE LOOK 6 AT THE NEXT 28, 2900 INDIVIDUALS I AM ASSUMING THERE IS GOING 7 TO BE A COMMENSURATE NUMBER OF PARENTS WHO HAVE BEEN REMOVED. RIGHT. 8 MR. GELERNT: 9 THE COURT: 10 PARTIES TO CONSIDER CAREFULLY. SO IT IS ONE THAT I WOULD LIKE THE 11 MR. GELERNT: 12 THE COURT: 13 RIGHT. AND WE CAN ADDRESS THAT AT THE NEXT STATUS CONFERENCE. 14 MS. FABIAN: I THINK AN IMPORTANT ISSUE ON THAT WILL 15 BE THAT THE CHILDREN MAY BE IN THEIR OWN PROCEEDINGS AT THAT 16 TIME, AND THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL WAIVERS OF THE PARENTS TO 17 REMOVE THEM FROM THOSE PROCEEDINGS AND HAVE THOSE CLOSED. AND SOME OF THEM MAY EVEN HAVE -- BECAUSE SOME OF 18 19 THESE REMOVALS MAY BE ONES THAT OCCURRED ACTUALLY SOME LENGTH 20 OF TIME AGO, AND SO SOME OF THOSE PARENTS -- OR SOME OF THOSE 21 CHILDREN MAY HAVE OBTAINED STATUS. 22 THE GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO THEN REMOVE THEM FROM THE UNITED 23 STATES. 24 25 AND IT WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF THERE ARE ISSUES LIKE THOSE. BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT -- I THINK IF WE CAN IDENTIFY SOME OF THOSE WITH JULY 10, 2018 28 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 73 of 189 1 REGARD TO REAL SITUATIONS WE CAN BETTER TEE THEM UP FOR THE 2 JUDGE -- FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE. 3 MR. GELERNT: 4 I KNOW THAT YOUR CO-COUNSEL WANTS TO RAISE SOMETHING 5 ABOUT THE FLORES ISSUE. BUT I WAS GOING TO RAISE TWO OTHER QUICK POINTS IF 6 7 THAT SEEMS RIGHT TO ME, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS OKAY, YOUR HONOR. YES. 8 THE COURT: 9 MR. GELERNT: ONE IS WE WERE SEEKING CLARIFICATION 10 FROM THE GOVERNMENT, I THINK, ON WHETHER A PARENT ONLY MEANS 11 BIOLOGICAL PARENT. 12 KNOW THEY ARE NOT THE BIOLOGICAL PARENT, BUT OTHER TIMES IT 13 MAY BE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN RAISING THE PARENT -- THE CHILD 14 SINCE THEY ARE TWO MONTHS THROUGH ADOPTION OR SOMETHING. I MEAN, SOMETIMES A PARENT MAY NOT EVEN AND SO I -- WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THEY ARE NOT 15 16 THE PARENT DOES THAT MEAN THEY ARE NOT THE BIOLOGICAL PARENT 17 OR THEY DON'T -- THEY ARE NOT EVEN A PARENT STATUS? 18 MS. FABIAN: THIS IS THE FIRST I AM HEARING THIS 19 QUESTION SO I WILL ANSWER FROM WHAT I KNOW, AND CAN LOOK INTO 20 IT MORE. 21 IN THE SITUATIONS THAT I IDENTIFIED YESTERDAY, I 22 BELIEVE AT LEAST ONE, IT TURNED OUT, WAS THE GRANDMOTHER. 23 ANOTHER -- THE INDIVIDUAL ADMITTED PRIOR TO DNA TESTING THAT 24 HE WAS NOT THE PARENT. 25 SO IT IS NOT -- WE WOULD AGREE THAT AN ADOPTIVE JULY 10, 2018 AND 29 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 74 of 189 1 PARENT WOULD -- WITH THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION, LEGAL 2 DOCUMENTATION, WOULD BE A PARENT. THAT'S THE TYPE OF SITUATION WHERE DNA TESTING WOULD 3 4 NOT BE USEFUL AND THAT PAPERWORK WOULD BE NECESSARY, AND THAT 5 MIGHT TAKE SOME TIME TO GET THE PROPER PAPERWORK FROM THE 6 CONSULATES. 7 THAT IS HELPFUL. MR. GELERNT: I APOLOGIZE. I WAS 8 NOT MEANING FOR YOU TO HAVE TO TELL ME FOR EACH PARENT SO FAR 9 WHETHER THEY WERE BIOLOGICAL, JUST WHAT THE GOVERNMENT'S 10 POSITION WAS GOING FORWARD. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE IN 11 AGREEMENT THAT, IF THERE IS AN ADOPTIVE PARENT, DNA WOULDN'T 12 PROVE THAT BUT IF THEY HAD LEGAL PAPERS SHOWING THEY WERE THE 13 ADOPTIVE PARENT WE WOULD CONSIDER THEM A PARENT WITHIN THE 14 CLASS. 15 SO THAT IS HELPFUL. 16 MS. FABIAN: 17 BE RECOGNIZED IN THIS CONTEXT. 18 SOME INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT MAY HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT WITH 19 CONSULATES, BUT THAT IS NOT -- WE DON'T DISPUTE THAT LEGAL 20 PARENTAGE APPLIES HERE. 21 MR. GELERNT: THANK YOU. I THINK LEGAL STATUS AS A PARENT WOULD OBVIOUSLY WITH QUESTIONS OF THEN THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I WAS 22 GOING TO RAISE, YOUR HONOR, IS I THINK ONE THAT YOU TOUCHED 23 ON, IS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN THE 12 PARENTS WHO HAVE BEEN 24 REMOVED, AND THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PARENTS THAT HAVE BEEN 25 REMOVED FOR THE OVER-FIVE AND ARE STILL BEING REMOVED. JULY 10, 2018 30 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 75 of 189 1 I BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT HAS VERIFIED THIS, BUT THE 2 MEDIA IS REPORTING THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE A NUMBER OF 3 GUATEMALAN PARENTS WITH THEIR CHILDREN REMOVED TODAY, AND THEY 4 APPEAR TO BE CLASS MEMBERS. 5 THE LIST YET OF THE FIVE AND OVER. 6 WE ARE NOT SURE, WE DON'T HAVE WE ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT ANYBODY WHO HAS AGREED TO 7 REMOVAL BEFORE THIS NOTICE HAS GOTTEN -- AND NOW THAT YOUR 8 HONOR HAS SIGNED OFF ON THE NOTICE I AM HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN 9 GET IT OUT TODAY TO THE DETENTION CENTERS. 10 BUT THE FORM THE GOVERNMENT HAD BEEN USING 11 PREVIOUSLY, IN OUR VIEW, WAS MISLEADING AND MAY HAVE SUGGESTED 12 TO THE PARENTS THE ONLY WAY TO GET YOUR CHILD BACK IS TO WAIVE 13 YOUR RIGHT TO CONTEST REMOVAL. 14 NOW, MANY OF THOSE PARENTS MAY HAVE KNOWINGLY WAIVED 15 IT AND HAD NO CLAIMS, BUT MANY OTHERS MAY HAVE HAD A SHOT AT 16 ASYLUM OR SOME OTHER CLAIM. 17 AND SO, YOU KNOW, FOR THE ONES WHO HAVE BEEN REMOVED 18 WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CONTACT THEM. 19 NO FURTHER REMOVALS OF CLASS MEMBERS OCCUR UNTIL THEY HAVE 20 BEEN ABLE TO SIGN THE NEW NOTICE THAT MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT 21 YOUR HONOR'S RULING DIDN'T MAKE GETTING YOUR CHILD BACK 22 CONTINGENT UPON WAIVING YOUR RIGHT TO CONTEST REMOVAL OR APPLY 23 FOR ASYLUM. 24 25 THE COURT: BUT WE WOULD ASK THAT ISN'T THAT ALREADY IN PLACE? BECAUSE THERE IS A CLASS DEFINITION, THERE IS AN INJUNCTION IN PLACE, JULY 10, 2018 31 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 76 of 189 1 DOESN'T THAT COVER THIS SITUATION? 2 MR. GELERNT: WELL, IT DOES, YOUR HONOR, EXCEPT THAT 3 I DON'T KNOW THAT THE CLASS MEMBERS ON THE GROUND UNDERSTAND 4 ALL OF THEIR RIGHTS. 5 TO GET THEM NOTICE THAT HAS IT IN VERY PLAIN LANGUAGE YOU MAY 6 GET YOUR CHILD BACK, UNDER YOUR HONOR'S RULING, AND IT DOES 7 NOT MEAN YOU HAVE TO AGREE TO REMOVAL. WE BELIEVE THE FORM THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS USING UP 8 9 AND THAT IS WHY WE THINK IT IS CRITICAL UNTIL NOW, SINCE THE RULING, AND MAYBE EVEN A LITTLE BIT 10 BEFORE, DIDN'T MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR, BY ANY MEANS, THAT YOU 11 COULD CONTINUE TO SEEK ASYLUM OR CONTEST YOUR REMOVAL AND 12 STILL HAVE YOUR CHILD BACK. SO THAT IS OUR CONCERN IS THAT GOING FORWARD WE 13 14 THINK IT IS GOING TO BE FINE BECAUSE THE NOTICE IS CLEAR, IT 15 HAS BOXES TO CHECK AND IT IS IN VERY CLEAR AND SIMPLE 16 LANGUAGE. 17 AGREED TO REMOVAL -- GOTTEN THEIR CHILD BACK AND AGREED TO 18 REMOVAL THAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH. 19 BUT I THINK IT IS THE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE NOW SO I THINK IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN GO BACK AND GIVE 20 THEM THE NEW NOTICE AND HAVE THEM SIGN THE NEW NOTICE RATHER 21 THAN RELYING ON THE OLD GOVERNMENT FORM, THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD 22 BE ASKING OF YOUR HONOR. 23 THE COURT: 24 MS. FABIAN: 25 DO YOU OBJECT? I DO OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. THE NOTICE THAT -- THE GOVERNMENT DID CREATE A NOTICE IMMEDIATELY JULY 10, 2018 32 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 77 of 189 1 FOLLOWING YOUR HONOR'S ORDER. I KNOW THAT PLAINTIFFS BELIEVE 2 IT IS UNCLEAR, WE DISAGREE BUT WE WERE WILLING TO WORK UP A 3 FORM THAT WAS -- THAT WORKED FOR THEM. 4 TOGETHER ON THAT NOTICE THAT YOUR HONOR APPROVED TODAY. AND SO WE DID WORK 5 THE FORM -- THE INDIVIDUALS, I THINK, THAT ARE BEING 6 REFERENCED -- AND I CAN'T -- I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS IF CLASS 7 MEMBERS HAVE BEEN REMOVED SO FAR OR REALLY WHERE THEY ARE. 8 WILL LEARN MORE ABOUT THAT AS WE -- I WILL LEARN MORE ABOUT 9 THAT AS WE COMPILE INFORMATION AND SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT THE 10 WE REST OF THE CLASS. BUT THE INDIVIDUALS SCHEDULED FOR REMOVAL TODAY ALL 11 12 HAVE FINAL ORDERS OF REMOVAL. 13 IMMIGRATION JUDGE, SOME ARE EXPEDITED REMOVAL ORDERS. 14 THEM CLAIMED FEAR, AND SO THEY ARE PROPERLY SUBJECT TO 15 REMOVAL. THEY DON'T HAVE AVENUES FOR -- TO CONTEST THAT 16 REMOVAL. THEY ALL REQUESTED TO BE REMOVED WITH THEIR CHILD 17 AND SIGNED A FORM REQUESTING TO BE REMOVED WITH THEIR CHILD. 18 AND THEREFORE THE REMOVALS THAT I UNDERSTAND, AT LEAST AS OF 19 YESTERDAY WERE SCHEDULED FOR TODAY, ARE ALL FINAL ORDER 20 INDIVIDUALS WHO REQUESTED TO BE REMOVED WITH THEIR CHILD. 21 THAT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COURT'S INJUNCTION. 22 MR. GELERNT: SOME WERE OBTAINED BEFORE AN NONE OF AND YOUR HONOR, AND WE HAVE NO REASON, 23 OBVIOUSLY, TO DISPUTE, AND WE HAVE NO BASIS. 24 BE TRUE THAT THEY ALL SIGNED THE FORM, I THINK THE DISPUTE IS 25 WHETHER THE FORM WAS MISLEADING. JULY 10, 2018 YOU KNOW, IT MAY 33 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 78 of 189 THE OTHER THING I WOULD JUST NOTE, WHEN THE 1 2 GOVERNMENT SAYS THERE IS A FINAL ORDER, I THINK THEY ARE 3 MEANING THERE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVELY FINAL ORDER. 4 MEAN ALL AVENUES FOR CHALLENGING REMOVAL ARE GONE, BECAUSE YOU 5 COULD GO TO FEDERAL COURT TO CHALLENGE YOUR REMOVAL ORDER TO 6 THE EXTENT THOSE AVENUES ARE POSSIBLE. 7 RECONSIDERATION FROM THE AGENCY. YOU COULD SEEK SO I THINK THE FACT -- AND IT MAY BE THAT ALL 13 OF 8 9 IT DOESN'T THOSE WHEN THEY GET THE NEW NOTICE WILL SAY -- IF THESE 10 REMOVALS HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED THIS MORNING THEY HAVE 11 OCCURRED, BUT TOMORROW BEFORE THE NOTICE, I MEAN, THERE IS NO 12 REASON TO RELY ON THE OLD FORMS NOW THAT THE NEW NOTICE IS 13 THERE. 14 IF THE PARENTS GENUINELY WANT TO BE REMOVED AND KNEW 15 WHAT THEY WERE DOING THEY ARE JUST SIMPLY GOING TO CHECK THE 16 NEW NOTICE FORM BOX. 17 ANY PREJUDICE TO THE GOVERNMENT. SO I DON'T THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE HOW MANY PARENTS, DO YOU KNOW, ARE 18 THE COURT: 19 SCHEDULED TO BE REMOVED TODAY? 20 MR. GELERNT: THE MEDIA IS REPORTING 13 GUATEMALAN 21 FAMILIES WITH THEIR CHILDREN. 22 VERIFICATION OF THAT. 23 REACH OUT TO THE GUATEMALAN CONSULATE. 24 25 THE COURT: WE HAVE NO INDEPENDENT I THINK WE WERE GOING TO MAYBE TRY TO IS IT YOUR REPRESENTATION THAT YOU BELIEVE THESE 13, WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, ARE CLASS MEMBERS, JULY 10, 2018 34 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 79 of 189 1 AND YOU WOULD LIKE THEM NOT TO BE REMOVED UNTIL THEY HAVE SEEN 2 THE CLASS NOTICE AND AGREED. 3 MR. GELERNT: YOUR HONOR, I WANT TO BE CLEAR. WE 4 HAVE NO BASIS FOR KNOWING IF THEY ARE ALL 13 CLASS MEMBERS OR 5 NOT BECAUSE WE HAVE NO INFORMATION. 6 PROBABLY ARE GIVEN THE TIMING AND THEY JUST RECEIVED THEIR 7 CHILDREN. I AM ASSUMING THAT THEY IF THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS THAT THE 13 ARE NOT CLASS 8 9 MEMBERS, FOR WHATEVER REASON, EITHER CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS OR 10 THEY WERE NOT PARENTS WHO HAD THEIR CHILDREN TAKEN AWAY FROM 11 THEM, THEN THAT WOULD -- WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, ACCEPT THAT 12 REPRESENTATION. BUT IF THEY ARE CLASS MEMBERS AND IF THEY HAVEN'T 13 14 BEEN REMOVED WE WOULD ASK THAT THEY BE GIVEN THE NOTICE BEFORE 15 THEY ARE REMOVED. 16 THE COURT: ON THAT ISSUE, I WOULD DECLINE TO ISSUE 17 ANY ORDER. 18 THE BENCH AND ISSUE AN INJUNCTION WHERE THE GOVERNMENT WOULD 19 BE PRECLUDED FROM REMOVING THOSE 13 INDIVIDUALS, AND I AM NOT 20 PREPARED TO DO THAT UNLESS THERE IS A REPRESENTATION THAT 21 THESE ARE CLASS MEMBERS. 22 AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU ARE ASKING ME TO RULE FROM MR. GELERNT: OKAY. YOUR HONOR, THEN, NO, I 23 UNDERSTAND. AND I CANNOT, IN GOOD FAITH, MAKE THAT 24 REPRESENTATION BECAUSE I AM RELYING IN SIGNIFICANT PART ON THE 25 MEDIA. IF THE GOVERNMENT, YOU KNOW, WERE TO TELL US RIGHT NOW JULY 10, 2018 35 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 80 of 189 1 2 THAT SOME OF THEM ARE CLASS MEMBERS, THAT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT. BUT I THINK THAT THERE COULD BE REMOVALS TOMORROW OR 3 THE NEXT DAY WHERE EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE SIGNED OFF ON THE 4 NOTICE TODAY THE GOVERNMENT IS STILL RELYING ON THE SIGNATURE 5 FOR AN OLD FORM. 6 ASKED TO SIGN THE NEW FORM BEFORE THE REMOVAL TAKES PLACE, 7 GOING FORWARD. 8 9 AND THOSE SEEM LIKE NOW THE PERSON COULD BE I AM HAPPY TO AGREE TO GET THAT FORM MS. FABIAN: OUT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. YES. 10 THE COURT: 11 AND THIS, OF COURSE, DOESN'T PRECLUDE THE GOVERNMENT 12 FROM ELECTING NOT TO REMOVE THESE 13 PARENTS TODAY. 13 IS ANY DOUBT, THE GOVERNMENT MAY EXERCISE DISCRETION AND HOLD 14 THE FLIGHTS OR WHATEVER THE TRANSPORTATION METHOD IS PENDING 15 FURTHER CLARIFICATION. 16 17 18 19 IF THERE BUT SO WE ARE CLEAR, I WOULD DECLINE THE INVITATION TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION AS TO THOSE 13 OR SO INDIVIDUALS. THERE WAS -- I THINK THERE WAS GOING TO BE SOME DISCUSSION ON THE JUDGE GEE IN FLORES. YES. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. 20 MR. STEWART: 21 I AM SCOTT STEWART IN FROM DC, YOUR HONOR. 22 THE COURT: 23 MR. STEWART: YES. I AM WITH THE MAIN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, 24 I HEAD THE OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION. 25 TO BE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CIVIL DIVISION. JULY 10, 2018 I AM VERY GLAD 36 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 81 of 189 1 AS YOU CAN UNDERSTAND, YOU HAVE SEEN, THIS IS AN 2 EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT CASE TO THE GOVERNMENT, AND WE 3 APPRECIATE YOUR HONOR'S OPTIMISM, ENCOURAGEMENT, AND 4 RECOGNITION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S PROGRESS AND EFFORTS TO DATE. 5 I WANTED TO, AS MENTIONED, YOUR HONOR, TO ADDRESS AN 6 IMPORTANT POINT ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S UNDERSTANDING OF 7 COMPLIANCE WITH ANOTHER PIECE OF THIS COURT'S ORDER IN LIGHT 8 OF LAST NIGHT'S ORDER BY THE FLORES COURT. 9 IT SHOULDN'T TAKE ME LONG TO GET THROUGH, BUT I JUST 10 WANT TO MAKE SURE I LAY THE GROUNDWORK CLEARLY FOR YOUR HONOR. YES. 11 THE COURT: 12 MR. STEWART: LAST NIGHT, YOUR HONOR, THE FLORES 13 COURT ISSUED AN ORDER REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION 14 UNDER THE FLORES AGREEMENT. 15 THAT THE FLORES AGREEMENT CONTINUES TO REQUIRE THE RELEASE OF 16 A CHILD UNDER THE AGREEMENT EVEN WHERE THIS COURT'S INJUNCTION 17 PRECLUDES SEPARATION OF THE FAMILY. 18 IN SHORT, THE COURT CONCLUDED IN ORDER TO READ THOSE TWO INJUNCTIONS TOGETHER, 19 YOUR HONOR, THE FLORES COURT EXPLAINED -- AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, 20 YOUR HONOR, THE FLORES COURT EXPLAINED THAT THE PARENT COULD 21 WAIVE THIS FLORES RIGHT AND CHOSE TO REMAIN TOGETHER, AND 22 OBSERVED THAT SUCH A WAIVER WAS PERMITTED UNDER THIS COURT'S 23 INJUNCTION. 24 25 IF I CAN JUST BRIEFLY EXPLAIN, YOUR HONOR. AS YOU UNDERSTAND, THE GOVERNMENT MUST NOW IMPLEMENT TWO EXISTING JULY 10, 2018 37 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 82 of 189 1 INJUNCTIONS, YOUR HONOR'S AND THE FLORES COURT'S. 2 TO PROVIDE JUST NOTICE ON HOW WE INTERPRET OUR COMPLIANCE WITH 3 YOUR INJUNCTION, YOUR HONOR. 4 AND WE WANT AS VERY QUICK BACKGROUND, THE FLORES COURT STATED 5 THAT FLORES RIGHTS COULD BE WAIVED BY A PARENT AND THAT, 6 QUOTE, DETAINED PARENTS MAY CHOOSE TO EXERCISE THEIR MS. L. 7 RIGHT TO REUNIFICATION OR TO STAND ON THEIR CHILDREN'S FLORES 8 AGREEMENT RIGHTS, END QUOTE. 9 LIKEWISE, YOUR ORDER, YOUR HONOR, ALLOWS EXCEPTIONS 10 TO REUNIFICATION, SEPARATION PROVISIONS IF THERE IS, QUOTE, 11 AFFIRMATIVE, KNOWING, AND VOLUNTARY WAIVER BY THE PARENT. 12 YOUR HONOR HAS ALSO EMPHASIZED, ON FRIDAY IN 13 PARTICULAR, AS I RECALL A COUPLE TIMES, THAT THE ATTORNEY 14 GENERAL MAKES HIS OWN DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO 15 DETAIN OR PAROLE OR RELEASE SOMEONE. 16 ORDER YOUR HONOR SAID DOESN'T IMPACT IN ANY WAY THOSE 17 DECISIONS, AND YOU WERE NOT SUGGESTING, YOUR HONOR SAID, THAT 18 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MUST RELEASE OR MUST DETAIN OR WHEN HE 19 CAN RELEASE OR DETAIN. 20 PREROGATIVE, CONSISTENT WITH LAW. 21 22 23 YOUR ORDER -- OR THE THOSE ARE WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT'S AND NOW I AM GETTING TO THE KEY POINT HERE, YOUR HONOR, WHICH IS SORT OF THREE-FOLD. FIRST, IN LIGHT OF THE FLORES RULING YESTERDAY, YOUR 24 HONOR, WE, THE GOVERNMENT, INTERPRET YOUR ORDER TO PERMIT US 25 TO PROVIDE FAMILIES DETAINED TOGETHER WITH ONE OF TWO OPTIONS. JULY 10, 2018 38 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 83 of 189 FIRST, THE FAMILY -- THE FAMILY -- THE ADULT MAY 1 2 CHOSE TO REMAIN IN DHS CUSTODY WITH THE FAMILY TOGETHER. 3 UNDER THIS COURT'S INJUNCTION, SUBJECT TO THE NORMAL RULES ON 4 WHEN AN ALIEN WOULD BE RELEASED FROM CUSTODY, SUCH AS PAROLE, 5 SO THE FAMILY COULD STAY DETAINED. 6 THE PARENT WOULD BE ABLE TO WAIVE THE CHILD'S FLORES RIGHTS SO 7 THE CHILD COULD STAY WITH THE PARENT, REUNIFIED, CONSISTENT 8 WITH YOUR COURT'S ORDER. AND AS THIS FIRST OPTION THE SECOND OPTION THE GOVERNMENT CAN GIVE YOUR HONOR 9 10 IS THAT THE FAMILY, THROUGH THE PARENT, CAN AGREE TO RELEASE 11 THE CHILD TO O.R.R. CUSTODY, IN WHICH CASE THE FAMILY WOULD BE 12 SEPARATED, BUT WITH THE PARENT'S CONSENT, AS YOUR HONOR 13 ALLOWED. 14 CONSISTENT WITH FLORES. 15 RIGHT. 16 ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, CONSISTENT WITH YOUR COURT'S INJUNCTION, 17 EITHER EXERCISE THE CHILD'S FLORES RIGHT OR WAIVE THAT FLORES 18 RIGHT SO THEY COULD STAY TOGETHER. 19 AND THE CHILD WOULD BE PLACED THROUGH O.R.R. AND SO THAT WOULD BE EXERCISING A FLORES SO ONE OR THE OTHER, THE ADULT, YOUR HONOR, WOULD BE THE KEY POINT THERE AND THE KEY REASON FOR THOSE TWO 20 CHOICES -- AND THIS IS WHY I READ THE INJUNCTION THIS WAY, 21 YOUR HONOR. 22 BE ABLE TO USE THIS COURT'S ORDER, TOGETHER WITH THE FLORES 23 COURT'S ORDER, TO BOOTSTRAP A RIGHT TO RELEASE, A RIGHT TO 24 HINDER, YOU KNOW, OR FORCE THE GOVERNMENT TO ALLOW PAROLE, 25 THAT SORT OF THING. IS THAT IN NEITHER CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD THE PARENT AGAIN, THIS IS CONSISTENT, I BELIEVE, JULY 10, 2018 39 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 84 of 189 1 WITH YOUR HONOR'S ORDER, WITH THE LAW, AND JUST AUTHORITIES TO 2 DETAIN. BUT, ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT -- YOU 3 4 KNOW, INFORM THE COURT THAT THAT IS HOW THE GOVERNMENT 5 UNDERSTANDS YOUR HONOR'S ORDER, TO BE ABLE TO GIVE THE PARENTS 6 THOSE TWO OPTIONS. 7 FORCED TO RELEASE SOMEONE UNDER YOUR COURT'S ORDER, YOUR 8 HONOR. AND IN NEITHER CASE IS THE GOVERNMENT 9 AND THIS IS, AS YOU CAN UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR, AND 10 YOU, I THINK, HAVE UNDERSTOOD IT IN PREVIOUS HEARINGS IN THIS 11 REGARD. 12 THE GOVERNMENT. 13 KNOW, THE GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO DETAIN IN IMMIGRATION 14 CUSTODY THESE PARENTS. 15 THAT WOULD HINDER THOSE AUTHORITIES IF -- WE READ THAT AS AN 16 OFF-LIMITS READING AND OUT OF STEP WITH WHAT YOUR COURT'S 17 LETTER AND SPIRIT WOULD SAY. 18 THE AUTHORITY TO DETAIN AND TO PAROLE ARE CRITICAL TO THERE ARE MANY CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH, YOU SO ANY READING OF THE COURT'S ORDER SO GIVEN ALL OF THOSE THAT IS -- JUST TO INFORM THE 19 COURT, YOUR HONOR, THAT IS OUR READING OF YOUR HONOR'S 20 INJUNCTION. 21 EXCEPTION TO THAT TO PLEASE -- WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE RULE ON 22 THAT AND LET US KNOW RIGHT AWAY TODAY SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO -- 23 BECAUSE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE KNOW, HAVE CLARITY ON 24 THAT TO COMPLY WITH IT. 25 AND WE ASK IF THE COURT DISAGREES OR TAKES ABSENT THAT RULING WE WILL CONTINUE -- WE WILL JULY 10, 2018 40 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 85 of 189 1 PROCEED ON THAT SORT OF IMPLEMENTATION. 2 YOUR HONOR DISAGREES WITH ANYTHING ABOUT THAT UNDERSTANDING, 3 THAT YOU LET US KNOW RIGHT AWAY SO WE CAN MAKE SURE WE ARE IN 4 COMPLIANCE FULLY AND CAN ALSO EXPLORE APPROPRIATE OPTIONS, 5 YOUR HONOR. 6 BUT WE DO REQUEST, IF BECAUSE IF WE -- JUST IN THE INTEREST OF FULL 7 INFORMATION, YOUR HONOR, IF WE ARE PUT TO THE CHOICE WHERE WE 8 ARE FORCED TO RELEASE PARENTS WE WILL NEED TO EVALUATE 9 OPTIONS, WE WILL NEED TO POTENTIALLY PURSUE IMMEDIATE APPEAL 10 11 TO BE ABLE TO PRESERVE OUR AUTHORITIES. IF IT IS A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE TO RELEASE WE 12 WOULD ALSO ASK THAT YOUR HONOR STAY YOUR ORDER TO THE EXTENT 13 IT WOULD PROHIBIT, YOU KNOW, HAVING PARENTS MAKE THIS CHOICE. 14 BUT I LEAVE THOSE AS OPTIONS AND AS REQUESTS FOR 15 YOUR HONOR JUST OUT OF EMPHASIS THAT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT 16 THE GOVERNMENT HAVE CLARITY IF THE ARTICULATION AND 17 UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR COURT'S ORDER IS INCORRECT SO THAT WE 18 CAN BE SURE TO COMPLY WITH IT AND KNOW HOW TO PROCEED 19 CORRECTLY. 20 AND TO BE CLEAR, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT THAT WE 21 WOULD SEEK ANY STAY, IT IS NOT ON THE REUNIFICATION PIECE, IT 22 IS NOT ON THOSE, WE ARE FULL SPEED AHEAD ON THOSE. 23 ON THIS NARROW -- TO THE EXTENT WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO 24 RELEASE PARENTS UNDER YOUR COURT'S ORDER; WHICH AGAIN I DON'T 25 THINK IS THE RIGHT READING OF YOUR COURT'S ORDER, BUT I RAISE JULY 10, 2018 IT IS JUST 41 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 86 of 189 1 2 IT OUT OF IMPORTANCE FOR COMPLIANCE. SO THAT IS THE KEY QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, AND THAT'S 3 OUR -- OR THE KEY ISSUE, AND THAT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S 4 UNDERSTANDING. 5 I HOPE I HAVE BEEN REASONABLY CLEAR. THE COURT: YES. IF THERE IS AN APPEAL IT WOULD 6 DIVEST THIS COURT OF JURISDICTION OF ALL OF THE ISSUES, WOULD 7 IT NOT, INCLUDING REUNIFICATION? 8 MR. STEWART: 9 I DON'T BELIEVE SO, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND, YOU KNOW, PROCEEDINGS 10 CONTINUE IN THE DISTRICT COURT, YOU KNOW, EVEN AS A PIECE OF A 11 CASE MIGHT GO UP. 12 AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW -- THE COURT: THIS WOULD BE UNDER RULE 54, A CARVE-OUT 13 AND PIECEMEAL APPEAL, IN THEORY, IF IT IS JUST ON THIS 14 DETENTION OR RELEASE ISSUE? 15 MR. STEWART: I AM NOT SURE IF -- WHAT THE RIGHT 16 HOOK, ASIDE FROM 1292(A), WOULD BE, YOUR HONOR. BUT -- AND, 17 YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, WANT TO SAY SOMETHING TO 18 PREJUDICE OTHER OPTIONS. 19 WHAT WE WOULD BE SEEKING A STAY ON BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IF WE 20 WERE TO PURSUE A FAST APPELLATE STAY, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD WANT 21 -- WE WOULD NEED TO RUN IT BY YOUR HONOR FIRST, IS THAT ALL WE 22 WOULD BE SEEKING A STAY IS ON THIS PIECE. 23 REQUIRED UNDER YOUR HONOR'S ORDER TO START RELEASING PARENTS 24 BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T KEEP THEM TOGETHER UNDER FLORES OR 25 SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT IS THE PIECE WE WOULD BE SEEKING A BUT RIGHT NOW REALLY WHAT WE ARE -- JULY 10, 2018 YOU KNOW, IF WE ARE 42 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 87 of 189 1 STAY ON. AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO GO FULL SPEED AHEAD AND 2 3 DO THE BEST WE CAN ON REUNIFICATION, AND SEE WHERE WE ARE ABLE 4 TO GO. 5 THE COURT: IF YOU ARE REQUIRED TO RELEASE -- SO 6 THIS IS THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO FOR THE GOVERNMENT. 7 ARE REQUIRED TO RELEASE, WOULDN'T THAT BE UNDER JUDGE GEE'S, 8 FLORES? 9 IF YOU DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE. MR. STEWART: I DON'T -- IT DEPENDS ON IF WE ARE 10 READING YOUR COURT'S -- IT DEPENDS ON THE RIGHT READING OF, I 11 THINK, THIS COURT'S INJUNCTION, YOUR HONOR. 12 AS JUDGE GEE SAID IN HER ORDER -- AND TO JUST QUOTE 13 THE KEY LANGUAGE -- IS THAT DETAINED PARENTS MAY CHOOSE TO 14 EXERCISE THEIR MS. L. RIGHT TO REUNIFICATION OR TO STAND ON 15 THEIR CHILDREN'S FLORES RIGHTS. 16 SO IT REALLY -- IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU UNDERSTAND THE 17 MS. L. RIGHT TO REUNIFICATION. 18 COURT'S -- THE RIGHT THAT THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED IS THAT IT 19 DOES NOT REQUIRE RELEASE OF PARENTS. 20 AND AS WE UNDERSTAND THIS YOUR HONOR'S RULING AT THE MOTION TO DISMISS STAGE 21 WAS A DUE PROCESS RULING ABOUT FAMILY INTEGRITY AND WAS -- 22 YOUR HONOR VERY CLEARLY EMPHASIZED THAT THE PLAINTIFFS HERE DO 23 NOT CHALLENGE THE GOVERNMENT'S AUTHORITY TO DETAIN. 24 WOULD NOT BE ANY PLAUSIBLE DUE PROCESS ARGUMENT TO FORCE A 25 PARENT TO RELEASE WHEN THAT PARENT, THAT ADULT, IS SUBJECT TO JULY 10, 2018 AND THERE 43 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 88 of 189 1 DETENTION UNDER A LAWFUL AUTHORITY UNDER THE IMMIGRATION LAWS, 2 8, USC, 1225 OR THE LIKE. SO, ANYWAY, IT DOES, I THINK -- AGAIN, IT IS A 3 4 MATTER OF INTERPRETING THE TWO INJUNCTIONS TOGETHER. BUT IF I 5 HAVE UNDERSTOOD YOUR INJUNCTION CORRECTLY, YOUR HONOR, YOU 6 KNOW, AS KIND OF DRAWN OUT BY YOUR STATEMENTS IN COURT, WE ARE 7 NOT -- YOUR INJUNCTION DOES NOT FORCE US TO DO THAT RELEASE TO 8 THOSE PARENTS WHO WE OTHERWISE HAVE VALID AUTHORITY TO KEEP IN 9 CUSTODY. MR. GELERNT. 10 THE COURT: 11 MR. GELERNT: WE DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT READING. 12 OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT BOTH YOUR HONOR'S RULING AND JUDGE 13 GEE'S RULING ARE FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD. YOUR HONOR WANTS REUNIFICATION, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE 14 15 TOUCH TONE IS ALWAYS WHAT THE PARENT VIEWS IS THE BEST 16 INTEREST. 17 AND KEEP THEIR CHILD WITH THEM IN FAMILY DETENTION THEY HAVE 18 THAT RIGHT -- I MEAN, SORRY -- OR WAIVE YOUR HONOR'S RULING 19 AND SAY WE WANT TO RELEASE, WE WOULD RATHER OUR CHILD BE 20 RELEASED UNDER FLORES. 21 JUDGE GEE SAID VERY CLEARLY, THE PARENT HAS THE RIGHT TO 22 EITHER KEEP THEIR CHILD WITH THEM OR NOT, SO WE AGREE WITH THE 23 GOVERNMENT'S RULING. 24 NOT UNDER YOUR RULING AND NOT UNDER JUDGE GEE'S FLORES RULING 25 WHICH APPLIES TO THE CHILDREN, IT IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOME SO IF THE PARENT WANTS TO WAIVE THEIR FLORES RIGHTS I THINK THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID AND WHAT ANY RELEASE BY THE PARENT IS GOING TO BE JULY 10, 2018 44 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 89 of 189 1 SEPARATE ACTION WHERE THE PARENT SAYS, I HAVE A DUE PROCESS 2 RIGHT TO GET OUT OF DETENTION. 3 I THINK THERE PROBABLY IS THAT DUE PROCESS RIGHT. 4 JUDGE BOASBERG IN DC JUST TALKED ABOUT THAT, BUT IT DOESN'T 5 IMPLICATE YOUR RULING OR JUDGE GEE'S RULING. 6 IS WE AGREE WITH THE -- 7 THE COURT: THE SHORT OF IT WHAT IF THE PARENT DOES NOT AGREE TO BE 8 SEPARATED AND HAVE THE CHILD RELEASED TO O.R.R. AND DOES NOT 9 AGREE TO JOINT DETENTION IN A FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CENTER. 10 UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT THE GOVERNMENT IS LEFT WITH THE 11 HOBSON'S CHOICE OF THEN HAVING TO RELEASE THE PARENT BECAUSE 12 UNDER FLORES THEY CAN ONLY HOLD THE TWO FOR 20 DAYS IN 13 DETENTION, BUT IF THE PARENT IS SAYING THEY DON'T WANT JOINT 14 DETENTION THEN DO THEY HAVE TO RELEASE THE PARENT. 15 ASSUME -- 16 MR. GELERNT: AS I AND LET'S YOUR HONOR, I WISH THAT FLORES WENT 17 THAT FAR AND REQUIRED THE RELEASE OF THE PARENT. 18 PARENT SAID, I WANT MY CHILD WITH ME UNDER MS. L. AND I DON'T 19 WANT TO BE HERE IN DETENTION LONG-TERM, I WANT TO BE RELEASED; 20 FLORES DOES NOT GIVE THE PARENT THAT RIGHT. 21 IF THE IF THE PARENT IS GOING TO GET OUT WITH THEIR -- THEY 22 ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BRING A SEPARATE SUIT. 23 GOING TO WIN, MAYBE THEY ARE NOT UNDER DUE PROCESS. 24 WOULD BE A BASIC CLAIM OF, THE GOVERNMENT CAN ONLY DETAIN ME 25 IF I AM A FLIGHT RISK OR A DANGER. JULY 10, 2018 MAYBE THEY ARE AND THAT 45 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 90 of 189 BUT NOTHING IN FLORES WOULD REQUIRE THE GOVERNMENT 1 2 TO RELEASE THAT FAMILY UNIT IF THE MOTHER SAID, I WANT MY 3 CHILD HERE BUT I DON'T FEEL LIKE BEING IN DETENTION. 4 THE COURT: OKAY. THIS MIGHT BE THE HAPPY SITUATION 5 WHERE, IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, MR. GELERNT, YOU ARE 6 AGREEING WITH WHAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS OUTLINED. 7 SO WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE, BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS 8 ASKING FOR A DETERMINATION BY THE COURT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, 9 IS THAT YOU MEET AND CONFER. 10 AGREEMENT -- 11 MR. GELERNT: 12 THE COURT: 13 14 IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE IN WE ARE. -- AND SIMPLY SEND ME A JOINT MOTION AND ORDER. MR. GELERNT: THAT'S FINE, YOUR HONOR. WE WOULD 15 JUST SAY THAT IT WOULD SAY THAT A PARENT CAN ALWAYS WAIVE THE 16 REUNIFICATION RIGHT AND THEY CAN ALWAYS WAIVE THE FLORES RIGHT 17 TO RELEASE; BECAUSE ULTIMATELY OUR VIEW IS, IN BOTH CASES, THE 18 TOUCH TONE IS THE PARENT MAKES THE DECISION, WHERE THEY ARE 19 FIT AND NOT ABUSIVE, FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD. 20 THINK THAT SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE DONE VERY, VERY QUICKLY TODAY. 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: OKAY. SO I I WILL BE LOOKING OUT FOR THE JOINT MOTION AND ORDER. MR. STEWART: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE. THE COURT: THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. JULY 10, 2018 I 46 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 91 of 189 1 MR. STEWART: I SHOULD APOLOGIZE, YOUR HONOR. I MAY 2 MISS THE FRIDAY HEARING BECAUSE I HAVE TO GO UP TO SAN 3 FRANCISCO TO ADDRESS ANOTHER UNACCOMPANIED MINOR CASE IN THE 4 NINTH CIRCUIT. 5 OUT THE COURT AND CONTINUE -- I WILL BE FURTHERING COMPLIANCE 6 WITH THE COURT'S INJUNCTION AS BEST POSSIBLE. BUT OTHERWISE I WOULD BE HERE TO TRY TO HELP VERY GOOD. 7 THE COURT: 8 MR. STEWART: 9 THE COURT: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. LET'S RECESS. I WILL LOOK FOR FORWARD 10 TO THE JOINT STATUS REPORT ON THURSDAY, AND THEN WE WILL MEET 11 AGAIN FRIDAY AT 1:00 O'CLOCK. 12 THANK YOU. 13 MS. FABIAN: 14 MR. GELERNT: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. 15 16 17 18 19 * * * I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A CORRECT TRANSCRIPT FROM THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER. S/LEEANN PENCE 7/10/2018 LEEANN PENCE, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER DATE 20 21 22 23 24 25 JULY 10, 2018 Case Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 92 of 189 Exhibit Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 93 of 189 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Enforcement and Removal Operations Separated Parent’s Removal Form Purpose: This form is for detained alien parents with administratively final orders of removal who are class members in the Ms. L. v. I.C.E., No. 18-0428, (S.D. Cal. Filed Feb. 26, 2018) lawsuit. Class members are entitled to be reunited with their child(ren) and may choose for their child(ren) to accompany them on their removal or may choose to be removed without their child(ren). Any such decision must be made affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily. Instructions: This form must be read to the alien parent in a language that he/she understands. The alien parent should indicate which option he/she is choosing by signing the appropriate box below. Parent Name / Nombre de Padre: ________________________________________________________ Parent A # / A # de Padre: ______________________________________________________________ Country of Citizenship / Pais de Ciudadania: ______________________________________________ Detention Facility / El Centro de Detención: _______________________________________________ Child(ren) Name(s) / Nombre de Hijo: ___________________________________________________________ Child(ren) A # / A # de Hijo: ____________________________________________________________ Shelter / Albergue: ____________________________________________________________________ English: I am requesting to reunite with my child(ren) for the purpose of repatriation to my country of citizenship. Signature / Firma: ________________________________________________________________________ English: I am affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily requesting to return to my country of citizenship without my minor child(ren) who I understand will remain in the United States to pursue available claims of relief. Signature / Firma: ________________________________________________________________________ Certificate of Service I hereby certify that this form was served by me at________________________ (Location) on ___________________________ on _____________________________, and the contents of this (Name of Alien) (Date of Service) notice were read to him or her in the __________________________ language. (Language) ___________________________________ __________________________________________ Name and Signature of Officer Name or Number of Interpreter (if applicable) Case Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 94 of 189 Exhibit Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 9927-1 FiledFiled 07/10/18 07/13/18 PageID.1966 Page 95 ofPage 189 1 of 10 1 CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General 2 SCOTT G. STEWART 3 Deputy Assistant Attorney General WILLIAM C. PEACHEY 4 Director 5 Office of Immigration Litigation U.S. Department of Justice 6 WILLIAM C. SILVIS 7 Assistant Director Office of Immigration Litigation 8 SARAH B. FABIAN 9 Senior Litigation Counsel NICOLE MURLEY 10 Trial Attorney 11 Office of Immigration Litigation U.S. Department of Justice 12 Box 868, Ben Franklin Station 13 Washington, DC 20442 Telephone: (202) 532-4824 14 Fax: (202) 616-8962 15 ADAM L. BRAVERMAN 16 United States Attorney 17 SAMUEL W. BETTWY Assistant U.S. Attorney 18 California Bar No. 94918 19 Office of the U.S. Attorney 880 Front Street, Room 6293 20 San Diego, CA 92101-8893 21 619-546-7125 22 619-546-7751 (fax) Lee Gelernt* Judy Rabinovitz* Anand Balakrishnan* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 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 23 Attorneys for Federal Respondents24 Defendants Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs *Admitted Pro Hac Vice 25 26 27 28 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 Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280) Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 T: (415) 343-1198 F: (415) 395-0950 skang@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 9927-1 FiledFiled 07/10/18 07/13/18 PageID.1967 Page 96 ofPage 189 2 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 2 Case No. 18cv428 DMS MDD MS. L, et al., 3 Petitioners-Plaintiffs, 4 5 JOINT STATUS REPORT REGARDING REUNIFICATION vs. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 6 ENFORCEMENT, et al., 7 Respondents-Defendants. 8 9 10 On July 9, 2018, this Court held a status conference, and ordered the parties 11 12 to file a joint report on July 10, 2018, “setting forth how many Class Members 13 have been or will be reunited with their children by the court-imposed deadline, 14 and how many Class Members may not be reunited with their children by the 15 16 court-imposed deadline due to legitimate logistical impediments that render timely 17 compliance impossible or excusable . . . .” ECF No. 95 at 2. The parties submit this 18 joint status report in accordance with the Court’s instruction. 19 I. COMPLIANCE 20 21 A. Defendants’ Position 22 23 As previously reported to the Court, Defendants have identified 102 children 24 under age 5 who, upon initial review by the U.S. Department of Health and Human 25 Services (“HHS”) were determined potentially to have been separated from a 26 parent, and who therefore were potentially the children of class members. Upon 27 28 1 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 9927-1 FiledFiled 07/10/18 07/13/18 PageID.1968 Page 97 ofPage 189 3 of 10 1 further review, and based on the latest available information at the time of filing, 2 Defendants report the following regarding the reunification scenarios for those 102 3 children. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Not Eligible For Reunification • 14 are not eligible for reunification because their parents are not class members. o 8 parents had serious criminal history discovered during background checks (criminal histories identified include child cruelty and narcotics, human smuggling, a warrant for murder, and robbery). o 5 adults were determined not to be the parent of the accompanying child. o 1 parent faces credible evidence of child abuse. • 2 are not eligible for reunification because their parents are not class members at this time. o 1 parent has been determined to present a danger to the child at this time because an adult in the household where the parent plans to live with the child has an outstanding warrant for aggravated criminal sexual abuse against a 10 year old girl. This determination can be reconsidered if the parent identifies a different living situation. o 1 parent detained in ICE custody is currently being treated for a communicable disease. When the parent no longer has a communicable disease, the reunification process can proceed. • 10 are not eligible for reunification at this time. They will be assessed for reunification after they are released from criminal custody, provided that Defendants are made aware of that release. o 8 parents are in the custody of U.S. Marshals Service. They will be assessed for reunification after they are released from criminal custody and are transferred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody. o 2 additional parents are in state or county custody. They will be assessed for reunification after they are released from criminal 28 2 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 9927-1 FiledFiled 07/10/18 07/13/18 PageID.1969 Page 98 ofPage 189 4 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 custody, provided that Defendants are made aware of that release. • 1 child cannot be reunified at this time because the parent’s location has been unknown for more than a year. Defendants are unable to conclusively determine whether the parent is a class member, and records show the parent and child might be U.S. citizens. Likely Eligible For Reunification 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 • 4 children were reunified with family members before the July 10 deadline. o 1 was released to a parent that ICE released into the U.S. o 1 was released to a parent in the U.S. with the other parent being deported. o 1 was released to a parent in the U.S. with the other parent being still in ICE custody o 1 voluntarily departed with the child’s adult sibling, with the consent of the parent who is still in ICE custody. • 51 are eligible for reunification with a parent who is currently in ICE detention. o 34 parents have cleared a criminal background check and parentage has been verified through a positive DNA match. They are expected to be reunified on July 10, 2018. o 16 parents have cleared a criminal background check but the process for verifying parentage has not yet been completed. They are expected to be reunified on July 10, 2018, or as soon thereafter as parentage can be verified. o 1 parent has criminal background check results that are still in question and are being resolved today. • 20 are eligible for reunification but cannot be reunified by July 10 due to legitimate logistical impediments that render timely compliance impossible or excusable. o 12 of those parents were removed from the United States. The Government will work with Plaintiffs’ counsel to contact these 12 parents and determine whether they wish to have their child reunified with them in their home country. The parties’ 28 3 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 9927-1 FiledFiled 07/10/18 07/13/18 PageID.1970 Page 99 ofPage 189 5 of 10 proposals regarding the process to be followed for these individuals are laid out below. o 8 parents were previously released into the United States and are undergoing safety and suitability screening in accordance with the TVPRA. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Defendants contend that the above numbers show that Defendants are in compliance with the Court’s order. Of the 75 children eligible for reunification, 7 8 Defendants have already reunified 4, and expect to reunify 34 by the July 10 9 deadline, and 16 soon thereafter pending confirmation of eligibility. Of the 10 remaining 20, 8 will be reunified as soon as HHS can determine that the parent is 11 12 not unfit or a danger to the child in accordance with its existing procedures under 13 the TVPRA, and the remaining 12 may be reunified if their parents can be located 14 and if those parents request reunification, and reunification is otherwise proper 15 16 under the Court’s order. Moreover, of the 27 children not currently eligible for 17 reunification, 14 have parents who are not class members, and the remaining 13 18 may be reunified if and when their parents no longer present a danger, have a 19 20 communicable disease, or are in criminal custody so long as ICE is aware of their 21 release, and it is otherwise determined that they meet the criteria for reunification. 22 Thus, any children not being reunified by the July 10 deadline are not being 23 24 reunified because of legitimate logistical impediments that render timely 25 compliance impossible or excusable, and so Defendants are complying with the 26 Court’s order. 27 28 4 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document9927-1 Filed Filed 07/10/18 07/13/18 PageID.1971 Page 100 ofPage 189 6 of 10 B. Plaintiffs’ Position 1 2 Plaintiffs do not agree that Defendants have fully complied with the initial 3 4 reunification deadlines in the Court’s preliminary injunction order. Plaintiffs 5 received Defendants’ updated numbers within the past hour, and have no 6 independent verification that these numbers are accurate, or that there are not 7 8 additional children under five who should be on the government’s list. Plaintiffs, 9 however, can state the following: By today’s deadline, Defendants only plan to 10 reunify about half of the parents with children under five years old. Plaintiffs 11 12 recognize that Defendants cannot yet reunify the parents who are currently being 13 held in criminal custody. But as to all other Class Members with children under 14 five, the government is not in compliance with the clear deadline ordered by the 15 16 17 18 Court. 1. For the Class Members who were deported without their children, Defendants have not even tried to contact them or facilitate their reunification by 19 20 today. Their children are stranded in this country because of Defendants’ actions, 21 and yet Defendants have apparently done nothing to facilitate their reunification. 22 2. For the Class Members who have been released from custody, 23 24 Defendants have not explained why they could not facilitate their reunification by 25 the deadline. Defendants have all of these parents’ contact information, and there 26 are apparently only 8 of them. To the extent Defendants have chosen to subject 27 28 5 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document9927-1 Filed Filed 07/10/18 07/13/18 PageID.1972 Page 101 ofPage 189 7 of 10 1 these parents to ORR’s lengthy sponsorship process, Plaintiffs do not believe those 2 procedures are required. Moreover, even if Defendants believed those procedures 3 would prevent them from reunifying 8 parents in two weeks, they should have 4 5 informed the Court far earlier than last Friday’s status conference, a mere four days 6 before the deadline. 7 3. 8 There are Class Members that Defendants do not currently plan to 9 release today, because Defendants have not yet completed their DNA tests. 10 Defendants have not explained why they could not complete these tests or verify 11 12 parentage through other means by today’s deadline. 13 14 4. There is one child for whom Defendants have not even identified a parent. They have not explained what steps they have taken to find this Class 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Member. II. DEADLINES • Removed Parents: Defendants have provided to Plaintiffs the date of removal and country of removal for all known removed parents with children under 5. Defendants will provide to Plaintiffs the location of the ICE detention facility where each removed parent was last held. Plaintiffs’ counsel will seek to locate those removed parents and provide them with notice of their right to be reunified. If any parent expresses that he or she wishes to be reunified with his or her child then Defendants will facilitate that reunification. o Plaintiffs’ Position: Plaintiffs believe that once Defendants are notified that a removed parent wishes to be reunified with his or her child, reunification should occur within 7 days. 27 28 6 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document9927-1 Filed Filed 07/10/18 07/13/18 PageID.1973 Page 102 ofPage 189 8 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 o Defendants’ Position: Defendants ask the Court to allow a more flexible time period because there are several issues that may impact the timing of removal for these children. For example, Defendants would need to obtain travel documents for the child, and any ongoing removal proceedings for that child would have to be terminated which might require separate waiver from the parents and/or approval from an immigration judge. Moreover, if the child has already obtained relief and is in lawful status, then Defendants would not have the ability to facilitate reunification with a parent abroad. Because pieces of this process are out of Defendants hands, Defendants request that the Court allow for a flexible schedule for such removals that considers the need to complete these steps prior to removal for reunification. • Reunification To Released Parents: This issue will be determined, at least in part, by the Court’s ruling on the parties’ joint submission on the procedures to be followed by HHS under the Court’s order. Accordingly, the parties will meet and confer following that ruling and will submit a proposal, or respective positions, on this issue for the Court’s consideration. 15 16 17 DATED: July 10, 2018 Respectfully submitted, 18 /s/ Lee Gelernt Lee Gelernt* Judy Rabinovitz* Anand Balakrishnan* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 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 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document9927-1 Filed Filed 07/10/18 07/13/18 PageID.1974 Page 103 ofPage 189 9 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 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 Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280) Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 T: (415) 343-1198 F: (415) 395-0950 skang@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs *Admitted Pro Hac Vice 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General SCOTT G. STEWART Deputy Assistant Attorney General WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director WILLIAM C. SILVIS Assistant Director /s/ Sarah B. Fabian SARAH B. FABIAN Senior Litigation Counsel NICOLE MURLEY Trial Attorney Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division 28 8 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 9927-1 FiledFiled 07/10/18 07/13/18 PageID.1975 Page 104 of Page 189 10 of 10 1 2 3 4 U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 532-4824 (202) 616-8962 (facsimile) sarah.b.fabian@usdoj.gov 5 6 7 8 9 ADAM L. BRAVERMAN United States Attorney SAMUEL W. BETTWY Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorneys for Respondents-Defendants 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 18cv428 DMS MDD Case Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 105 of 189 Exhibit Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification Page 1 of 4 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 106 of 189 We only use cookies that are necessary for this site to function, and to provide you with the best experience. Learn more in our Cookie Statement. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies. 27Share Receive Updates Go Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification U.S. Department of Homeland Security sent this bulletin at 06/23/2018 10:17 PM EDT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of Public Affairs FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 23, 2018 Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Health and Human Services (HHS) have a process established to ensure that family members know the location of their children and have regular communication after separation to ensure that those adults who are subject to removal are reunited with their children for the purposes of removal. The United States government knows the location of all children in its custody and is working to reunite them with their families. As part of the apprehension, detention and prosecution process, illegal aliens, adults and children, are initially detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) before the children are sent to HHS’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and parents to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. Each entity plays a role in reunification.  This process is well coordinated. U.S. Customs and Border Protection • CBP has reunited 522 Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) in their custody who were separated from adults as part of the Zero Tolerance initiative.  The reunions of an additional 16 UAC who were scheduled to be reunited on June 22, 2018 were delayed due to weather affecting travel and we expect they will all be reunited with their parents within the next 24 hours.  There will be a small number of children who were separated for reasons other than zero tolerance that will remain https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHS/bulletins/1f98ad8 7/11/2018 Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification Page 2 of 4 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 107 of 189 separated: generally only if the familial relationship cannot be confirmed, we believe the adult is a threat to the safety of the child, or the adult is a criminal alien. • Because of the speed in which adults completed their criminal proceedings, some children were still present at a United States Border Patrol (USBP) station at the time their parent(s) returned from court proceedings.  In these cases, the USBP reunited the family and transferred them, together, to ICE custody as a family unit. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement • ICE has dedicated the Port Isabel Service Processing Center as the primary family reunification and removal center for adults in their custody.  • A parent who is ordered removed from the U.S. may request that his or her minor child accompany them. It should be noted that in the past many parents have elected to be removed without their children.  • ICE has posted information in all of its facilities advising detained parents who are trying to locate, and/or communicate with, a child in the custody of HHS to call the Detention Reporting and Information Line for assistance, which is staffed by live operators Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 8 PM. • The information provided by these parents to the call operators will be forwarded to HHS for action. ICE and HHS will coordinate a review of their custodial data to identify where each child is located, verify the parent/child relationship, and set up regular communication and removal coordination, if necessary. • Each ICE Field Office has Juvenile Coordinators who manage these cases throughout the immigration court proceedings. • Further, ICE maintains a publicly available online detainee locator which can be used to locate adults detained by ICE. This site can be accessed at: https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/index ICE has completed the following steps toward reunification: • Implemented an identification mechanism to ensure on-going tracking of linked family members throughout the detention and removal process; • Designated detention locations for separated parents and will enhance current processes to ensure communication with children in HHS custody; • Worked closely with foreign consulates to ensure that travel documents are issued for both the parent and child at time of removal; and https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHS/bulletins/1f98ad8 7/11/2018 Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification Page 3 of 4 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 108 of 189 • Coordinated with HHS for the reuniting of the child prior to the parents’ departure from the United States. U.S. Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement • Minors come into HHS custody with information provided by DHS regarding how they illegally entered the country and whether or not they were with a parent or adult and, to the extent possible, the parent(s) or guardian(s) information and location. There is a central database which HHS and DHS can access and update when a parent(s) or minor(s) location information changes.  • As of June 20th HHS has 2,053 separated minors being cared for in HHS funded facilities, and is working with relevant agency partners to foster communications and work towards reuniting every minor and every parent or guardian via wellestablished reunification processes. Currently only 17% of minors in HHS funded facilities were placed there as a result of Zero Tolerance enforcement, and the remaining 83% percent arrived to the United States without a parent or guardian. • Parent(s) or guardian(s) attempting to determine if their child is in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in HHS Administration for Children and Families should contact the ORR National Call Center (www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/orr-national-call-center) at 1-800-203-7001, or via email information@ORRNCC.com. Information will be collected and sent to HHS funded facility where minor is located. The ORR National Call Center has numerous resources available for children, parent(s), guardian(s) and sponsors. • Within 24 hours of arriving at an HHS funded facility minors are given the opportunity to communicate with a vetted parent, guardian or relative. While in HHS funded facilities’ care, every effort is made to ensure minors are able to communicate (either telephonic or video depending on the circumstances) with their parent or guardian (at least twice per week). However, reasonable safety precautions are in place to ensure that an adult wishing to communicate with a minor is in fact that minor’s parent or guardian. • Minors in HHS funded facilities are permitted to call both family members and/or sponsors living in the United States and abroad. Attorneys representing minors have unlimited telephone access and the minor may speak to other appropriate stakeholders, such as their consulate, the case coordinator, or child advocate. Additional information on telephone calls, visitation, and mail policies are available in the policy guide. • Under HHS’ publicly available policy guide for Unaccompanied Alien Children, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) releases minors to sponsors in the following order of preference: parent; legal guardian; an adult relative (brother, sister, aunt, uncle, grandparent or first cousin); an adult individual or entity https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHS/bulletins/1f98ad8 7/11/2018 Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification Page 4 of 4 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 109 of 189 designated by the parent or legal guardian (through a signed declaration or other document that ORR determines is sufficient to establish the signatory’s parental/guardian relationship); a licensed program willing to accept legal custody; or an adult individual or entity seeking custody when it appears that there is no other likely alternative to long term ORR care and custody. ### Having trouble viewing this message? View it as a webpage. You are subscribed to updates from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Manage Subscriptions     Privacy Policy     Help Connect with DHS: Facebook    Twitter    Instagram    LinkedIn    Flickr    YouTube U.S. Department of Homeland Security www.dhs.gov Powered by Privacy Policy Cookie Statement Help https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHS/bulletins/1f98ad8 7/11/2018 Case Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 110 of 189 Exhibit Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 86-1 27-1Filed Filed 07/05/18 07/13/18PageID.1782 Page 111 of Page 189 1 of 16 1 CHAD A. READLER 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Acting Assistant Attorney General WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director, Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL) U.S. Department of Justice WILLIAM C. SILVIS Assistant Director, OIL District Court Section SARAH B. FABIAN Senior Litigation Counsel NICOLE MURLEY Trial Attorney Office of Immigration Litigation U.S. Department of Justice Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20442 Telephone: (202) 532-4824 Fax: (202) 616-8962 10 ADAM L. BRAVERMAN 11 12 13 14 15 United States Attorney SAMUEL W. BETTWY Assistant U.S. Attorney California Bar No. 94918 Office of the U.S. Attorney 880 Front Street, Room 6293 San Diego, CA 92101-8893 619-546-7125 619-546-7751 (fax) Attorneys for Federal Respondents-Defendants 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 20 MS. L, et al., Petitioners-Plaintiffs, 21 22 Case No. 18cv428 DMS MDD DECLARATION OF JONATHAN WHITE vs. 23 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., 24 25 26 27 28 Respondents-Defendants. Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 86-1 27-1Filed Filed 07/05/18 07/13/18PageID.1783 Page 112 of Page 189 2 of 16 1 I, Jonathan White, for my declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby state and depose 2 as follows, based on my personal knowledge and information provided to me in the course of my 3 official duties: 4 1. 5 I am a career officer in the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and have served in the Department of Health & Human Services in three Administrations. I am 6 7 presently assigned to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, and 8 previously served as the Deputy Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement for the 9 Unaccompanied Alien Children’s Program. 10 2. I have been involved directly in the actions which HHS has taken to implement 11 Executive Order (EO) 13841 (“Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation”) 12 and comply with the orders in Ms. L., et al., v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., 13 14 15 Case No. 18-cv-428 (S.D.Cal.). President Trump issued EO 13841 on June 20, 2018, and the Court issued its orders on June 26, 2018. 16 KEY HHS ACTIONS ON REUNIFICATION 17 3. Focus on Child Safety: The Secretary of Health and Human Services has directed 18 HHS to take all reasonable actions to comply with the Court’s orders and to prioritize child safety 19 and well-being when doing so. 20 4. Deployment of Additional Personnel: On June 22, 2018, the Secretary of Health and 21 22 23 Human Services directed ASPR to deploy personnel and resources to help the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) of HHS reunify children 24 in ORR custody with parents. 25 5. Determination of Class Members: HHS has worked closely with U.S. Department of 26 Homeland Security (DHS)—including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. 27 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—to try to determine all individuals who meet the 28 1 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 86-1 27-1Filed Filed 07/05/18 07/13/18PageID.1784 Page 113 of Page 189 3 of 16 1 Court’s criteria for class members. The determination of class membership involves real-time, inter2 agency collection and analysis of facts and data to: verify parentage; determine location of DHS 3 apprehension and separation; determine parental fitness; and evaluate whether reunification would 4 present a danger to the child. Class membership is not static; it can change due to transfers of putative 5 parents from ICE to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) (or vice-versa), and newly-acquired information. 6 7 6. Facilitation of Regular Communication Between Class Members and Children in ORR 8 Custody: HHS has deployed field personnel to help putative class members communicate with 9 children in ORR care. 10 DEPLOYMENT OF ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL 11 7. 12 As noted above, on June 22, 2018, the Secretary of Health and Human Services activated ASPR to augment the resources that ORR had already devoted to expeditiously discharge 13 14 15 children from ORR care. ORR has had to continue performing core program functions for minors who cross the border without parents (and who far outnumber separated children in ORR care). The 16 augmenting of resources has helped ORR continue performing those core functions. 17 8. The activating of ASPR included the Secretary’s Operation Center (SOC), which is a 18 command center that operates 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. The mission of the SOC is to 19 synthesize critical public health and medical information for the U.S. Government. While typically 20 used for a public health emergency or natural disaster (e.g., Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico), the SOC 21 22 23 can also serve as a communications hub for large, data-intensive, inter-departmental operations. 9. ASPR activated an Incident Management Team. As of July 3, 2018, the Incident 24 Management Team had 33 members (in addition to the permanent staff of the SOC). It works full25 time to provide logistical and administrative support. 26 27 10. ASPR has also dispatched approximately 115 personnel to the field to engage directly with putative class members in DHS custody. Those personnel—who are organized into four field 28 2 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 86-1 27-1Filed Filed 07/05/18 07/13/18PageID.1785 Page 114 of Page 189 4 of 16 1 teams— are from ACF, ASPR, the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, and the National 2 Disaster Medical System’s Disaster Medical Assistance Team (DMAT). The DMAT is a cadre of 3 trained health and medical professionals and para-professionals that augments ASPR’s capabilities 4 during public emergencies. 5 11. Finally, HHS has executed a contract with BCFS Health and Human Services, Inc. 6 7 (“BCFS”), to provide an additional 100 reunification case managers, plus approximately 40 staff for 8 logistical and administrative support. HHS has trained the case managers from BCFS, and is 9 deploying them on Thursday, July 5, and Friday, July 6, 2018, to augment existing field operations. 10 They too will engage directly with putative class members in ICE custody. 11 12 DETERMINATION OF CLASS MEMBERS 12. ORR has a process for placing unaccompanied alien children (UAC) with parents or 13 14 15 other sponsors that is designed to comply with the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), and the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection 16 Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), as described in more detail below. This process ensures the 17 care and safety of children who are apprehended in the United States and then referred to HHS as 18 unaccompanied children. 19 20 13. HHS has modified and expedited its ordinary process so that it can determine class membership using the Court’s criteria and, to the extent possible, reunify class members and their 21 22 23 children within the Court’s deadlines. 14. Under its modified process, HHS identifies putative class members with children in 24 ORR custody and verifies parentage. Also, HHS determines the putative class member’s immigration 25 history to confirm where they were apprehended and separated from their child. Finally, HHS 26 collects and analyzes criminal, medical (e.g., communicable disease), and other information to 27 28 3 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 86-1 27-1Filed Filed 07/05/18 07/13/18PageID.1786 Page 115 of Page 189 5 of 16 1 determine the parental fitness of the putative class member and confirm that reunification would not 2 present a danger to the child. HHS generally performs these checks concurrently. 3 4 5 15. Putative class members who are not verified as parents are not included in the class by HHS. Putative class members apprehended in the interior, who have relevant criminal history, have a communicable disease, or are otherwise parentally unfit or present a danger to a child, are not 6 7 8 included in the class either. 16. In general, HHS knows the names and locations of all children who are in ORR care 9 and custody at all times because ORR maintains that data in its online case management portal. The 10 ORR portal includes data about each child that DHS provided when DHS transferred the child to 11 ORR custody. It also includes health and social data collected or entered by ORR personnel, grantees, 12 or contractors. While the ORR portal may contain some data about the child’s parents, the ORR 13 14 15 portal was not designed to determine class membership or facilitate reunification under the criteria and deadlines established by the Court’s Order. Some of the data required to determine the class 16 membership of a putative class member resides with DHS, while HHS must collect some data directly 17 from the putative class member. 18 17. The data collection, sharing, and analysis required to determine class membership is 19 extraordinarily time and resource intensive. There are myriad reasons for this. For instance, DHS 20 has different information systems, and those systems were not designed to neatly capture and readily 21 22 23 share all of the data required to determine class membership. The departments must therefore map their data manually. Also, the class potentially encompasses parents who were separated from their 24 children before the Administration implemented the zero-tolerance policy, and those groups may not 25 have received the same family unit identifiers from DHS as the groups separated after the 26 Administration implemented the zero-tolerance policy. Absent reliable and consistent identifiers, 27 HHS must glean the separations of class members and children (and related details) from the case 28 4 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 86-1 27-1Filed Filed 07/05/18 07/13/18PageID.1787 Page 116 of Page 189 6 of 16 1 management files on the ORR portal. On top of these variables, a parent’s class membership can 2 change if the parent is transferred between ICE and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), or if information 3 obtained directly from the parent affects the class membership analysis. 4 18. 5 To ensure that every separated child in ORR custody who belongs to a class member is identified and reunified, HHS has had each grantee at one of ORR’s approximately 110 shelters 6 7 certify the separated children who the grantee reasonably believes are in its care. HHS has also 8 conducted a full manual review of the case management file for each one of the approximate 11,800 9 children in ORR custody—the substantial majority of whom were not separated from a putative 10 parent at the border—to confirm or rule out any indicia of separation. The manual review was 11 conducted by dozens of HHS personnel working nights and over the weekend. The results of both 12 the manual review and the grantee certifications are undergoing validation. 13 14 15 19. As of July 5, 2018, we have identified approximately 101 minors under age 5, within ORR care, whose records contain indicia of separation. Class membership analysis for putative class 16 members associated with the larger group of minors 5 through 18 is ongoing. Also, some of the 17 identified minors may have been separated prior to crossing the border, or there may be other factors 18 that need to be explored that would not make their parents members of the class. HHS has received 19 confirmation from DHS that approximately 40 parents of children in the under-5 group are in DHS 20 custody and another 9 are in U.S. Marshal’s custody. The class membership analysis for putative 21 22 class members associated with the remaining children in the group of 101 is ongoing. 23 Verifying Parentage 24 20. HHS is using DNA testing to try to verify parentage of all putative class members, as 25 well as all children in ORR custody who ORR reasonably believes were separated from a putative 26 class member. HHS is conducting the DNA testing concurrent with collecting and reviewing 27 28 5 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 86-1 27-1Filed Filed 07/05/18 07/13/18PageID.1788 Page 117 of Page 189 7 of 16 1 documentation of parentage, interviewing putative class members and family members, and 2 observing communications or interactions between putative class members and children. 3 4 5 21. DNA testing is a faster but costlier method for confirming parentage than collecting and assessing documentation and anecdotal information. When ORR implements its safety and suitability policies in the ordinary course of administering its program, it confirms parentage through 6 7 DNA testing as a last resort. HHS has dual-tracked global DNA testing to ensure child safety and to 8 expedite parentage verifications to try to comply with the deadlines in the Court’s order. 22. 9 ORR grantees are swabbing the cheeks of the children in ORR custody, while DHS 10 personnel or the field teams deployed by HHS are swabbing the cheeks of the putative class members 11 in ICE custody. The cheek swabs are then sent to a third-party laboratory services provider to 12 complete the DNA testing. The results are then transmitted electronically to the Incident 13 14 15 Management Team at the SOC, which shares them with the grantees. HHS will use the results only for verifying parentage. 23. 16 The DNA testing process takes nearly one week to complete for each putative class 17 member and child. Once HHS has made a data match between a putative class member and child, it 18 may take the field teams and grantees up to two days to further validate the match and swab cheeks. 19 It may then take up to three days for laboratory services provider to collect the sample and conduct 20 the test. Once the laboratory services provider completes the testing, it may take up to 24 hours for 21 22 23 24 the Incident Management Team to receive and transmit the results back to the grantees and field teams. 24. The field teams are concurrently facilitating the completion of reunification 25 applications by putative class members. The packets seek medical and social data that bear on the 26 criteria for class membership, including parentage, parental fitness, and child endangerment. A copy 27 of a blank reunification application is attached at Tab 1. 28 6 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 86-1 27-1Filed Filed 07/05/18 07/13/18PageID.1789 Page 118 of Page 189 8 of 16 1 25. My opinion is that DNA testing is the method of parental verification most likely to 2 protect children from harm given the compressed timeframe imposed by the court’s order. The risk 3 of placing children with adults who are not their parents is a real and significant child welfare concern 4 for HHS because the experience of ORR is that children are smuggled across the border or trafficked 5 by adults who fraudulently hold themselves out as parents. The children may not disclose the 6 7 situation to CBP, ICE, or ORR because they may fear retaliation by the adults who brought them 8 across the border. In some instances, they may fear retaliation by their parents in their home country, 9 who have given them to the smuggler or trafficker so that they may earn money in the United States. 10 My opinion is that DNA testing mitigates the risk of the United States Government placing children 11 back with adults who are not their parents and who would endanger them. 12 26. If, however, HHS concludes that it can reliably and more quickly determine the 13 14 15 parentage of a putative class member based on documentation or anecdotal information collected from the putative class member, then HHS will make that determination to try to comply with the 16 Court’s reunification deadlines. 17 Background Checks for Parental Fitness 18 27. HHS is assessing the backgrounds of putative class members by reviewing summaries 19 of prior criminal background checks provided by ICE. Already such background check information 20 has come back with two results that show that two putative parents of children under five may 21 22 23 endanger the child (charges of kidnapping/rape and child cruelty), and 12 more need to be further assessed. 24 Parental Fitness and Child Endangerment 25 28. As discussed below, HHS’ ordinary process for placing children with sponsors 26 involves a safety and suitability analysis, as well as a home study in certain circumstances. These 27 checks can sometimes take weeks or months. 28 7 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 86-1 27-1Filed Filed 07/05/18 07/13/18PageID.1790 Page 119 of Page 189 9 of 16 1 29. HHS has modified and expedited its ordinary process when further assessing parental 2 fitness and potential child endangerment for a potential reunification with a putative class member in 3 DHS custody. For potential reunifications with putative class members in DHS custody, any further 4 assessment of parental fitness and potential child endangerment involves only the review of the case 5 management records (which includes, for example, case review notes and other electronic files) and 6 7 the putative class member’s completed reunification packet for indicia of child abuse or neglect. If 8 there are no such indicia, then HHS will not conduct further assessment. 9 30. When further assessing parental fitness and potential child endangerment for potential 10 reunifications of putative class members who are no longer in DHS custody, HHS is modifying and 11 expediting its ordinary process on a case-by-case basis to try to comply with court-ordered deadlines 12 in ways that do not endanger child welfare. 13 14 15 31. For example, when placing a child with a putative parental sponsor who is no longer in DHS custody, HHS would ordinarily verify the potential sponsor’s residential address and conduct 16 background checks of adult cohabitants to try to ensure that the potential sponsor is capable of 17 providing shelter and care – and that the potential sponsor’s cohabitants do not endanger the child— 18 after placement. To try to comply with the Court’s deadlines, HHS will likely need to streamline its 19 address verification process for putative class members. But HHS does not believe that it can 20 streamline background checks. 21 22 23 24 32. UAC sponsors have always included the parents of UACs , and close to half of the sponsors to whom ORR ordinarily releases UACs are parents. 33. The Flores settlement agreement (“FSA”) prioritizes release to parents, if they are 25 available, and also specifically provides for ORR to ensure the suitability of such releases, and to 26 protect the child from danger. See FSA paragraphs 14-18. 27 28 8 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 86-1 27-1 Filed Filed 07/05/18 07/13/18 PageID.1791 Page 120 ofPage 189 10 of 16 34. 1 The FSA describes a variety of criteria to consider before the government releases a 2 UAC to a parent (or other sponsor). See FSA paragraphs 14-18. These factors include: 3 4 • Verifying the identity of the parent; • Verifying the identity and employment of the individuals offering support to the parent 5 and minor; 6 7 8 • Receiving information from their address and any future change of address; • Ensuring the parent will provide for the minor’s physical, mental, and financial well- 9 being; 10 • 11 standard of care he would receive; 12 • 13 Interviewing the members of the household where the parent will live with the child, and in some cases a home visit; and 14 • 15 16 Requiring the parent to ensure the minor’s presence at all future immigration proceedings. 17 18 Investigating the living conditions in which the minor would be placed and the 35. Furthermore, under the HSA and TVPRA, HHS has developed a series of safety and suitability requirements that ensure child welfare, upon release, is protected. These policies, many 19 20 21 of which were refined after Congressional oversight, are contained in Section 2 of the ORR Policy Guide: Children Entering the United States Unaccompanied, available at: 22 https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/children-entering-the-united-states-unaccompanied-section23 2#2.1 . 24 36. The policies include identifying the sponsor; submitting the application for release 25 and supporting documentation; evaluating the suitability of the sponsor, including verification of 26 the sponsor’s identity and relationship to the child; background checks; and in some cases home 27 28 studies; and planning for post-release. 9 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 86-1 27-1 Filed Filed 07/05/18 07/13/18 PageID.1792 Page 121 ofPage 189 11 of 16 1 37. ORR requires all potential sponsors, including parents, to undergo fingerprinting in 2 order to ensure the safety and suitability of release. The fingerprints are used to run background 3 checks of databases involving criminal history. ORR also checks sexual abuse information, child 4 abuse information, and other public record sources. 5 38. ORR also requires that, if there are other adults living in the household with a 6 7 sponsor (including a parent), those adults also undergo background checks. This ensures the child 8 will not be endangered if, for example, those household members have a history of child abuse or 9 sexual abuse that ORR must further consider before approving the release. 10 39. ORR also requires that sponsors, including parents, identify an alternative caregiver, 11 who will be able to provide care in the event the original sponsor is unavailable. These adult 12 caregivers must also be identified and undergo background checks. 13 14 15 40. To ensure safety and suitability for children, ORR considers the following factors when evaluating release of a UAC to parents, other family members, and other potential sponsors in 16 the community: 17 18 19 20 a. The nature and extent of the sponsor’s previous and current relationship with the child or youth and the unaccompanied alien child’s family, if a relationship exists. b. The sponsor’s motivation for wanting to sponsor the child or youth. c. The UAC’s parent or legal guardian’s perspective on the release to the identified 21 22 23 24 25 26 potential sponsor (for cases in which the parent or legal guardian is not the sponsor). d. The child or youth’s views on the release and whether he or she wants to be released to the individual. e. The sponsor’s understanding of the unaccompanied alien child’s needs, as identified by ORR and the care provider. 27 28 10 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 86-1 27-1 Filed Filed 07/05/18 07/13/18 PageID.1793 Page 122 ofPage 189 12 of 16 1 f. The sponsor’s plan to provide adequate care, supervision, access to community 2 3 resources, and housing. g. The sponsor’s understanding of the importance of ensuring the unaccompanied alien 4 child’s presence at all future hearings or proceedings, including immigration court 5 proceedings, and the sponsor’s receipt of Legal Orientation Program for Custodians 6 information that ORR provides to all potential sponsors. 7 8 h. The linguistic and cultural background of the child or youth and the sponsor, including cultural, social, and communal norms and practices for the care of children. 9 10 i. The sponsor’s strengths, resources, and mitigating factors in relation to any risks or 11 special concerns of the child or sponsor, such as a criminal background, history of 12 substance abuse, mental health issues, or domestic violence and child welfare concerns. 13 14 j. The unaccompanied alien child’s current functioning and strengths in relation to any risk factors or special concerns, such as children or youth who are victims of human 15 16 trafficking; are a parent or are pregnant; have special needs, disabilities or medical or 17 mental health issues; have a history of criminal, juvenile justice, or gang involvement; or 18 a history of behavioral issues. 19 20 41. In certain cases, the TVPRA requires a home study, prior to release. 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(3)(B) states: “A home study shall be conducted for a child who is a victim of a severe form 21 22 23 of trafficking in persons, a special needs child with a disability (as defined in section 12102 of title 42), a child who has been a victim of physical or sexual abuse under circumstances that indicate 24 that the child's health or welfare has been significantly harmed or threatened, or a child whose 25 proposed sponsor clearly presents a risk of abuse, maltreatment, exploitation, or trafficking to the 26 child based on all available objective evidence.” In circumstances in which a home study is not 27 required by the TVPRA or ORR policy, the Case Manager and an independent third party Case 28 11 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 86-1 27-1 Filed Filed 07/05/18 07/13/18 PageID.1794 Page 123 ofPage 189 13 of 16 1 Coordinator may recommend that a home study be conducted if they agree that the home study will 2 provide additional information required to determine that the sponsor is able to care for the health, 3 safety and well-being of the child. 4 42. 5 ORR does not disqualify potential sponsors on the basis of their immigration status, but does require sponsors (including parents) to complete a sponsor care plan. Among other things, 6 7 the care plan identifies the adult caregiver who will act for the sponsor, should the sponsor become 8 unavailable, and how such caregiver will be notified of such situation. It also includes a safety plan 9 in some circumstances. 10 43. Throughout the release process, care providers work with the child and sponsor so 11 that they can plan for the child’s after care needs. This involves working with the sponsor and the 12 unaccompanied alien child to prepare them for post-ORR custody, assess the sponsor’s ability to 13 14 15 access community resources, and provide guidance regarding safety planning, sponsor care plans, and accessing services for the child. The care provider explains the U.S. child abuse and neglect 16 standards and child protective services that are explained on https://www.childwelfare.gov, human 17 trafficking indicators and resources, and basic safety and how to use the 9-1-1 number in 18 emergency situations. 19 20 44. Once the assessment is complete and a sponsor has been approved, the sponsor enters into an agreement with the Federal government in which he or she agrees to: 21 22 a. Provide for the physical and mental well-being of the child, including but not 23 limited to, food, shelter, clothing, education, medical care and other services as 24 needed. 25 26 27 b. Attend a legal orientation program provided under the Department of Justice/Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (EOIR) Legal Orientation Program for Custodians (Sponsors), if available where he or she resides. 28 12 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 86-1 27-1 Filed Filed 07/05/18 07/13/18 PageID.1795 Page 124 ofPage 189 14 of 16 1 c. Depending on where the unaccompanied alien child’s immigration case is 2 pending, notify the local Immigration Court or the Board of Immigration 3 Appeals within 5 days of any change of address or phone number of the child 4 5 (Form EOIR-33). (If applicable, file a Change of Venue motion on the child’s behalf.10 A “change of venue” is a legal term for moving an immigration 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 hearing to a new location.) d. Notify the DHS/U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services within 10 days of any change of address by filing an Alien’s Change of Address Card (AR-11) or electronically at http://www.uscis.gov/ar-11. e. Ensure the unaccompanied alien child’s presence at all future proceedings before the DHS/Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the DOJ/EOIR. 13 14 15 16 17 f. Ensure the unaccompanied alien child reports to ICE for removal from the United States if an immigration judge issues a removal order or voluntary departure order. g. Notify local law enforcement or state or local Child Protective Services if the 18 child has been or is at risk of being subjected to abuse, abandonment, neglect or 19 maltreatment or if the sponsor learns that the child has been threatened, has been 20 sexually or physically abused or assaulted, or has disappeared. (Notice should be 21 22 23 24 given as soon as it is practicable or no later than 24 hours after the event or after becoming aware of the risk or threat.) h. Notify the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children at 1-800-843- 25 5678 if the unaccompanied alien child disappears, has been kidnapped, or runs 26 away. (Notice should be given as soon as it becomes practicable or no later than 27 24 hours after learning of the child’s disappearance.) 28 13 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 86-1 27-1 Filed Filed 07/05/18 07/13/18 PageID.1796 Page 125 ofPage 189 15 of 16 i. Notify ICE at 1-866-347-2423 if the unaccompanied alien child is contacted in 1 2 any way by an individual(s) believed to represent an alien smuggling syndicate, 3 organized crime, or a human trafficking organization. (Notice should be provided 4 as soon as possible or no later than 24 hours after becoming aware of the 5 information.) 6 j. In case of an emergency, such as serious illness, destruction of home, etc., 7 8 temporarily transfer physical custody of the child to another person who will 9 comply with the terms of the Sponsor Care Agreement. 10 k. In the event that a sponsor who is not the child’s parent or legal guardian is no 11 longer able and willing to care for the unaccompanied alien child and is unable to 12 temporarily transfer physical custody, notify ORR using the ORR National Call 13 Center, at 1-800-203-7001. 14 15 45. If HHS cannot reasonably complete processes that are material to ensuring the welfare 16 of the children presently in ORR custody within the deadlines ordered by the Court, then HHS has 17 no choice but to make class membership determinations with incomplete information. The use of 18 incomplete information increases the risk of not only incorrect class membership determinations, but 19 also reunifications that endanger the welfare of the children presently in ORR care. 20 46. My opinion is that some relaxing of the Court’s deadlines is needed to allow HHS, on 21 22 23 a case-by-case basis, to complete processes that HHS determines are necessary to make informed class membership determinations and to protect the welfare of the children presently in ORR custody. 24 FACILITATION OF CLASS MEMBER COMMUNIATIONS 25 47. HHS has facilitated communication between putative class members by helping 26 putative class members connect with case managers. HHS has directed field staff to help facilitate a 27 conversation between a putative class member and his or her child. For example, field staff may call 28 14 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 86-1 27-1 Filed Filed 07/05/18 07/13/18 PageID.1797 Page 126 ofPage 189 16 of 16 Case Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 127 of 189 Exhibit AA Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document95 27-1Filed Filed 07/09/18 07/13/18PageID.1927 Page 128 ofPage 189 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Ms. L.; et al., Case No.: 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Petitioners-Plaintiffs, 12 13 v. 14 U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”); et al., 15 ORDER FOLLOWING STATUS CONFERENCE Respondents-Defendants. 16 17 18 A status conference was held on July 9, 2018. Lee Gelernt appeared and argued for 19 Plaintiffs and Sarah Fabian appeared and argued for Defendants. After consulting with 20 counsel and being advised of the status of the case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 21 1. 22 documents to the Court: On or before 6:00 p.m. on July 9, 2018, counsel shall submit the following 23 a. A joint status report on the issue of the procedures to be followed for the 24 reunification of children and Class Members who have been released from ICE 25 custody. To the extent counsel have agreed on the procedures, they should submit a 26 joint motion and proposed order for the Court’s review. To the extent there is 27 disagreement, each side should set out its respective proposal and specify the 28 disagreements that require court resolution 1 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document95 27-1Filed Filed 07/09/18 07/13/18PageID.1928 Page 129 ofPage 189 2 of 2 1 b. A proposed notice to be provided to the Class. 2 2. 3 setting forth how many Class Members have been or will be reunited with their children 4 by the court-imposed deadline, and how many Class Members may not be reunited with 5 their children by the court-imposed deadline due to legitimate logistical impediments that 6 render timely compliance impossible or excusable, e.g., detention of the Class Member in 7 criminal custody or removal of the Class Member from the United States. For the latter 8 group, counsel should explain why reunification may not be completed, and provide a 9 timeframe for those reunifications. On or before 10:00 a.m. on July 10, 2018, counsel shall submit a joint status report 10 3. A further status conference shall be held at 11:00 a.m. on July 10, 2018. 11 4. The Court has set up a dial in number for counsel and any members of 12 the news media that wish to attend. This number is for counsel and media 13 only, who should follow the steps below to connect to the conference call. 14 Members of the general public may appear in person. 15 1. Dial the toll free number: 877-873-8018; 16 2. Enter the Access Code: 9911153 (Participants will be put on hold 17 18 until the Court activates the conference call); 3. 19 20 21 22 23 24 Enter the Participant Security Code 07100428 and Press # (The security code will be confirmed); 4. Once the Security Code is confirmed, participants will be prompted to Press 1 to join the conference or Press 2 to re-enter the Security Code. Dated: July 9, 2018 25 26 27 28 2 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 130 of 189 Exhibit BB Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document91 27-1Filed Filed 07/06/18 07/13/18PageID.1840 Page 131 ofPage 189 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Ms. L.; et al., Case No.: 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Petitioners-Plaintiffs, 12 13 v. 14 U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”); et al., 15 ORDER SETTING FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE Respondents-Defendants. 16 17 18 A status conference was held on July 6, 2018. Lee Gelernt appeared and argued for 19 Plaintiffs and Sarah Fabian appeared and argued for Defendants. After consulting with 20 counsel and being advised of the status of the case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 21 1. 22 a list of the 101 children discussed at the conference that identifies each child and explains 23 the status of each child’s reunification with his or her parent. 24 2. 25 ORR policies and procedures in dispute. 26 3. 27 motion and proposed order for the Court’s review and signature. Otherwise, counsel On or before July 7, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., the Government shall provide to Plaintiffs Counsel shall meet and confer about the list, and shall also meet and confer on the To the extent counsel reach an agreement on these issues, they should submit a joint 28 1 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document91 27-1Filed Filed 07/06/18 07/13/18PageID.1841 Page 132 ofPage 189 2 of 2 1 should be prepared to discuss these issues at a further status conference scheduled for July 2 9, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. 3 The Court has set up a dial in number for counsel and any members of 4 the news media that wish to attend. This number is for counsel and media 5 only, who should follow the steps below to connect to the conference call: 6 1. Dial the toll free number: 877-873-8018; 7 2. Enter the Access Code: 9911153 (Participants will be put on hold 8 9 until the Court activates the conference call); 3. 10 11 12 13 14 15 Enter the Participant Security Code 07090428 and Press # (The security code will be confirmed); 4. Once the Security Code is confirmed, participants will be prompted to Press 1 to join the conference or Press 2 to re-enter the Security Code. Dated: July 6, 2018 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 18cv0428 DMS (MDD) Case Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 133 of 189 Exhibit CC Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 134 of 189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al. NO. 2:18-CV-00939 9 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 10 V. 11 12 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 I, Francisco Serrano, declare as follows: 15 1. I am over the age of 18 and have personal knowledge of the facts herein. If called 16 as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the matters set forth below. 17 2. I reside in the District of Columbia. I live with my wife, my mother, and my two 18 children who are fifteen and seventeen years old. 19 3. In May 2018, my niece Maria called me to tell me that she had traveled from E1 20 Salvador with a caravan, that she was at the Mexico-United States border and that she was going 21 to cross the border by San Ysidro. She also told me that she was traveling with her two children, 22 M. who is 7 years old and N. who is 2 years old. 23 4. Approximately a week later I received a call from a shelter indicating that the 24 children were going to be separated from Maria, that they were on their way to New York, that 25 Maria had designated me as a sponsor and asking me whether I was willing to be the sponsor. I 26 DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY I OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE of CALIFORNIA 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916-445-9555 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 135 of 189 I told the person that I would be the sponsor and then the person told me that I would be able to 2 talk to the children twice a week. Attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2 are the forms I was told 3 to complete in early May 2018 so that I could receive Maria's two sons. 4 5. I have spoken with the seven-year-old on several occasions since the family 5 arrived. He told me that officials told him that he and his little brother were being taken to a 6 detention center in Washington, D.C. to be closer to me, their uncle. I received a phone call from 7 the seven-year-old who thought he was in Washington, D.C., but he was not. He was in New 8 York. I was told by a social worker that the two young boys are in Lutheran Youth Hostel of 9 New York. 10 6. To become the sponsor the social worker told me that I had to provide: 1) Maria's 11 mother's birth certificate, 2) Maria's birth certificate, 3) the kids' birth certificates, and 4) my 12 birth certificate, driver's license, passport and proof of citizenship. In addition to completing the 13 paperwork, I had to provide copies of my identification and police record. I did not have copies 14 of Maria's mother's, Maria's or the kids' birth certificates so I had to ask persons in El Salvador 15 to send them to me. This process took 5 days because a fi-iend was in El Salvador and was able 16 to help me, otherwise the process would have taken 15 to 20 days. 17 7. The social worker who was working with the kids told me that once I submitted 18 the documents she would get approval within 36 hours and the children would be released within 19 24 hours after that. I did not hear from them within 36 hours, but I assumed that everything was 20 valid because I had completed all of the forms and followed all of the instructions. 21 22 23 8. Approximately one week after I provided the paperwork I was told that I had to be fingerprinted. The next day I took time off work and got fingerprinted. 9. After I submitted all the requested documents the social worker told me that she 24 was very sorry but that she had only been able to get one of the approvals she needed to approve 25 the paperwork. She said that she did everything she could but it was out of her hands. 26 DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 2 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916-445-9555 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 136 of 189 1 10. In late May 2018, I received a power of attorney from my niece Maria giving me 2 the authorization to care for her two minor sons. A copy of the notarized power of attorney is 3 attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 1 provided a copy of this power of attorney to the social worker in 4 early June 2018. 5 11. About a week later I was asked to complete a certified form for a further 6 background check. On June 1, 2018, I completed the additional form that Lutheran Social 7 Services had provided to me to get authorization to receive Maria's two sons. I had to have the 8 form notarized. A copy of that form is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 9 12. Then I was informed that I passed the background check but they needed one 10 more week to release the kids to me. The seven-year-old boy called me and told me that 11 officials had told him that he and his brother would be released to me in a week. 12 13. But then, I was told that they needed to perform a DNA test to confirm that 13 Maria is the children's mom. Recently, the social worker told me that a few days ago a 14 government employee went to Otay Mesa where Maria was detained to conduct the DNA test 15 but that Maria was not there. Later, when I spoke to Maria she said that she had been at Otay 16 Mesa the entire time. 17 14. On June 22, several weeks after I submitted all of the paperwork, on June 22, 18 2018, I was told that the paperwork I submitted was wrong, the power of attorney was not 19 valid, and the boys would not be released to me. She said that there were new forms we had to 20 complete, but she did not send me the forms until Friday, June 29, 2018. Those forms are 21 attached hereto as Exhibits 5 and 6. 22 15. On June 27 after borrowing money from family members, I was able to gather 23 $10,000 to post Maria's bond. An immigration agent told me that Maria would come out on 24 June 28, 2018 and that she would be taken to the bus station so she could take the bus to 25 Washington, D.C. So Maria's bus ticket was for June 28. But immigration released her on 26 1 June 27 and Maria called me because the agents left her in a McDonald's and she did not have DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 3 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA I Street Sacrammen en to, CA 95814 916-445-9555 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 137 of 189 I any place to go or to sleep. She had to look for someone to take her in for one night and now 2 she in on the way to Washington, D.C. 3 16. On June 28, 2018, I talked to the social worker who told me that we will have 4 to start the sponsorship process again and that Maria will have to fill the application and 5 request the children because she already was released from immigration detention. 6 17. I am concerned that now the process for Maria's children to be reunited with my 7 family will have to start all over again. Everyone in my home, including my 78-year-old 8 mother, will have to submit fingerprints, police records, and identification, and we will have to 9 complete a new application form. Because of my mother's age, it is difficult to get her 10 fingerprints, and immigration officials previously told her that she would not have to submit 11 fingerprints again. I was told that my niece Maria will also have to be fingerprinted and will 12 have to submit all the documentation, as well. I am concerned that Maria will not be able to 13 produce the right paperwork to be reunited with her sons. Maria does not have a passport, and 14 all she has is an ID card from E1 Salvador. 15 16 18. All this process has been very difficult for my family: a. At first when I would talk to M., the 7-year-old, he was very talkative and 17 excited because the social worker told him he would be out within a week. When the time came 18 that M. expected to be released and nothing happened he sounded depressed, he would not say 19 much and wanted to cry. He asked me why I had not picked him up yet. The social worker told 20 me that M. is depressed and asked me for words of encouragement to cheer him up. On June 28, 21 I spoke with him and he is glad because he thinks that soon he is going to be reunited with his 22 mother. I am worried about M.'s mental health when he learns that we have to start the process 23 again and that he is not going to be released soon. 24 25 b. Because I am only able to speak on the phone and N. is too young, I have not been able to speak with him at all. M. told me that N. cries all the time, and that the only 26 DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 4 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE CALIFORNIA 13300 0 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916-445-9555 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 138 of 189 1 time that the kids see each other is at night. M. told me that they let N. stay with him at night 2 because he is the only one with whom N. won't cry. 3 C. When I speak with Maria she asks for an update about the children and is 4 speechless when I tell her that I am still waiting for approval. She cries. She has only been able 5 to speak with the kids a few times. 6 d. The most affected person by all this is my mother. She raised Maria after 7 her mother died when Maria was 8 months o Id. At first, I did not want to tell my mom what was 8 happening because she is 78 years old and I was concerned that the news would adversely impact 9 her health. I only told her that Maria and the kids had crossed the border but were detained. 10 After watching news, my mom demanded I tell her what was happening. My mom became ill 11 when I told her that the kids had been separated from Maria Ever since my mom found out about 12 the family separation, she has had an intense headache and I had to take her to see a doctor. I 13 am really concerned about my mom's health. For Maria, the separation from her kids repeats 14 the story as when she lost her mother. 15 e. On my part, this process has been very depressive and frustrating. When 16 I finally thought that they were going to give me the children they tell me no. I have also had to 17 take time off work to do all that has been asked of me. 18 19. Iam hopeful that Maria, M. and N. will be reunited soon. 19 20 21 22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated this 30th day of June 2018 in Washington D.C. 23 [Signature] 24 FRANCISCO SERRANO 25 26 DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 5 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916-445-9555 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 139 of 189 1 CERTIFICATION OF TRANSLATION 2 3 Manuel Duran, a translator certified by the Judicial Council of California and the Office of Federal Courts, certifies that he translated/transcribed completely and accurately, and to the best of his ability the English translation of the following Spanish document(s): 4 NO. 2:18-CV-00939 5 DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 6 7 I swear under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed on July 2, 2018 in Oceanside, California. 8 r 9 10 11 CALIFOP,NIA JUDICIAL COUNCIL CERTIFICATION 30034: July 2, 2018 Manuel Duran California Certification No. 300344 Federal Court Certification No. 93-462 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 6 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916-445-9555 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 140 of 189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 NO. 2:18-CV-00939 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., 9 Plaintiff, DECLARACION DE FRANCISCO SERRANO EN APOYO A PETICI6N DE LOS DEMANDANTES PARA EXHIBICI6N DE PRUEBAS ACELERADA 10 V. 11 12 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 Yo, Francisco Serrano, declaro to siguiente: 15 1. Tengo mas de 18 anos de edad y tengo conocimiento personal de los hechos en 16 este documento. Si se me llamara como testigo, podria y testificaria de manera competente a las 17 cuestiones que se exponen a continuaci6n. 18 2. Yo resido en el Distrito de Columbia. Vivo con mi esposa, mi mama, y mis dos 19 hijos que tienen quince y diecisiete anos de edad. 20 3. En mayo de 2018, mi sobrina Maria me llam6 para decirme que habia viajado 21 desde El Salvador con una caravana, que estaba en la frontera de Mexico y los Estados Unidos, 22 y que iba a cruzar la frontera por San Ysidro. Tambien me dijo que estaba viajando con sus dos 23 ninos, M. de 7 anos de edad y N. de 2 anos de edad. 24 4. Aproximadamente una semana despues recibi una llamada de un albergue 25 diciendome que los ninos iban a ser separados de Maria, que iban rumbo a Nueva York, que 26 DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA I Street Sacrammen en to, CA 95814 916-445-9555 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 141 of 189 I Maria me habia designado como patrocinador y preguntandome que si yo estaba dispuesto a 2 ser el patrocinador. Yo le dije a la persona que seria el patrocinador y la persona me dijo que 3 yo podria hablar con los ninos dos veces por semana. Adjunto los Documentos 1 y 2 son los 4 formularios que me dijeron que completara a principios de mayo para que pudiera recibir a los 5 ninos de Maria. 6 5. Yo he hablado con el nitro de 7 anos en varias ocasiones desde que la familia 7 lleg6. El me dijo que oficiales le dijeron que a el y a su hermanito los iban a llevar a un centro 8 de detenci6n en Washington, D.C. para estar mas cerca de mi, sus tio. Recibi una Ramada del 9 nitro de siete anos quien pensaba que estaba en Washington, D.C., pero no era asi. El estaba en 10 Nueva York. Una trabajadora social me dijo que los dos ninos estdn Lutheran Youth Hostel en 11 Nueva York. 12 6. Para ser el patrocinador la trabajadora social me dijo que tenfa que proveer: 1) el 13 acta de nacimiento de la mama de Maria, 2) el acta de nacimiento de Maria, 3) las actas de 14 nacimiento de los ninos, y 4) mi acta de nacimiento, licencia de conducir, pasaporte y pruebas 15 de ciudadania. Ademas de completar el papeleo, tuve que proporcionar copias de mi 16 identificaci6n y registro policial. Yo no tenia copias de las actas de nacimiento de la mama de 17 Maria, de Maria o de los ninos asi es que tuve que contactar a personas en El Salvador para que 18 me las enviaran. Este proceso tomo 5 dias porque un amigo estaba en El Salvador y me pudo 19 ayudar, si no, el proceso hubiera durado de 15 a 20 dias. 20 7. La trabajadora social que estaba trabajando con los ninos me dijo que cuando yo 21 entregara los documentos ella obtendria aprobaci6n en 36 horas y los ninos saldrian 24 horas 22 despues de eso. No escuch6 de ellos en las pr6ximas 36 horas, pero asumi que todo era valido 23 porque ya habia completado todos los formularios y seguido todas las instrucciones. 24 8. Aproximadamente una semana despues que proporcione el papeleo me dijeron 25 que me tenian que tomar la huellas. El dia siguiente pedi tiempo en mi trabajo y me tomaron las 26 huellas. DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 2 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA I Street Sacramen men to, CA 95814 916-445-9555 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 142 of 189 1 9. Despues de que entregu6 los documentos que me pidieron la trabajadora social 2 me dijo que to sentia mucho pero que solo habia obtenido una de las aprobaciones que necesitaba 3 para aprobar el papeleo. Ella dijo que hizo todo to posible pero que estaba fuera de sus manos. 4 10. A finales de mayo, recibi un poder legal de mi sobrina Maria dandome la 5 autorizacion para cuidar de sus dos ninos menores. Una copia del poder legal notariado esta 6 adjunta como Documento 3. Yo proporcione el poder legal a la trabajadora social a principios 7 de junio. 8 11. Aproximadamente una semana despues me pidieron que completara una forma 9 certificada para una verificaci6n de antecedentes adicional. El primero de junio de 2018, yo 10 complete el formulario que me proporciono Lutheran Social Services para obtener la 11 autorizacion de recibir a los dos hijos de Maria. Tuve que certificar el formulario por notario. 12 Una copia del formulario esta adjunto como Documento 4. 13 12. Luego me informaron que pas6 la verificaci6n de antecedentes, pero necesitaban 14 una semana mas para entregarme a los ninos. Hable con el nino de siete anos y me dijo que los 15 oficiales le dijeron que a el y su hermano me los iban a entregar en una semana. 16 13. Pero luego me dijeron que necesitaban hacer una prueba de ADN para confirmar 17 que Maria es la mama de los ninos. Recientemente, la trabajadora social me dijo que hace unos 18 dias un empleado del gobierno fue a Otay Mesa donde Maria estaba detenida para tomarle la 19 prueba de ADN pero Maria no estaba ahi. Despues, cuando hable con Maria ella dijo que habia 20 estado en Otay Mesa todo el tiempo. 21 14. E122 de junio, varias semanas despues que entregue todo el papeleo me dijeron 22 que el papeleo que entregue estaba equivocado, que el poder legal no era valido, y que no me 23 iban a entregar a los ninos. Ella dijo que hay formularios nuevos que tenemos que completar, 24 pero no me envi6 los formularios hasta el viernes, 29 de junio de 2018. Esos formularios estan 25 adjuntos como Documentos 5 X 6. 26 DECLARA'T'ION OF FRANCISCO SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 3 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916-445-9555 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 143 of 189 1 15. El 27 de junio despues de pedir dinero prestado a miembros de mi familia, pude 2 recolectar $10,000 y pague la fianza de Maria Un agente de inmigraci6n me dijo que Maria 3 saldria el 28 de junio de 2018 y que la llevarian a estaci6n de autobus para que ella pudiera tomar 4 el autobus a Washington D.C. Asi es que el boleto de autobus de Maria estaba para la fecha del 5 28 de junio. Pero inmigraci6n liber6 a Maria el 27 de junio y Maria me llam6 porque los agentes 6 la dejaron en un McDonald's y ella no tenia a donde it ni dormir. Ella tuvo que buscar a alguien 7 que la alojara una noche y ahora esta en camino hacia Washington D.C. 8 9 10 11 16. El 28 de junio de 2018, hable con la trabajadora social quien me dijo que tendremos que empezar el proceso de y que Maria tendra que llenar la aplicaci6n y pedir a los ninos porque ya sali6 de detenci6n de inmigraci6n. 17. Estoy preocupado que ahora tendremos que empezar de nuevo el proceso para 12 reunir a los ninos de Maria con mi familia. Todos en mi casa, incluyendo mi mama de 78 anos 13 de edad, tendrdn que someter huellas, registro policial, e identificaci6n, y tendremos que 14 completar un nuevo formulario. Debido a la edad de mi mama, es dificil tomarle las huellas, y 15 oficiales de inmigraci6n me dijeron anteriormente que ella no tendria que someterse a las huellas 16 de nuevo. Tambien me informaron que Maria tendra que tomarse las huellas y tendra que 17 presentar toda la documentaci6n. Estoy preocupado de que Maria no pueda producir el papeleo 18 necesario para poder reunirse con sus dos hijos. Maria no tiene pasaporte, y todo to que tiene es 19 to tarjeta de identificaci6n de El Salvador. 20 21 18. Todo este proceso ha sido muy dificil para mi familia: a.. Al principio cuando hablaba con M., el nifio de 7 anos, el estaba muy 22 platicador y estaba emocionado porque la trabajadora social le dijo que saldria en una semana, 23 Cuando el tiempo cuando M. esperaba salir lleg6 y nada pas6, el se escuchaba depresivo, nc 24 decia mucho y queria llorar. Me pregunt6 por que no he venido por el todavia. La trabajador 25 social me dijo que M. estaba depresivo y me pidi6 palabras para animarlo. El 28 de junio habl 26 con el y esta contento porque piensa que pronto va a reunirse con su mama. Estoy mds DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 4 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA I Street Sacrammen en to, CA 95814 916-445-9555 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 144 of 189 I preocupado por la salud mental de M. cuando se entere que tendremos que empezar el proceso 2 de nuevo y que no va a salir pronto. 3 b. Porque solo puedo hablar por telefono y N. es muy pequeno no he podido 4 hablar con el. M. me dijo que N. llora todo el tiempo, y el unico momento en que los dos ninos 5 se ven es en la noche. M. dijo que dejan que N. se quede con M. por la noche porque es to unico 6 que hard que N. deje de Ilorar 7 C. Cuando hablo con Maria ella me pregunta que estd pasando con los ninos 8 y se queda sin palabras cuando le digo que todavfa estoy esperando la aprobaci6n. Ella llora. 9 Ella solamente ha podido hablar con los ninos pocas veces. 10 d. La mds afectada por todo esto es mi mama. Ella crio a Maria despues que 11 su mamd murio cuando Maria tenia 8 meses de edad. Al principio, yo no queria decirle a mi 12 mamd to que estaba pasando porque ella tiene 78 anos de edad y estaba preocupado que si le 13 decia se iba a poner mal de salud. Yo solo le dije que Maria y los ninos habian cruzado la 14 frontera, pero estaban detenidos. Despues de ver las noticias, mi mamd exigio que le dijera que 15 estaba pasando. Mi mamd se puso mal de salud cuando le dije que los ninos habian sido 16 separados de Maria. Desde que mi mama se enter6 de la separaci6n familiar ha tenido un dolor 17 de cabeza intenso y yo tuve que llevarla al doctor. Estoy muy preocupado por la salud de mi 18 mamd. Para Maria, la separaci6n de sus ninos repite la historia de cuando ella perdi6 a su mamd. 19 e. Por mi parte, este proceso ha lido muy depresivo y frustrante. Cuando al 20 fin pensaba que me iban a dar los ninos me dicen que siempre no. Tambien he tenido que 21 descansar de mi trabajo para hacer todo to que me han pedido que haga. 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF FRANCISCO SERRANO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 5 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE of CALIFORNIA 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916-445-9555 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 145 of 189 I 19, Tengf In ospersriza (jur Mm i1a, M , y N, ~e Ir r +rlir:irl ptc,r llf ► Dechro hajo perm de perjurio bujc In% icycq earl Vi.lado dc Calli'mirin v for. (eye# rte 1w 3 } F, tmins 1 laidos clue to surlcrior cm vt r Lidt•r[1 y cnri clb), Fechadcr cglc 30 dfii cte ju►lio dd 201 8 co, Wa h iiytc►n 1 -C, ~+ /P f ( r F1 AN('IS( .` I?I?RAN( VA Rm 12 13 Id 15 1 17 1 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 DECLARKrION OF FRANCTV'O SURRANO IN Slli'C'OW I (W PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PX1TD1 r [s,D r) rsC'U v r.,R y rn 1111'At ► 0RPUy 01NVRA0. .'i('A(1'N# CAi,pfoRMA 1 ux► 1 9rr:~ Case Document 27-1 Filed-O7/13/18 Page 146 of 189 EXHIBIT 1 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 147 of 189 F- I OvimorttetlranlRen t7.&. Detmrtamt.rSeaitt~~~sat:~a tavnra): Nom dd Sponsor ~r Ona NA DE REMCACION DE REFUGMMS Dioii;Wn tie Servielm de Niiios DE CUIDADO DEL PA fimem del menor A: ■ Fedw de nadmiento del rnenur. Fecha: (0 ~ ih Les+oiicit6 ala Ofidna de Rcubicaci6n de Refttgiados (Office of Refugce Resettlement, ORR) paftnt uas aun ntrw extranjero no amm4miHado en el cuidado y In custodia del gobierno federal conforme al acuerdo extrajudimat estipalado Flores v. Reno.ndmmo 85-4544-RJK (Pic) (C-D.Cal-17 de ewro de 1997), secci6a 462. del Homeland Secu& * Act de MM y In. secci6a 235 del William Wilbmbree Trafficking Victims Protection Reauborization Act de 2008. Si se apm eba la solicited de paRxtcinio, redbkfi un fannulario de Verijfm ddn de liberaci6n de ORR y se celebrari on acumdo do custoifia can el gobicma federal en el coal acepta cungWr can las siguiemtes disposiciones mme6tta5 e1 menm estd en sn coidado: • Propocciomw et bicmestmrmental y Hake del menor, quo urlaye; entre otr o% aliurentas, refuM vesfimeuta, educacidn, atenci6a m6dica y duns servirios segdn sea necesado. • Si no es el tutus Legal ai el padre u lamadre dd mmm, hags Ins mejotes es£oerzos pot estabkccrima cumxha legal con el tribunal Local deu Uo de un tiemmpo razonable • Asistir aim prvgrama de ocitataddn legal propomiew do pat el Departamento de Insficia (Depaatment of Inifim DOJ), o prograura de oricntacifm IMd pars custndios (patt+oCmWores) de la Oficin$ Ejocutiva pars la. Ravisiidn de la lnmigtacidu (Executive Office for immigration Review, EOIR), si est i disponibIe en e1 Iagar dondensik- • Segfm ddnde esW pendieate W caso de inmigracibn del menor, noftfi= Al. Trial de Inmigtaeibn o al Tribogal de Ape3acinnes de Inmigraeion local en un parfD& de +®co (5) dies de todo camhio de Iittxcidn o ndomm de bd6fano del menar, ttsandn d fro de tambdo do direcaifo de mtrtmjervs (forma EOIR 33). Adcamds, si es necesario, presenlaz rma peticiiut de can*io de competencia tarritorial a marafee del moor La pedci6n de Cirinbio de competencia terdtoeAdebe contenwinfom ud6u, especificada pot el Trial de Inmigtacm5w Tenga en cuenta qne la petici6n de cambia de pia oemtoaalpacdc requcaa la ayuda de tm abogado. Para obtener asesorami=u sabre la "peticidn de cambia de competenda berritotial'', consaUe el Mwaal de pEk:dm drl Txibuaal de Inmigrid6n en M12:// Lusn.-_ov/eOH9zL. Pam oboe= informaci6n, sobre cases de Ott, comuniquese con el sdslema de inibirmacidn de cases de b unigraci6n de EIM Haumudo al I-M-8984184 Visite el sitio web de EOIR pm obtener informaci6n. dal en_ bite: /i~v~i = ev.justic c.^ot~/cnirlfnrmsi is t.lr t n1_ • NoMmar al DepartatmWO de 5eguritiad del Territoria National ant of Home] Sectmty, DHS) o a Serviaiaa dc-Quiladmila a Imnigmici6a de Ios Estados Unidos (U.S.* Citizenship and Immigtatitm Services) en un perfado de d"rea (I0) dfas de todo cambia de dh=d6n, ptesentando laTadetn do Cambio do Dir=d& de F-x ft m jero (AR-11) o de manta eIectr6aica. en b t t D:// 1. m sa.-ovlAe51bIP. • Asegumb prescom del umm-en t odas Ivs procedimientos futmos ante DUS a Imnigraciduy Segm%W de Adonnas (Imiaugration and CustSnms 1. AM"ment, ICE) y el Departamuato de Josh x (Dgwtment of Justice, DOJ) a EOIA.Para obtimer infounacidn sabre cases de inmigmci6n, comunfipiese con el sist3cma de ii5 de casos de FsOIR Ilamando aL• I-8tlt)-898 7180. info Aw4 mr que el mmw se presimitc auto ICE para la expuhu6n do Ins Estados Unidos ai un j= de kmgmi6n cmift mm ouku de a gmW6n o um mim de Salida voh mbria. Se asigna aI mrmoc un oficial de de=iacidn pars Ins promdW=h= de expdm Sn. Spume Cse Ag;mw=4 Bev 4tl3BI U Ann VWnyDif A. t Ber. 0#r34~Ot2 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 148 of 189 Us. Deporbmma at Bad& dd nmmm Sft-4 e Faot ReSoVicatke Appfits a, Hev. MM6 13. de las ocoparser de su boor sufte de al&= estfermdad grave y contaginsa (p. e)., TB,SIDA, bepaWk)? Si fnesa, pow tom, ap%pdw. ./V O 14(a). ZUated o algano, de los ocvpantes de sn bar ban sKlo aew"w o condenades par un debto (que no sea una iutraecWu meow de moo, p. ej, velorldad e>cedva, multa por mgt )? ONO []Si 14(b)- gUsted a a%ma persona en sa hozar ban We lnoestigados purr abuse Wca e , swual, desaMo o abandema de un 1lWA"? ONO nsi Si osted Mpoud 6 "Si" a cnalgakra de Ins preguntas 14 (a) a 14ft sh vase adjunrar una Nsta a este formelario con In i I fr nBMd6M Para Caft cargetoundena: (X) Nec bre de bt persaoi hwahm radar (2) hqW y fecha dd inciftnte; (3) descdpeWn del 3ncidente; (4) ResdocMa sob m el ioaidente (p. ej_, dese~6n de cargiss, nmltado, enme lade, perbadn de preeba); (5) Copia del(dc los) rq*Ws) jufficiWes), r fttro(s) pobcW(es), yto regWtx+ S) de la agenda de mNkio sodW gabwr mr ntal rebdowkWs) cm Alm) mss) 15. Si exishese in pfd qoe u5trd deba salir de km Estados Unidas, o sex incapaa de *Wdar al menor, Zen Superviarfa A Rumor en Sa ansencm?: Nkmbre del l I it' CMkbAw adatio; Mt;-f (Q Fecha de nadodeato del paste cafidadnr WW[b rr adnita:-I~t~'~23hi►t °'~ podWe p InformacAn de contado (daved6n y mere de.t Itebe i6En con el tor, si hay a4mw +, tk p lj- 4; c. q i-c 5~1 do ! } j cr ui al m~enor: Resvaom so pl+ra de etudaalo en cask de qac ust+ed tenga que salir de las Estadoa U 'd use ierapaz de cd8r de~~~t ~r ~,' [~.s ~~~~ ~~S ~~t~ ~.~ •ta v ~c~~ga~ ~ c~,~s, In s~ Dedaro y ofirwo bajo pens de perjmia que In idormad6n cuntcida en esta solicited es verdadera y preeisa,setgom mi led saber y enbeader. Day fe de rue funks les doeum mAw qm presstito o lass oopias de dichos +docuneetos a dfin $bmes de emu: y de fry. Day fe ademAs qae me atesdr6 a las hm rucc loees coutenidas en d Acuerdo del Pahvebwd'or sabre ed Caidado. velare por el bier tided y ment a1 del mcnor. Tambi(m cumptir6 con ias kyes de mi estado respec o, del cadrlatlo de este menor, )a qme brd a la bacr4ci6n del nor ea la escudo, In previs 6a de atenci6ya mica cuando srs necasaria, la f ei presence. t en proteceii6n del m+wor corrtra el abuse, d+escnddo y abandow,y cealgmer otro requidto no conte Faasy RennWumafim Ap#kadao,, Rev 01DS/" 01MUCfAVp,ly Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 149 of 189 r usw Onke of Rdlbw Resettlement U.S. Depmtned of Han And Hmasn Services FumRy Rmdficafim Application.Rev. Oil3,VW16 OFICINA DE REUBICACI45N DE REFUGIADOS Divisi6n de servidos pare niiios SOLICITUD DE REUNMCACI$N FAMILIAR 1. Nombre del rnenur: 2. Su relad6n con el menor: _0 3. Su nombre We rested): 'Yf2 kcf:c Co L'. vSuc s S. Su pats de origen (de usted): 4. CtWgnier otro nombre qae usted hays udUzado: SQ:T Tall o ~1 Sa 6. Su femha de nachniento (de usted). r ~.Qdo f -4-1k a fag: 7. Nfimero(s) de teNrono donde nos Podemos com uicar con usted: idirin usted p el mennr: 9. El dam 10. ZQu6 idlemas hahla?: C'S Qq i,~ a { cr rt o C a t i1 l ~5 11.Worms td6a de km ocapantes del hugar. (Si necedta mss espacio,sirvalse adjt mtar una hits de los ocupantes del hogar a e ste iormulatio) I 4 ~~: r lD p Relaclbn con el menor (p. ej., madm padre) Fecha de Nadiniento Nu more ' lc3'o ~'L QCL(~ ! NIi ; C 1"r r at CX (C7C C Relaci6a con rested (Cl patrocinador) .S0. G'S © MCI G hC 3 ~ovn ~° 'o 12.Informadbn flnanciera:Slfrvam explicar c6mu va a mantener tinancferamente al menor: +v-1-f-v COWO -5,a1c,,W Cu vq Fan* geaaidinW as ApO kabm%Rev. OU25=16 ORR UCJFBP-39 t,:~2s [l Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 150 of 189 'USA` qti 17..9. t11e Od~irs d $H111Y a>,d .C4 Facer RmaMcmdeat]iecldist lb!Spewoos,Ibm 9 66 4 11114 OFICINA DE REDMICACI$N DE REFUGIADOS Divu"s de ServicIos }tare NIfiw MTA DE VMWAC16N FAt4IILI4R PARR PATROMADORES Fornanlauias arse deben6n ser leados v raantenk]" es so Doder 0 He compkWo y fi la Aubo4b.%Kmpara )a Divtdpci6a & Iufuralaci& ® He Iddo In Carta inhoductaria del Paquft pia la Rctrnificaci6a Familiar 0 He complebdo y finuado la Solidod pare is remizficacidu familiar, 0 He ieido el Arumdo, de Cuidado del Pah'vcin~ *He leido la lasts de Venficaci6n Para PaWxinadar'es He 7.eido el Prvgrama General de Orieniai6n Legal para CVstodios M He leido e1 Manuol para el Pa:hucinsdor O He leido las bstnicciones pare is tvma de imeilas digitales par si tienen quo ser souefida& S Carta de Designaci6n del Coidado de Ern Menor pars el pahucinador que NO es uno de Rn padres del rueuat ni sn tntnr legal_ Par favurpu4Kw iooe una copia de los siguicubes docmon mfm clue figman a conhunwi6n.Pur favor tome en c-aenta.clue Canto ]a 6n oic Refugmdos (Office of lte[age Resctdcment;ORR) coma la Dwomdu de Servicios de Mm no Oficma de oFGlrrldreWs Se vmm lam) pueden xe&am su solieitud coma pakeumadur at f:tlia caWgcaae demCn,M de soficiWa o si esa n isms esd Meta o no es c =ecta. En el caso de qac no pueda grov=1os documentos la + lurAo, con la Sc hcrtud de Reundd't d6n Familiar. ca la Sue indique cue fipo de docuncutacifin de una czp vquc6iosl respaldo no pun& pm=bwy la raz6n Tenga ea —nta.qne su r-Vhcaci+bn sahte caalgtf= docamcalt std6n faltante goedarfi suj eta a la aceutwMA do ORRIDCS_ L Wadw des#IdaQlidat~ • [haacApiadeamida>tifaddneonitidap~ciB~i~.talcomp: a. Iiumda de aoadaca0 bu*M de Andricadm trailida par el estada b boca~+saso de ideotidad (— hM) de su pats de ofigea (p- cj, calula) a pampoate • thmeopkdomcad deumdudedo Z Preebs de to ideatidad dd a+asu: Una c pik dd ccnifka& dc nadmieWo ddmamr a 3. Pram" do lyirmEesnoe • Fs tregob aapiaS do atlti 6 de nab, de mmo~aal0. regisRna 4. MR&IM Y 5. (A n !jsiras de la u~tau Duns doeameatcu, afn do aporbT ref evidwdadelam*Ai6a +e) Si wtod wqmgM S-r a be p xgwibw 14(a) 7fb 10) to la BolidW F—War, aporte -gLsuw JO-+k+ per+ lro de Los gACM2WCOftkS cdedmadns ono d/ h)s hKidrnte(S} se=vioies ® m; P= li Mpupadmic de run de los siguimtea domumwtas Como eompmbanic do Si umd Nil cs UM de Laspxb= (Pd how kzd demesw, dnmia7iu. Si vs W Sias d padoe o d btmr legal dd mcaaa;no es nenesatio qne mnLgm ffi co>oprob=I a de dnuddUo. a Una coyer de su icata tctaal h Uvm eapia dd esiado de meta actual de sa bgxftm sn 0. cq t:ia dd propi Ot2ff% en b gaeae a d. ilraa#adesacrospande~ciis.pMktHAcw=ftuna FhMW Eton Ap# adm Spwsarr, Rm. lktltyUM4 deMViciopu-bu 'odiirigrdautisteiL oudtndoaimdlduuosdosmew Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 151 of 189 OFICINA DE REUBICAC16N DE REFUGIADOS Divisidan de Setvicios de Ni ms AUTOOMC16N PARA LA DIWLGAC16N DE HWORMAC16N INFORMACI N RMUEl M PARA LA DWESnGACI N DE ANTECO)ENTES NOMBW M11WN(!)Ra Nb D1F W" Apdidn SEGO: M FiBC A DS DiAt N EiU Ddb MENO- MPATR+NAIlM- -~ ` MASC. ~} >~ 1~d~ m~tio { O0~°" -kt+~ei SCt~ ¢ A= lR. `46 AWPI7 a c~ 9C COlw de o*bkFo ! Prao ©~ t J ( tUGAR M NACIIMWMU: olse el aake de dais ietm pam el esta&) AUwa t" ~` ' `r Asia DROP-, MeslArw AASTA-- Me dAi-m DESK: h(COAFM NASTA: McdAiio DFSDE: McWASo AASTA, NhWAiio i Q +k 90QA]r, + J+ ~' JQ l Yrti-C_l.~,, r ~ Desdc mes AOO Apartaneaa6onro ® Apartnwmto am Doadrr'lio D$ C7 OCROSS1V Nonibm RAS A. FECUADENACI(NMM 1k ) CadDr l UWlUDWYSWWMMIWUS'O: I Desdm Mes Arm Mee Ain RESME Nt: 7 SE N>4Lesl~ialA~c ds emisidn Ndm m de cerdrwadvA MaMWAAn de Pafs 10 i r 1 '5411 Ndmern da regi = del m&aa*- ' '6a t' Pats de ciodadanfa iad"rraor d uiaa:o de 5egw'a Social. Sin embor a,si aw io indk:&, es Piet qae Ia ORR ao pot& reaiix r fa inn de anftoulnitts ooeesarla parcel ptac~te de tie. Anffimaistina far Rdem of BdaaaRUM6 IRM lW3lMU ftma a o[2 1 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 152 of 189 OFICiNA DE REURICACION DE REFUGL4MS Divisi+6u de Servkiw de Nliw AUTORMC16N PARA LA DWULGAC16N DE DWORMAQbN Ira ate 09ft MdMWWs6a, h&qV ftww&yfi&hda cam haft Aufad= a cualquier investi V4m, ageu$ cgvdal, er Vk ado, coutratista, crsionario u otm representantc debidamente wtuaedo qtw aabaje to nowbw de is Ofidna de Rat de Ref i&dos (Office of Refugee Reseukmeatt) ague esas llcvando a can In irrvestigadon de mw anu=dexttes y la eevabzad6n de paaacinio a abuma h4mmad6n a fm de evahzar um capacidad gars brindade e1 ddAdo cuidado y Ingar a un menory lara proveede lag sun icias postariorm a su 1:"bmucift, segtin'sea necesarm. Antodm a canker agemm deim icia penal federal.estatel o local;ageacia pare el bimwAar infantil federal,estatal, kwA o pdvada; agenda fedmml de inmigmci6n o euatgaier otm faente de kIbtmracAi4 td c arao cwwlss,tnlami s,provecdores de tratamiento. Amwonaum de li'bcrwd c andieicrnallbajo pabbra, pmfesiorralm de la salami mental a onas reftwenes, a di vWW,canto verbalamte coma par esaim4 k hrma i6n aretca de todo hilt aw delictivn,cmgos a dudes sabre abtrso y descaido iafxrl,stmad6n miga t na passda y pme9eate, problemas de salad mRatral, abaso de sustaucsW viglenraa damiatmo enalgmezotra i birmaai6a psiaasociai iecopilada aeema de mi gerrsana_ AukR im a Jos rjm&os de Im ie&ros y femmes de la mformacidn sobm mi persona,a divulger tal infatmad ante la solicited del innrestigadfll~ ageOe eapwl,tea,cWhafisbk, aesionauo u otro representame debidamente aamdiu& de is Of cica. de Pwubica66n de Reftrgiados. Endw& spas la kdoung6da divulgadapor cualgtuerr casuAto de mis regotms y otms fuentm de Ia infomw6n a= de mi. p=wM es Para aso a$aalfior prams del gobiame, da ks EE- UU, ms empleados, cesionauos, cants y otro Personal dclegado Para krs fires expresailos mds =93a y que puede su revda& par el gobiers?o de Im lam. W_ solamente ea la forma autorirada par la ley. Ek iet & q= esta i armad6o se arnvextiri en propieded de la Oficina de Rcuhicaci6n de Rcfiq dos y quo pw!de mT mvisai& par sus a , counatiMs y de dos. Ta wbMn enoando sae la Oficiaa do Renbiracirin de Refugmdos guede cxmnpadir esta empleados, terra mr inform ac:i6n can Jos empkados y cooatratistas de otras agendas fedetales. Pay el Presrrdie rmmacso a makfaki redamo o dw=bo en vuaxl de Los leyes de km EsWAos Unidus contra e] pbiaw federal, sirs empleados,cc4oaarios,cntzatistas o delegados poruw legalrnente cualgnier informaa6n recopilada dnranm Ia bdsgaeda de mi hktm-hd i6n rcbtiva. al biter fi&ntil, w acidn migmtona pasada o p ==te, cuaRpAff informaci6a oontemda ea mi solicimd dehctivo, mf depaftoemmycaladocamagaczdadercqmldoylamgonuact&rccopda&dcaudquaff aaa foente, en forma. oral o es mtk relarionada arm esu soliciMd de paftecWo. Pea• d pre=te =mmdo a tuda demanda o acuecdo paevio con wdquier agenda iiederal estatal, local o privada T= padkm imp uWc al debtgado oficial de la Ofi,cina de Rcubicaei& de Refugiados obtenca la mfonmotba soliddada. Las c opias de eats aUW&McWn qw Coakfigim mi 6son tan AlidaS canto el a d&aL Fla anwrizad6a es vafii& par on (k) and a parlu• de la focba de su fnm& FMW (fume CM tpAd) que umd hays usado (arras) Fecha de vac. del. patrocamdor Estado Domicilio aetual a S- h FI-apte'aw C>aUs Fecha do la firma Nombm completo (amfigmna o en ktrade imprenta legible) Cidlgo N' . Is del SegtrET! Wro. de tel6bono de whogar } $Mimi" an ae es pusidc gee ra uxx m ptroaa : sestet ranm Sin esmatgs, sm to raeux~, de Segero Sodsi. 'No m obtkaW rs'o uxSmr sn a~ uaoesari: parr d ptoceLD de; to6a el Idoeta9eay Rea. i4t31~ii Aa$roe~af~ oRR f117 MP--2a ~0~ Ptp >iof2 Case Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 153 of 189 EXHIBIT 2 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 154 of 189 LT ¢ 4 r • usA• U& of Heatltr nod t~cvapn Services 11,14171AH AAA (Si los OBlmarPOhgee Rmerdement 5poaser Case Agreement,Rev. tkY30t=2 OFICINA DE REUBICACitSN DE REFUGLADOS DiWsidta de Servirios de Nlnas ACUERDO DE CUIDADO DEL uanera del menor A: echa de nacimiento del l Fecha: UC' )r, 71P meno:,:--:E* Le solic O a la Oficina de Reubicacion de Refugiados (Office of Refugee Resettlement,ORR) patrocirtar a un ni iio extranjem no acompanado en el cuidado y la cusuxlia del gobierno federal confonne al acuerdo extrajudicial estipulado Mores v. Reno. ndmem 85-4544-RJK (Px) (C.D. CaL,17 de enero de 1997), seccidn 462 del Homeland Security Act de 2002 y la secci6n 235 del William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Pratection Reauthorization Act de 2008.Si so apmeba la solicitud de patmcinio, recibira un formulario do Verrficaci6n de liberaci6n de ORR y se celebrariun atnerdo de cusoodia con el gobierno federal err el coal acepta cutnplir con las siguientes dispositions mientras el menor este an su cuidado: ■ Progorciousr el bienestar mental y fisico del menor,quo incluye,entre obit, alimentos, refugio,vestimenta, educaci6n,atenci6n medica y elms servicios segdn sea necesario_ ■ Si no es el tutor legal ni el padre o la madre del menor, hags los rnejores esfverzos par establecer una custodia legal con el tribunal local dentro de un fienrpo razonable. • As'iudr a un programa de orientaci6n Legal pmporcionado por el Depart amento de Justicia (Department of Justice,DOI), o programs de orientaci6n legal Para custodies (patrocinadores) de la Oficina Ejecutiva Para la Revisi6n de la Imnigraci6a WAccutive Office for luunigration Review, EOIR), si esta disponible en el lugar don& reside. + Segun d6nde est6 pendicptle ei caso de inmigra66n del menor,nortificar al Tribunal de Inmigcaei6n o al Tribunal de Apelaciones de Inmigraci6n local en un periodo de cineo (5) dins de todo cambio de direction o mimem de teWono del menor, usando eI formulario de cambio de direceion de exbmjeros (formulario EOIR 33). Aden*,si es necesario,preseritar una petici6n de cambio de competencia territorial a nombre del menor. La petici6n de cambio de competencia territorial debe contener informaci613 especificada por el Tribunal de Inmigraci6n.Tenga on cuenta quo la petition de cambic de competencia territorial puede requerir la ayuda de un abogado.Para obtener asesoramiento sobre la "petici6n de cambio de competencia territoriar, consulte el Manual de practica del Tribunal de Inmigraci6n en lm wl,' t , ul a. a k ()t 19v t.. Para obtener informacift sobre cases de inmigraci6n, comuniquese con el sistema de information de casos de inmigraci6n de EOIR llamando al 1-EWS98 7180.Visite el sitio web de EOM pare obtencr information adkional en: + Notificar al Departamento de Seguridad del Territorio National (Department of Homeland Security, DHS) o a Servicios de Ciudadania a hurugrad6n de los Estados Unidos (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) on un pedodo de diez (10) dfas de todo cambio de direction, presentando la Tm jeta de Cambio de Direcci6n de Extranjera (AR 11) o de manera electr6nica on I it I p:// 1 . c ,,,. _ m M0 N [ P, Asegurar la prmencia del menor en todos los procedimimtos futuros ante DHS o lnm graci6n y Seguridad de Aduanas (Immigration and Qztoms Enforcement,ICE) y el Departamento de Justicia ('Department of Justice, DOJ) o EOIR _ Para obtener information sobre cases de inmigraci6n,comunfquese con el sistema de informacion de casos de EOIR Ilamando ah 1-800-848-7180. Asegarar clue el menor se presente ante ICE pars la expulsion de los Estados Unidos si un juez de inmigrad6u eunte, Ina order de expulsi6n o una orden do salida voluntaria Se asigna al menor un o$cial de deportation parn los procedirrrientos de expulsi6n. 5poavor Care Agreement,Rev. t141MM12 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 155 of 189 T e . C 'tf5A' O$ke of Rcf'agee Resettlement Family RetwI radon Ap phullm Rev. OV2SM16 U.S. Department of Health and Hmnan Services DFICINA DE REUBICACION DE REFUGIAUUS Mid& de servidos para nitnos SQLICTTUD DE REUNMCACIQN FAMM AR 1. Nombre del men - Z. Su rdacidn con el menor: C rd 4. Cualquier otro nombre que uAM hays nallizado: ): 3. Su nombre (de `IWC'SC'O CIP S. Su pals de migen (de usted): CY' O 92 i ,~ /_/ I U d/GI i t u donde nos os 7. Mnwro(s con usted: 9. El domicdio donde residir III ,~.~ 6. Su fecha de mctmiento (de usted): r M&L 10.4Qut;1diomas habla?: Ct it v-0co y el menor: vt 5 11.Informacddn de loss ocupantes del hogar. (SI necesita mas espacio,sirvase adjtmtar um lista de los ocupantes del hogar a este formulario) Fecho de Nacknknto Nombre /1601- C05 W" Lo- kC7 Wcxjt.V Reladdn con usted (e) patrocivador) Relacidn con el menor (p- ej-, ma&e, padre) c,e tlet AA d 144 ' ~l° .V a Rff a ~t1~0 12.Wormaddn l"mandera:Sfrvnm expRear como va a mantener finanderamente al menor: ~rd ~rQ t7 df ©4 u Family Resutn at m Appunadao, Rev. Olawo16 OM UM"-3s ( e24-ty ao S -Iry t, i Gz4 co O-S Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 156 of 189 U.S. Department of Health and Humwn Services Office of Refugee Resettlement Family Reunification Application, Rex 01f2VM16 13. ZAlguno de ios ocupantes de su hogar sufre de alguna enferinedad grave y contagiosa (p. ej., TB, S1DA, hepatitis)? Si asi fuera, por favor, expliquelo: /t/ f-} 14(a). gUsted o alguno de los ocupantes de su hogar ban sido acusados o condenados por un delito (que no sea una infraed6n menor de tr6nsito, p. ej., velocidad excesiva, multa por mal estacionamiento)? ® NO ❑ Sf 14(b). ZUsted o algunn persona en su hogar ban sido investigados por abuso flsico, sexual, descuido o abandon de un menor? ® NO ❑ Si Si usted responded "Si" a cuslquiera de las preguntas 14 (a) o 14(b), sirvase adjuntar una lists a este formulario con la siguiente infornmeWn pare cada cargo/condena: (1) Nombre de la persona involucrada; (2) lugar y fecha del incidente; (3) descripci6n del incidente; (4) Resoluci6n sohm el incidente (p• ej., desestimaci6n de cargos, multado, encarcelado, periodo de prueba); (5) Copia del(de los) registro(s) judicial(es), registro(s) policial(es), ylo registro(s) de la agencia de servicio social gubernamental relacionado(s) con el(los) incidente(s) 15. Si edstiese la posibilidad que usted deba satir de los Estados Unidos, o ser encapaz de cuidar al menor, gquWa supervisaria al menor en su ausencia?. t J0" Ca'(Wt yt ~ g,Z Nombre del posible cuidador adulte: 4Aa f(V4t Fecha de naduflento del posible cuidador adulto: ~rj Informaci6n de contacto (direcci6n y niimero de telef000) del posible cuidador adulto: Relacl6n con el menor, si hay alguna: T, a V e /; ~-CcL Qol 5t ja PaTQ JV (it { + 1 C? Resum su plan de culdado en caso de que usted tenga que safer de los Estados Unidos o sea incapaz de cuidar al menor: dcoa i l=os ~Ot I ~+~S" d;01LjrQ Pof Cva( C~'L41Qi E me t 0C C. ~-C ?QlaA COM C7 r~~ga~ F Cowl-~ S'c e ~ creL~ ~ ~. Declaro y afiirmo bajo pens de perjurio que la informaci6n contenida en esta solicitud es verdadera y precise, segnn mi leal saber y entender. Doy fe de que todos los documentos que presento o las copias de dichos documentos est6n fibres de error y de fraude. Doy fe ademas que me atendre a [as instructions contenidas en el Acuerdo del Patrocinador sabre el Cuidadv. Velare per el bienestar fisico y mental del menor. Tambien cumplire con Ins leyes de mi estado respecto del cuidado de este menor;to que incluye la inscripd6n del menor en la escuela, la provision de atenci6n medics cuando sea necesaria, la protecei6n del menor contra el abuso, descuido y abandono, y cualquier otro requisito no contenido en el presente. SU FIRMA: Family Re+ini6cation Application, Rev. (!1/25/2016 ORR IUCIFRP-39 FECHA: c)5 It Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 157 of 189 Trr z t~ O 'USA, Offim o U.S. ant of I fealth and ffimwa Serv3se p ~RnlQnt Fad Rs+anWea6m Checklist Ibr Sponsors, Rev. 04AMM14 OFIMA DE REUBICACION DE REFUGIADOS Divisibn de Servicios pare Nifios LLSTA DE VERE'ACION FAMI LIAR PARA PATROCINADORES N He cempletado y firmado la Auluazacion para la Divulgacidu de Inforn=i6n IN He completado y firniado la Solieitud para la rmni&wion familiar Forn odarios aloe debelrbn ser Milos y mantenidos en su get' He lefdo la Carta introductoria del Paquete pars la Reunificacidn familiar a He lefdo eI Acuerdo do Cuidado del Pahncinador ® He lefdo la l ista de Verificacion para Patrocinadores He lefdo el Programs General de Orientacidia Legal Para Castodios ® He lefdo el Manual para el Patmcinador He lefdo Ins lnstnlcciones para la toma de huellas digitales por si denen que ser sometidas. ■ Carta de Designaci6n del Cuidado de un Metlor pars el patrocinador que NO es uno do los padres del menor ni su tutor legal. Documentos ulrubatarios Par favor proporcione una copea de los siguientes docurnentos que figursn a continuation.Par favor tome an cucutit que tanto la Oficina de Renb:caadn de Refugiados (Office of Re#ngee Resettlement, ORR) Como la Division de Serviraos de Nubs no Acoupan"ados (Division of Children's Services,DCS) paeden 1ecllazar su solicitud coma patrocinador A falls cualquier elemento de la infoamaci6n solicitada c si era mtww ester inconVleta o no es correcta. En el caso de que no pueda proveer los documentos regaeridos, adjunte una eaplicad6n. junto con is Sobcitud de Reunnificaci6a Familiar, en la que Mque que tips de docameniaciim de respaldo no puede presentar y la razdn. Tonga en cuenta que su expliead6n sobre cualquier documentation faltante quedara aujeta a la RAALL 4i41iRM 1. Prveba de sa Idenfidad: Una copia de mta idenfificaddn er6dda par el gobierno, tal coma: • IL 11cencia de coaduir o tmjeta de idaWfieacirm a mWda por el cuado b. Duumnewa do Wmfidad (con foto) de su paEs de origea (p. ej., cedula) c. Y w Pasaparte Una cogia de su onfificado de nacimien6o 2L Prueba de la iden6dad dd meann . Tuna coca del certificado do uAdmiento del minor 3. P meba de Par+enlewo: • FnUvgue copies de ccrf rcadoc de naeimimto,de manimonio, regaros jndiciales, regisuns de la tutnoa u oam documentos, a fin der aperrar evidcucia de Is relud'bn ffiae usted y el menu 4. Rog6tr- Legaks (si carnrtpaIIde) Si usted respandio "5a a In pregantas 14(a) y/u 14(b) on In SoIEcift d de Reun jkmcion Familiar, spartc regis uns judiciales,policiales, ylo de toe mrvicios sodWes gubernamemales relaciaw con el/ las incideule(s). 5. $t usW NO es um de las padres o ci [mnr iegd de We mo=or,par favor pngmdu= de uno de Ins siguimies documsmlos cones comlxubante tle dvmiciiio. Si umd SI es el padre o el nfiot legal del mo=or,no es nece wio que eo tregue un campmbante de dorWoEo. a Una eapla de suienta acnW b_ Una copia del estalo de cuaAa actual de su lMpoteca a Cowta del propietRde. en la que se eon5me su domicilio. d_ Una oopade sa ccnrspoftda, pte(e ubkmente um factma de serviLio Ffibbco ditWda a ustsd,corrtspondiendo a los Wilmot dos mews. Family Retmdncatlon AppHcaffon Cbechrld far Sponsors,Rev_ OW44014 ORR UACIFRPc3Aa Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 158 of 189 OFICWA DE REUBICACION DE REMGIADOS Divisi6n de Servicios de Niitos AUTORUAC16N PARA LA Dn ULGACION DR INFORMAC16N INFORMACI N RIDAZ&RA LA IlVYESTIGACION DE AN'TECED NOMREDMMENOP-,= . VECHA DE NAC0411 NW DEL MEMR: FECIIADENACHUfffrO -EWORMACIONIDELPATROCMADOM. 1'r1a~ Ap>el6lda elk PU SEXO: IMMUC. 0>RE14L l4ic Reza Peso 3 Altura ~Q•}y viQ LUGAR DE NACI1► re del at to {sumo) r c, c~ L Color de ojos 6tFaS Color d epelo q a (W t gX ` f t NUMRODESEGUROSOCIAL : (Use et codes de das letras pars el estado) Pals Estado Combdo Ciudad 501,1~a .# e cla I ►Q rr ( OS Y SUS NECHAS DE USO: OTROS NOM$RES UTH ZAD Des&: Nombre Mrs Ano Basta: Mes Aiio ~ f S'Q ~~ d Hombre Desde: Mes ABo Has%, Mes Aiio RESID) NCIAS @1 LOS ULT040S 5 ANOS: Apartamentonro. MWAno DESDE: '01 19-ov HASTA: Mes/Aito JDESDE: MeslAno BASTA: Mes/Ano DE'SDE: MedArm HASTA: Mes/Ano DESDE: MesiAiSo / $ E'tr~t~ i`l Apartamento nro. Domici'lio Cddego Estado Ciudad(coadado) ~ C6digo le ctado Ciadad (coa dado) P postal Apattamcnto me. Domier'iro C6di90 Eslado Citulad (condado) poslsd Apartaeneato nrn. Domicillo C6digo Estada Ciudad (*Wiade) Postal Mrs/Ano SASTA: MWADANJA DE LOS FMADOS UNWOS Si el patrocinador es ciudadano estadounidense,pem no m66 en los EE. UU., brinde infonnaci6n acerca de una o mis de las sigukntcs pruebas de ciudadanfa. CertWicade de naboAlimacidn Certirkado de ceudadania UD6ade st errriti 6 et certi Ciudad Estado Ciudad Tribunal r ~}Yi ~{ MesAXa/Aiio de emisinn Ndnrero de certificado ? Jp~ d tt b/ 7 tado t,t>~tr~t ` to de Estado:Inioraee del uadnitado en el Fo muWrio ?40 dcl Explicacian Medl)fa /Ano Indique la fecha en que se pmpaM . m de tm ciadadano de ios Zstades Unidos el formulario y brinde um explimi6a si fitese =esa:io. FASWrtc de los EE UU. McdWMo de eansi6 Paede ser tanto un pasaporte de los EE. UU wh3al eomo aulmiar. DOSLE CMDADANIA: Si el suido tiene (o tuvo) doble ciJldadania de los Estados Unidos y de oiro pals, indique el nomhm de dicAO pals en el eq=io de la deieoha. E 1'RANJERO Si el sujeto es extranjeso,indique la siguiente informaci6n: Estado Fecba de enuada a Jos Ciudad EE.Im. L ugm de euhada a Im Mm Ila Apo Esudos Unidos ' No es oblaptorlo indimr el nutrtero ae ,'ieguro oecesaria pars el procediiz koto de reunErwar:Ida Aaihorbmtlon for Rise of ladwm dm,Rev IM MI ORA UCWRP-2s -- - name n..w,. ,.w.... d/ V-S .11-10 11 Pais ~/ _ 1 Mmero de mgistm del extracim %ABU% w pu c~ raWt7 1 Pais de ciudadmia Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 159 of 189 OFICINA DE REUBTCACION DE REFUGIADOS Division de Servidos de Nifies AUTOPJZACION PARR IA DIVULGACION DE INFORMACION Lea cuiAdwamenk esta mutorezci6n, ftaego f rnnela y f6chela con tints negra. Autorizo a cualquier investigador,agente especial,emplmdo, contratista, cesionado u otro mpresentante debidarnente autarizado que trabaje ennombre de la Oficina de Reubicad6n de Refugiados (Office of Refugee Resettlement) que est6 Ilevando a cabo la investigaci6n de mis antecedentes y la evaluaci6n de patrocimo a obtener infarmaci6n a fin de evaluar mi capaddad pare brindarle el debido cuidado y lugar a un mmor y para pmveerle los servicios posteriores a su liberad6n, selon sea accasado.Autorizo a cualquier agenda de justicia penal federal,estatal o local;agenda pats el bienestar infantil federal, estatal, local o privada;agencia federal de inroigtaci6n a cualquier otm fuente de infonnwi6n.tal Como escoelas, tribunales, pmveedores de tratamiento,funcionarios de libenad candicionallhajo palabra, pmfesionales de la sahzd ment2d u otters referencias, a divulgar,tanto verbalmente como por escrito,ioformaci6n acerca de todo.historial delictivo, cargos o dudae sobre abuso y descuido infantil, situacion migratoria pasada y presents, problemm de salud mental, abusa de sustancias,violencia domestica o cnalquier otra informaci6n psicosocial recopilada acenca de mi persona. Autarizo alas custo&os de los regist m y fuentes de ]a informaci6n sobre mi persona, a divulgar tad informi6dn ante la solicited del investigador, agente especial, empleado,coniratista,cesionado u otro representante debidamente ac►editado de la Oficina de Reubicaci6n de Refugiados. Entiendo que to informaci6a divulgada. pot cualquier custodio do mis registros y otras fuentes de la informaci6n acerea de mi persona es para use oficial por patio del gobierno de los EE. W_, ws empleados, cesionarios, conuutistas y otro personal delegado pars los fines expresades m.4s ardba y que puede ser tevelada per el gobieruo de los BE.W, sol:wewe on la forma autvrizada poor la ley. Entiende que esta informad6n se canvertird en propiedad de la Oficina de Reubicad6n de Refugiados y que puede ser revisada por sus cwpleadas, cesionarias. coy' tome as y delegados.Tambiea entieuda que la Oficina de Reabicaci6n de Refugiados puede compattir esta informaci6n can los empleados y contratistas de otras agencias federales. Por el presentee reatww to a coalquier reciamo o derecho en virtud de las ]eyes de los Finadus Unidos contra el gobiersw federal, sus empleados,cesiomarios, contratistas o delegados por usar legalmente eunlgaier info maci6n recopilada durante la brisqueda de mi bistorial delictivo,informacift reladva al bionestar infantil, situacida migratoria pagoda o presents, cualqui,er inforaumi6a centenida en mi solicited de parr wWo y ea la documentad6n de respaldo y la informad6n mcopilada de cualquier otra fuento, en forma oral o escrita, relacionada con esta solicited de pabocinio. Por el presente renuncia a toda demands o acuesdo previo con cualquier agencia federal estatal, local o pnvada que pudiem impedide al dcdegado oficial de la Ofidna de Rcubicad6n de Refugiados obtener la infurmad6n solicitada. Las copiers de esta autorizacidn que contengan mi firma son tan validas como el original. Fsta autodzaci6n es vilida porun (1) ano a partir do la fecha de sir firma. Punta (fume con tinta) Otnos na que usted haya usado (alias) Nombre completo (a maquina o en lets de imprenta legible) Fecha de la firma Fecha de nac. del patrocinadar Numem del Segura Estado Domicilio actual ■ (~ , ~~~~(~~" 1 ~ ~ C6digo pa5t81 Mo. told fono de sir hogar dje'~ V ~~1~,~~ r srr tri m rle Scgarn Sociard. emnuge, si no to indica,es pos+bte que ra Orut m pneda rearaar ra tuv igamon ae 1Vo es otrlig>+ Eario anteceded noes m gars et PmebOmmuto de rvmOcapva. AuttwimflM fcw Rdmw of 7Worued0% tier. lWIf"11 ORR XWJWRP-7$ 78,NiX4 throagh 03112018 OMB Qt Page 1 of Case Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 160 of 189 EXHIBIT 3 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 161 of 189 .., c..'t~-., r. , i.-i. - • " =.1 FI~!(a tta 4:4 iti. _ .. k ho. klov%imcttt tims snot +\fly - R • ,\. t.. t tl .4tk1 !•\ltl►.I #\ ii a i'~\i lit liiki*i k1, ikiki ...-.. .. so, bows 4400-4465), If you k C 1i ,-A sti Ali%k~ttv1 •it t ti 4Awuw4lfet ►'Ak ,~ X~t'=iyimv% (tit Vim, Yklit 111ay Trovok o this _w QSµ► ilil> O *MO +rti.U'al+l ktANkV ~~ _ • y~ 'w', ,3~t. l\1e ear.,= tRi a\% Lit% itit \1+E\ \\lih isi*V l Ao tho l 410 \ving 1llitiA10tl Stlhjr+U: ill tioxtt of t ho wither ~,l('1\Virs, -,'tlRY-i. .tt k", imk,. iLt1Fti lit itluti of ;iii cul i wko Ow k'..$ A , =1,~t\'-p }A \, tti i a'^ 1~slll~l\ lA i i4t1\ ti i ii11I{ tj itht htW 41 fivAlt if t'lwh Eli wer you are •: x r ~: i+ . s+s \1t d i abt d ,'+w' tE : ,'.• ... , ,~a~,..e.aa .~, .;i v#i~t .~Fali ►►N t►1jtjA&i"twt if %uw N% A pt (u.Waiguoto neon than one) .°, \\, , i wtii t;tw i 1 tt u4i i ri' `\%►1 ill a bt►t ti.+t k i11►t ric>3a c-Nut catch tauwer withheld. ,° ,.. ,,,~~.tt ._,..,.....,;., t ,, '' t 4 4 :, a~ . t _. a.. k)) k'vrs\ iiik atki family I mate alive. _.. (,k) tiol► Ats train ,;<.~:~ N~~ , It t ~kl~ctk iiiiiearlkitigatim t ~' . . t , t ate iwli S h ►X ; :,~ j; i ti ke11 ~` t ' a u .\ . , .,i 1 htc th dlil, ru iXt1Cr ~t1 W t1~%44 *06ilil ► O"is " yy~, ,,Y `` N4,ok NW \ titltl `t t~W swurity, h- edicam, ternttxt►tal progmMS, tv civil aC zuitiwy stvitc ~T yT _ t i~'~ At.I CW THE POWERS USTED .\,BOVE. 1aft A#44 W4 WL thii aar outer fives If you initial HueM '*k' ;A I ik k\N k'RIV t'IWNSa w.\1 \t yi*'..i toy ~~ 4~~tti,tvilViH`sleilittt AlQilt aeni) ,.:.> ,..'- 5► \ t w4kv,4 fAWIK'~W Ole AWt it 3 VKXV t~? fm 111Y chile n: Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 162 of 189 4NW 4WIK At N*4,K\i iA -,v orooNk wl "V svA w*-Cokvl If 4). , - *f boo- Ow )w ace Al ITk,-04N*v ofthe W*,"V*wm \t rd*AWV Nmt Vk4#,* 0101M, IN 4 ^k s. vkNrk Mn1mr) 1~1-lq mmkl~ OfINIan I)IC);N\ 00, t.4k'IIW I rmwlx 1w Nctr"ft" w0v%ftwt -4* #Wai~s -4ww M 1-d'C k(W.NrT it~ zmvw XT% a rq- Ow )"N.4pn*4v-W-v,,skcwmvK"o the exscmd ttv m~~wra th,- Oailix*-.Ila that the f~rctNping N U-, w AM w II-AN s IL IK Case Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 163 of 189 EXHIBIT 4 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 164 of 189 " I A 1 t' I Vitt '1'41 Ill it 4 1 1 it ,Nlili I it ,-it A L"41 i41t« lift' ill Foundoli Floidloitp fills 4ittlittat It itsio It Ai I % I, I I Ot,ii I" Il'i It$ tit I 11to l."ki"itt i4!4! child atuiso and (169140, alld 11,4111411, 110M with tltA Adsillk W$41.11 I 14flio it k4o'ltls III 711 1,1 "fl-i Kpope(Jive adaptive or twilur pworill III This Harm must b* twp*wrilloo *0 blilitod AliV lialtit4wi I u-I% Isi 1. Comploto at)$$ ki(tyl (tit OaOit bilillylottAl Ito whitill'4 i-illill 2.Indude a djock ot it"10tibV oodut Ili Ole t4ijiltil m o j., ti 10 3. Mail ccoplalbO flailu"Ib W. I ib I R) tAilkitui(i, At It I Ow- I HO 11161A Vilkil 1, It hi, v 111i'l I I ill jj'ill n I' tilt! 'l ;i'jq !t.' -1 1-it tt i1 (V "_1 1, 1-1"'( 1- tit !j-j I, l'ti I- 11l'l: Ij it I kil ill It 1 ,,,1 64II6104wi I'll till V m k'I'' it A t it I Ill (Illimpw WA fttio ;41 tit 4. Soo 1ristrudilixot' hit ICK; 10"114010, ii 4111 I Will boz 11411, 1 "1 "40,01 oil, 'w_ Ii of # MWE LAST t yuMid RAMON Oullo cibRliim -~ -96 — Jifm — I 11Ioa101!~111141 I - AU1111614 Nervillrew It AUIJNG l 566 le"hers LAno 1"At-khewo Rd #41.1100 1114141sillio t AK Mill 14 (W1111 AIII-A olill I I MMI %N110 :%:I .1111111 0. 001 1301443-7047 1..1414 (t ill ';7{; :1-11 I I C. Subled of P'"alrda 1444"NOW fliiAlkk: JAST Lx~ It 41 It I A I. Ji _(4RFEMUSRAkjti§_1J&ED(AKA, AIJAlil'i 011 MAIIII. N) _Ljii9T_%WjaiflYGTbk i4AI F MAll INO U Oill- C- 1 ADVI 11 U'.1i, (01, D, 1,11'1 it( I k~ AUUNWJ8410on BY bit JOW Of 000"01111106441106404 By WOMWj tialttw, I dulloguAlt Ilia W440 44 w4witilkilkill 11"'4044604 111 t".I,41 OjiI4 l6k4ot, dittliII 041Y h)jjfjjje(j fillidlilit1b III 1411W 11111lit.0 t1i 11"11410 It" 1110 liolAwAl"Illy ab(All fno " 14*644' hjt,t%kjjA*%qA toiltj %A SIONATUW L39M1 The ira" Of 0 SCWCJI of 010 Gfilk,11411'* Althill(ObhOlkill 1 1,411M Provi abMO is as h)lktw*. ❑ ~kk IlIk 044 tillttw W64141*1 10WOO,Plitilillik" Ouf rwirds 00 riot hidWAto 11101010(1t 140111 111wililitAil N ll 1111j1lll4,i twitiOW "fullflu of AW100 w flai ji4jjS%.jj '4,, 44 U., SUt*wA irl'a wf-wwl El Our Towdro lrodk;at" lital Chita of 11111110 filtill 141141 Ill 4011t)IIi 114411111 ill 4111111'~11 010 Pol;Jolli innitiliry miumst was 1111m ritifii&tc.l. WWWW 11li Vitt% It Milt V-00111, 14 kit Case Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 165 of 189 EXHIBIT 5 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 166 of 189 /MY I ` Administracion para los ninos y la familia ~- Qficina de Reubicacion de Refu9iados x Solicitud de reunificacion familiar Como completar esta solicitud IMPORTANTE: Si no puede completar estos pasos en at lapso de siete (7) dies, inf6rmeselo at Administrador de su caso. Paso 1 Si todavia no to ha hscho, dabs firmar y devolver de inmediato at Administrador de su caso at formulario de Autorizacion de divul9ad6n de InformaciGn y Una copta de su identificacion (ID) con foto emitida por of gobierno. Si se le pide que presente huelias dacfilares, el Administrador de su caso to ayudarA a programar Una city pare presentar sus huellas dactilares an at tapso de tres (3) digs. Comuniquese con el Administrador de su caso si tiene preguntas. Paso 2 Lea el Manual del patrocinador y el Acuerdo del patrocinador sobre el cuidado que incluye otra informad6n importants que debe saber alcerca de patrocinar a un menor an nuestro programa. Paso 3 Complete y firms, to $olicitud de reunificacion familiar (p6ginas 3 a 7 de este paquete)_ Paso 4 Retina los documentos necesarios que se enumeran en la secacion Documentos probatorios (p6ginas 8 a 10 de este paquete). Paso 5 Presente la Solicitud de reunificacicn familiar (esta solicited ) y los documentos pmbatorios necesarios al Administrador de su caso. ORR UAcIFRP-3s [Rev. 05114/2018] POgina 1 de 10 OMEI 0970-0278 [vAlida hasty el 10n1=18] Se estima que el pmmedio de las declaraciones pubNeas obligatodes de esta ( ). Pub. L. 104-13 N DE TRAw Es DE 1995 O Le LEY DE SJMPURCACI solleitud de infommeibn as do 30 mintmos por respuesta, ItWuido at tiampo para reviser Us instruodenes,n:edectar y mantener Jos dates neeeserius y reviser la solicitud de informaoidn. Una agenda no puede didglr ni patrodner y no as necesario que une persona responda a una reropilacidn de informad6n, a menos clue muestm un n6rnem de control v6iido y actual de la Ofidna de Administr 6n y Presupuesto (Office of Management and Budget, OMB) Consulte el aviso de privsoidad adjuntDAXclaracidn de In Ley de Privaddad pera oblener un anelisis aceRm de (1) la autoridad de la sdicihrd de inf nneeft y acerra de si la divulgaci6n es oblgatoda. o voluntaria, (2) tos prop6sitos prineipales para Jos cuales la inrprmael6n estd didgide, (3) otreos uses rutararioa para Jos eueles se puede user la inkmnaci6n y (4) Jos efectos, ai Jos hay, de no brindertoda o parte de la informacidn solicilads. Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 167 of 189 Solicitud de reunifrcacion familiar Oficina de Reublead6n de R,efugiados Pregunfas frecuentes GPuedo patrocinar a mi hijo si no tango documentos? Si. La Oficina de Reubicacion de Refuglados (ORR, Office of Refugee Resettlement)tDivisl6n de Servicios de Ninos No-Acompanados (Division of Unaccompanied Children's Services, DUCS) primers enWagar un nino a su madre, padre o tutor legar sin importar la situaci6n migratoria. Jima un costo patrocinar a un nlfio? No. No se exigen cargos para completer los requisitos para patrocinar a un nino. Sin embargo, usted puede ser respvnsable de los costos de viaje y comp acompatiante del nino. ,&Nocosito un abogado para patrocinar a un nifio? No. No necesita un abogado para completar los requisitos para patrocinar a un nino. Si nec esita ayuda para completer los requisitos, el Administrador de su caso to puede ayudar. Si busca atenci6n adicional, tenga an cuenta quo no hay ningun cargo por completer los requisitos para patrocinar a un nino. ,LPor qu6 tango que prosentar mis huellas dactilares? ORRIDUCS requiere investigaciones de antecedentes pars garantizar la seguridad del nino. Si se le pide quo presents huellas dactilares, el Administrador de su caso to ayudara a programar una city para presenter sus huellas dactilares en el lapso de tres (3) dias. Comuniquese con el Administrador de su caso si tiene preguntas. 4Qu6 informacil6n debo proporcionar? Debe completer la Solicitud de reunificacion familiar y los documentos probatorios. Tambien debe responder preguntas del Administrador de su caso sobre su hogar, la relacion con el nino y su capacidad de cuidar el bienestar fisicn y mental del nino. Debe proporcionar pnteba de su identidad. zCuAndo tango quo antregarle astos doe mantof; al Administrador de ml caso? Debe presentar to da la informaci6n necesaria en el lapso de siete (7) dias o antes, si es posible. Cuanto antes presents todos los documentos necesarios, con mas rapidlez ORR tomarA una decision sobre la liberaci6n del nino pars su custodia. ORR le informara de inmediato la decision sobre la Iiberacl6n del nino para su custodia o le notificara si se necesita una evaivaelon o informacion adicional. ORR UACIFRP-3s [Rev. 05114120181 P3gina 2 de 10 Adm4.Vstrador do. su caso, oMB 097UM CvADda hasty el 10t31120181 lea LEY DE SIMPuncActN DE TRAMITES DE 1995 (Ruh. L 104-13), se eanta quo el promedio de las dedaraciones p0rxas obiigetories de esta soticitud de hftmwcibn as de 30 Wnutos por msptresta, induido el tiempo pars reviser Ws lnstrucclones, rocotectar y mantener Ios dams necesarios y mbar la sorWWd de infonnasi m Una agends no puede dirigir ni patrocinar y no es necesario quo una persona responda a una re coplkod n de informad6n, a menos que muestre un ntmiem de control WHdo y achiai de la Oficina de Adminrslrad6n y Prmupuesto (Office of Management and Budget, OMB) Consults el aviso de prKnddad adjunto Dedarsribn de la Ley de Priwdadad pare obtener un anblisis werca de (1) la autorirlod de la sol'Ic'dud de informad6n y acema de si is divulged6n es odigatnria o voluntada, (2) tos prnp6sitos prMdpales pars los wales la informacidn esiA didgida, (3) ob uses ...,i.....o........... l.....,..,. I- - -,a u IA% Ina arw4im ai Ina tlau rip r,n h kwiar Infra n rearla op IA inrfsm Pr3An .gNL-iIaM Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 168 of 189 Solicitud de reunificacion bmiliar Oficina de Reubicacicin de Refugiados Acerca de usted, el patrocinador y el (los) menor(es) 1) Nombre(s) del (de los) menor(es) Enumere los nombres de todos los ninos que solicita 2) Su relacl6n con el (los) menor(es) p. ej. madre, tio, amigo de la familia 3) Su nombre 4) Cualquier otro nombre que usted haya util'izado Enumere otros nombres que haya usado, coma su nombre antes de casarse o sus apellidos matemos (separelos con comas) 5) Su pals de origen (de usted) D6nde nacio 6) Su fecha de nacimiento (de usted) P, ej., 12131/1979 7) Wmeros de telefono p. ej., 210-555-1234 TeWono principal Tel6fono secundado 1 8) Su direcci6n de correo electr6nico o ndmero de fax 9) Idioma(s) que habla Pr#gfna 3 de 14 ORR UACIPRF-3s (Rev. 05114120181 . LIMB 0704278 IvAlida hasty el 10131/20181 La LEY De simpunc-Aeft DE TRAmmis DE 7995 (Pub. L 104-13). 8e esllme que el pmmedlo de las dedaradones publioas obligabrrias de esta sol'idfud do irrfarmad6n es de 30 minutos par respuesta, induido el Uempo pare reviser las instrucciones, rewlectar y mantener los datos necesarfos y revisor to saWtud de infomrad6n. Ure agencia no puede dirigir ni poUodnary no as neemelo que uns parswa responda a one recoolad8n de infomtad6n, a men as que muestre un ndimem de contred vdlido y actual de Is OBcina de Administracl6n y Presupuesto (Office of Management and Budget, OMB) Cansutte el aviso de privacidad adjunfaMeclaracidn de Is Ley de Prtvaddad pare obtener un anitlisis acerca de (1) is autorided de Is soticitud de informad6n y ace= de si Is dWgacihn es oN peWo o volurdaria, (2) fos prop6sitos prirmipates pare fos cuales la Wormecl6n ests dirigida, (3) ours usos Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 169 of 189 Solicitud de reunificaclon familiar Qficina de Reublcad6n de Refugiados 1,DOinde viviran usted y el (los) menor(es)? 1 0) Domicilio Domicilio (+ numero de departamento, si corresponds) Ciudad Estado ❑ Codigo postal 11) zQuien wive actualmente en este domicilio? umbre eel miembro del hogar (EJEMPLO) Miguel Perez ORR UACIFRP-3s 1Rev. 05114120181 OMA 0070.6271; jvAlida hash el 18131120181 Fecha de Relaci6n can usted (el nacimlento patrocinador) 12131/1985 Hermano Administrador de su cpso. Relaci6n con el nwnor TO Pagina 4 de 10 ur-1CAt3ON DE 1RAMf Fs DE 1905 (pub, L 144-13). Se estima quo ei promedlo de las dedaradones pabiicas obdgetcdas de esta solicitud do informad6n at; do 30 minubas por respuasta. Inclufdo al tlempo pare. rater We instruedonas, roecotectar y mantener fos dates necesarios y reviser is sef9dtud da informad6n. Una agenda no puada dIdgir ni patmeinary no as neceaario qua una persona responda a una reeapiisddn de infortnaddn, a menos quo rrwmnUo un nO mem de control vAiido y actual de la Ofidna de AdminlsUad6n y Presupuesto (Office of Management and Budget, OMB) Consufte el aviso de privadded edjunkMedar don de la Lay de Pri► addad pare. obtener un arAftls aroma de (1) la auforidad do la soticitud do in1ormaci6n y acerca de si la divutgaci6n as o tigaWria o voluntaria, (2) los prop6situs pdndpates pare los males Is informad6n estA dirigida, (3) ohm uses La LEY DE BtNI Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 170 of 189 Solicitud de reunificacion familiar Qficina de Reubicacion de Refugiados- Adulto que se hard cargo del (de los) menor(es) si usted no puede hacerlo En el caso de que tenga que irse de los Estados Unidos o no pueda hacerse cargo del (de los) menor(es), jqulen se harAi cargo del (de los) menor(es)? 12a) Nombre del posible encargado adulto 12b) Fecha de nacimiento del posible encargado adulto 12c) Informaci6n de contacto del posible encargado adulto Numero de telefono Domicilio (+ n6mero de departamento, si corresponde) Estado Ciudad 1-1 C6digo postal 12d) &CuAl es su relacibn con el (los) menor(es)? (abuelo, t(a, hermano mayor de 111 anos, etc.} 12e) 1,Cual es su relacien con usted, el patrocinador? 12t) LComo se culdard al (a Jos) menor(es) on el caso de que usted se tenga que it de los Estados Unidos o no pueda cuidarlo(s)? ORR UACIFRP-38 t ev. 05114120181 OMB 0070.0278 lvdilda hasta el 10131120181 Adiflinistradot de su caso. Pdgiina 5 de 10 La LEY DE SIMPUFICAC16N DE TRAMITES DE 1995 (Pub. L.104-13). Se estima que el pmmedio de lea dWareciones publicas ob9getorias de es3a empo pars reviser ias instrucciones, recolectar y montener kx dalos necesarios y solicitud de in!Nmac" es de 30 minutos por respuestD, induldo el dem reviser is soliatud de Informaoi6n. Una agenda no puede didgir M palroclner y no es necesario que una persona responda a um nx op4 i6n de informad6n, a menos que muestm un numero de ountrot v9do y oaaal de to Mina de AdminWbmeMn y Presupuesto (Office of Management and Budget, OMB) Consutte at aviso de privaddad adjunta/Dm* aci6n de Is Leyde Privaddad pars obtenerun ar0l is seems de (1) Is aubwidad de la sdidwd de a, (2) los prop6sitos principales pare los cuaies is infanmac& esld dirigida, (3) otros usos informacidn y acema de si is divukaddn es oblostoria o volunlaria Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 171 of 189 Solicitud de reunificado' n familiar Oficina de Reubicaci6n de Refugiados Informacion economica 13) iCrs3mo mantendid eon6miicamente al (a los) menor(es)? Incluya todas [as fuentes y los montos de su ingreso (por ejemplo, cu6nto le pagan por semana) y exp[ique cualquier apoyo ecandmico qua reciba de otros que to ayudaran a mantener econ6micamente al (a Jos) menor(es). lnformacivn medica 14a)ZAlguno de los ocupantes de su hogar suite do aiguna enfemmedad grave y contagiosa (tuberculosis [TB], sindrome de inmunoddeficiencia adquirida [SIDA], hapatitis, etc.)? Si asi fuera, expliquelo: 14b) jSabe de aiguna afeeci6n medica que el (los) menor(es) pueda(n) tenor (discapacidades, alergias, enfQ111 adades, etc.)? SI asi fuera, expliquelo; ORR UACIPRP-3s [Rev. 05114120161 OMA 0070.0210 [valida Rasta el 10131130181 Administrado.ede SLI CaSO. PiAgina S de 10 Le LEY DE SIMPLIfic=6N DE TRAMffES DE 1995 (Pub. L 104-13). Se estime que el pn7mad+o de bas declaredanes pdts6c:as obUgatorias de esla solicited de kftn adbn es de 30 m6nu6os por mspuesta, induldo el tiempo perm reviser {as insMicdenes, reoofectar y mantener los datos neceserim y reviser Is aolidtW de infomaei5n, Una egemia no pueds dfrigir ni patrodnar y no es necmado que una persona responda a una recapiladdn de infonwid6n, a menos que muestm un rulmem de control AlIdo y actual de la Ofidna de Administrad6n y Presupuesto (Office of Management and Budget, OMB) Conuft of aviso de privacidad adiunto/DWaradbn de la Ley de Prtvacided pera obtanor un sralsis acerca de (1)1a autoridad de la solidtud de infg►maci4n y owma do pi is divulgad6n es gblfgatorie o vduntaria, M los propdeftne princfpales pain los cuales Is informacOn esla didglds, (3) allm usos Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 172 of 189 Solicitud de reunificaci©n familiar Oficina de ReubicaddIn de Refugiados Antecedentes penales Si responds •Si" a cualquiera de estas preguntas, tends qua brindar mas informaci6n. Consults la pi#gtna de Documentos probatodos (pagina g dp este paquete) pare obtener m6s informacahn. 15a) &Usted o alguno do los ocupantes de su hogar han silo acusados o candenados por un dellto alguna vet (que no sea una infraccl6n manor de to insito, p, ej., velocidad excesiva, multa por mal estaclonamiento, etc.)? OSi 0N 151b) LUsted o alguna persona an su hogar han silo investigados por abuso fisico, sexual, desculdo o abandono de un manor alguna vex? o St 0 No Firma y fecha de la solicitud Declaro y afirmo bajo pens de pedurio qua le informacion contenida en esta solicitud es verdadera y precisa, ssegOn mi leal saber y entender. Doy fe de que todos los documentos que presento o las copias de dichos documentos estan libres de error y de frauds. Doy fe ademas que me atendre a las instrucciones contenidas en at Acuerdo del Paf xinador sobre el Cuidado. Velars por el bienestar fisico y mental del (de los) menor(es). Tambidn cumplire con las ieyes de mi estado respecto del culdado de ante manor, to que incluye: • la inscripci6n de (de los) menor(es) en la escuela; la provision de atencion medica cuando sea necesaria; • la prvtecd6n del (de los) menor(es) contra el abuso, descuido y abandono; * y cualqui+er otro requisito no contenido an el presente. SU FIRMA I ORR UACIFRP-39 [Rov. 08114120187 CMR 0970.0278 tvalida hasta el 1013IM181 -] Administrador de SLI CaSO. FECHA Paging 7 de 18 La LEY DE SIMPURCACION DE TRQm7E5 DE 1595 (Pub. L 10413). Se esWna que el pmmedio de las docianadones publ = obligatortas de esta solldtud de h forrnaeidn es de 30 minutes por respuesta, Inctuldo el tlempo pare revisor las lnstruedones, recolectar y mantener los Batas rrecesmdos y reviser to soiidtud de infwmacidn. Una agencia no puede ditiglr nI patrodnar y no as necesa6o que una persona rosponda a una recopi19d6n de inforrnad6n, a menos que muestm un numem de control vAlido y actual de to Ofidna de AdinMrtraddn y Presupuesto (Office of Management and Budget, OMB) Consulte el aviso de pttvacidad adjuntotDeelamcidn de to Lay de Privacidad pare obtener un anAllsis acema de (1) to autoridad de In sottcifud de Informad6n y acerea cis si In d"nro} d6n as obligaWda o Wontada, (2) los ptop6sRos prindpates pare los cuales In infarmad6n esta dirkkfa, (3) ohm usos Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 173 of 189 Solicitud de reunificacion familiar 4fcina de Reubicacion de Refugiados Documentos probatorios S(rvase proveer una copia de los siguientes documentos clue flguran a continuacibn. Si no puede proporclonar los documentos clue solicitamos. explique el motivo, Tonga en cuenta que podemos rechazar su solicitud si falta cualquler elemento de la informaclon solicitada, si esta se encuentra incompleta o no es correcta. 1) Prueba de identidad de usted y de los miembros del hogar Una copia de una identilicacibn emitida por el gobiemo. Puede presenter una opcion de la Lista A o dos o mss opciones de la Lista B. Si presents opciones de la Lista B, al menos una opcidn debe contar con una fotografta. Se aceptan documentos vencidos. Lista A Pasaporte de los EE. UU o tarjeta pasaporte de los EE. UU. Pasaporte extranjero clue contenga una fotografia Tadeta de residente permanente o tarjeta de registro de extranjero (Formulario 1-551) Documento de Autorizacion de Empleo que contenga una fotografia (Formulario 1-766) Licencia de conducir o tarjeta de identificacion de los EE_ UU_ Lista B Certificado de naturalizacion de los EE_ UU. Tarjeta de ider0caci6n militar de los EE. UU. Partida de nacimiento Certrficado de matrimonio Orden judicial para el cambio de nombre Tarjeta de ident]ficaclon de extranjero Recibo de renovacion del pasaporte del consulado que contenga una fotografia Tadeta de identificacibn del consulado de Mexico Licencia de conducir extranjera que contenga una fotograffa Tadeta del registro de votantes extranjeros que contenga una fotograffa Tai jets de. cruce fronterizo de Canada que contenga una fotograffa Tadeta de cruce fronterizo de Mexico que contenga una fotograffa con el fonnulario 1-94 valido Documento de viaje del refugiado que contenga una fotograffa Obw dwumentos del gobiemo similares ORR UACIFRP-39 [Rev. 05M412018] OMB 0970.0278 CvAlida haste el 10131*0191 AdMinistrador de su caso. i Pagina 8 de 10 La LEY DE SIMPL.IFICACION DETRAMITEs DE 4995 (Pub. L 104-13)_ Se eshma que el promedio de [as dedaradanes p(Mms obfigaWas do esta sdidtud de InIbrmseft es de 30 minueos por respuesta, induido el tiernpo pars revisor las instruedones, recolectar y mantener Jos datos neceserios y reviser Is sal[citud de infarrnoclbn. Una agenda no puede dirigir M petrminar y no as neomrio que una persona rsapenda a una rewolvetdn d@ informacl6n, a trwms. que mueshe un nAmero de cor►trd vdiido y actual de is Oficina de Admmstraddn y presupuesto (Office of Management and Budget, OMB) Consulte of avlso de pdvacidad adjuntiMedaracidn de [a Ley de Priracidad para ohtener un anillisis acema de (1) Is autoridad do to sdirAud de infomiad6n y acerra de si la divulgaciixl as cWkJaWda o voluntacia. (2) Jos pmpdsAw prindpates Para tos coales la informaeidn est3 diriaida. (3) otras usos Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 174 of 189 Solicitud de reunificacion familiar Oficina de Reublcacion de Refugiados 2) Pmeba de la identidad del menor Una copia del certificado de nacimiento del menor 3) Prueba del parentesco Coplas de los documentos Para brindar pruebas de una relaci6n errtre usted y el menor. Se aceptan doeumentos vencidos. Su relacion con el menor Padrel"more ocurnentos aceptables • Partldas de nacimiento • Registros judiciales a Identi icacion con fotograffa del padrelmadre emifida por el gobierno adrastralmadrastra doptd legalmente al menor • Partidas de nacimiento a Identifieacion con fotograffa del padrelmadre emifida por el gobiemo a Identilicacion con fotograffa del padrastm/madrastra emifida por el goblerno a Certificado de matrimonio a Documentos de una orden judicial que confiirman que se estable 6 la adopcion o la tutoria legal Tutor legal Docurnentos de una orden judicial que confinnan que se establecI6 la adopcibn o la tutoria legal w Partidas de nacimiento • Identificacinn con fotograffa del tutor legal emitida por el gobiemo + Registros de la tutoria a Certificados de defuncion . Registros hospitalarios iembro de la familia o tione parentesco con el menor a • Partidas de nacimiento * Rastra de certificados de defuncion ylo partldas de nacimiento de los familiares que muestren que usted y el menor tienen un parentesco o Certificados de matrimonio a Registras hospitalarios a Registros judiciales • Registros de la tutoria a Certiticado de bautismo Comunfquese con el Administrador de su caso OMUAC"P 3s (Rev. 0W1412DI81 ore 0076-6270 [ratlda pasta st iW3i MS) Administrador de PSgina 9 de 10 La LEY DE SIW')Uf1CA 6N t3E TRAMMES DE 1985 (Pub. L 144-13). Se estana que el prws& de Lis dedataciones pubkas tsNga Odd de esta solicitud de hk mnad6n as de 30 minutos por respuesta, induido et tiernpo {sang mvisar ias insOxxsones, rect9eciar y manterw W datos neoesatios y mvisar la sollalud de Watms46n. Una agenda no puede dirigir ni patfodnar y no es neewario que una persona responds a una reoopitad6n de informactdn, a menos que mueslre un n6mem de control mgldo y ac uat de la Mina de AdminWracidn y Pmsupuesto (office of ManagerneM and Sudget, OMB) Consutte el aviso de pdvaddad adluntaMwiaracibrt de la Ley de PdvacWad pars obtener un aMlisis acerca de (1) la autoridad de to solicttud de Infnr n,-;An u ara nt-A dR ni in dMlload6n es obfioatofia a Muntarta, (2) los prop"tos principsles Para los cuates la inform d6n estA dhigWa, (3) afros usos Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 175 of 189 4) Registros legales (sl corresponde) Si usted responft "S[" a cualquiera de las preguntas 15(a) o 15(b) de este formulario, proporcione la siguiante informaci6n pars cads cargolcondone: • Nombre de la persona implicada • Lugar y fecha del incidents • Eaiplicacl6n del incidents • Pronunciamiento del incidents (p, ej., retiro de cargos, aplicaci6n de multa, detencion, libertad condicionai) • Copia del (de los) registro(s) judicial(es), registro(s) policial(es), y/o registro(s) de la agencia de servicio social gubememental relacionado(s) con el (los) incidente(s) 5) Evidencia del domicilio Una copia de at menus un tipo de documentaci6n que verifique su domicifio actual. Los tipos de documentaci6n aceptables incluyen los siguientes: • Su rents actual con su nombre, y con fecha en los ultimos dos meses • Su estado de cuenta actual con su nombre, y con fecha an los Mmos dos mesas • Su estado de cuenta bancario, con fecha en los 610mos dos meses • Su empleador emits un recibo de sueldo oficial, con fecha an los ultimos dos mesas • Su ID del estado valida y vigente con su fotografia y domicifio actual • Correspondencia, en to posible una factura de servicio ptibliico o Ilquida66n do seguros, dirigida a usted a su domicifio actual, con fecha en los ultimos dos meses • Carta de su locador, certificada por notario p0blico, en la que se confirme su domicifio y que contenga su nombre, la fecha en la cual se mud6, la cantidad de dormitorios y la fecha de vencimiento de la yenta • Qtros documentos similares que indiquen, de manera confiable, que vine en su domicifio actual, con facts en los ultimos dos meses ORR UACIFRP-3s [Rev. OSI14/20181 OMIB 0970-02718 JyMida hasty el 1013111#018] Administrador de SLI CaSO. Pigips 10 de 10 La LEY ❑F SiMPLJFICAMN OE TRAMrrES DE 19% {Pub. L 104-13). Se eame que el pmrnedio do fns dedaradones publieas obligatotias de Oslo soficitud de Rftnnac l6,n es de 30 m xfts por respuesta, incluido el tJempo Para reviser Ins instrucclones, recolectar y mantener Jos datos necesarlos y ni pairocinar y no es necesario que una persona responda a una recopilad6n de revisor la solicited de infoaasc&in Una agersda no p mde informad6n, a memos que muestre un n►imero de control v6lido y actual de is Mina de Adm1ni&ad6n y Presupuesto (Office of Management and Budget, OMB) Consults el aviso de pdvacidad adjunto/Dedarad6n de la Ley de Pmracidad pare obtener un anAllsis acerca de (1) la autoddad de to solic itud de inhxmaddn y acerea de si to dMilgacidn es obtigatoria o voluntaria, (2) Ics propdsitos principales para los cuales In informec4n eats diftdo, (3) oWn usos ru6nerios pare tas euales se puede usar la infonnsci6n y (4) los efeelm si los hay, de no brindsr Coda o parte de la informael6n WkAada. Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 176 of 189 Sponsor Care Agreement Office of Refugee Resettlement Le solicit6 a la Oficina de Reubicacion de Refugiados (Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR) patrocinar a un nino extranjero no acompanado en el cuidado y la custodia del gobierno federal conforme al acuerdo extrajudicial estipulado Flores v. Reno. n6mero 85-4544-RJK (Px) (C.D. Cal., 17 de enero de 1997), secc16n 462 del Homeland Security Act de 2002 y la seccl6n 235 del William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act de 2008. Si se aprueba la solicitud de patrocinio, recibira un formulario de Vejftacidn de Aberacidn de ORR y se aelebrara un acuerdo de custodia con el gobierno federal en el cual acepta cumplir con las siguientes disposiciones mientras el menor este en su cuidado: • Propordonar el bienestar mental y fisico del menor, que induye, entre otros, alimentos, refugio, vestimenta, education, atendo'n medica y otros servicios segun sea necesario. • Si no es el tutor legal ni el padre o la madre del menor, hags los mejores esfuerzos por establecer una custodia legal con el tribunal local dentro de un tlempo razonable. • Asfstir a un programa de orientation legal proporcionado por el Departamento de Justicia (Department of Justice, DOJ), o programa de orientation legal para custodios (patrocinadores) de la Oficina Ejecutiva Para la Revision de la Inmigracion (Executive Office for Immigration Review, EOIR), si estd disponible en el lugar donde reside. • Seg6n donde este pendiente el caso de inmigracion del menor, notificar of Tribunal de Inmigracion o al Tribunal de Apelaciones de Inmigracion local en un periodo de cinco (5) dfas de todo cambio de direction o numero de telefono del menor, usando el formulario cambio direction de extranjeros (formulario de de EOIR-33). Ademas, si es necesario, presentar una petition de cambio de competencia territorial a nombre del menor. La petition de cambio de competenda territorial debe contener information especif'ìcada por el Tribunal de Inmigracion. Tenga en cuenta que la petition de cambio de competencia territorial puede requerir la ayuda de un abogado. Para obtener asesoramient?o sobre la "petid6n de cambio de competencia territorial", consulte el Manual de pracdca del Tribunal de Inmigracion en /it.tn~ry.ti~ it ic~i~c nn`r/ 3~rr jar}f /s~S{'T1t~~~ (iJrt ai /ri~i7 n~r,'i rt r Para obtener infnrmaci6n sabre casos de inmigracion, comuniquese con el sistema de informaci6n de casos de inmigraci6n de EOIR Ilamando al 1-800-898-7180. Visite el, sitio web de EOIR pars obtener informaci6n aditional en. • Notificar al Departamento de Seguridad del Territorio National (Department of Homeland Security, DHS) o a Servicios de Ciudadania a Inmigracion de los Estados Unidos (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) en un periodo de diez (10) dial de todo cambia de direction, presentando la Tarjeta de Cambio de Direction de Extranjero (AR-11) o de manera electr6nica en htic:/Li,usa1-c5;~ • Asegurar la presencia del menor en todos los procedimientos futuros ante DHS o Inmigracion y Seguridad de Aduanas (Immigration and Customs Enforcement„ ICE) y el Departamento de Justicia (Department of Justice, DO]) o EOIR. Para obtener infnrmacion ORR UAC(FPJ -4s [Rev. 05/14/20181 Page Z of 2 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 177 of 189 Office of Refugee Resettlement sobre casos de inmigracion, comuniquese con el sistema de information de caws de EOIR llamando al: 1-800-898-7180. • Asegurar que el menor se presence ante ICE para la expulsion de los Estados Unidos si un juez de inmigracion ernite una Orden de expulsion o una orden de Salida voluntaria. Se asigna al menor un oficial de deportacian para los procedimientos de expulsion. • Notificar a la autoridad policial local o a los Servic'ros de Probecacion Irrfantil local o estatal si el menor estuvo o esla en riesgo de estar sujet:o a abuso, abandono, descuido o maltrato o si se entera de que el menor ha lido amenazado, abusado o agredido sexual o fisIcamente, o ha desapareddo. Se debe notificar ni bien sea posible o antes de las 24 horas despues de ocurrido el aconbedmiento, o despues de tener conocimiento del riesgo o la amenaza. • Notificar al Centro National para Ninos Perdidos y Explotados (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children) al 1-800-843-5578 si el menor desaparece, fue secuestrado o se escapa. Se debe notificar ni Mien sea posible o antes de las 24 horas despues de enberarse de la desapariclon del menor. • Notificar a ICE si algun individuo que se crea que represents un sindicato de contrabando de extranjeros, crimen organizado o una organizacion de trafico de Beres humanos se comunica de alguna forma con el menor. Notificar to antes posible o antes de las 24 horas despues de conocer esta information. Puede Ilamar a ICE al 1-865-347-2423. terminos de este Alwamo de cu/dado del pabucinador. • Si no es el tutor legal ni el padre o madre del nrno, en caso de que ya no pueda y no esbe dispuesto a cuidar al menor y no pueda transferir de manera temporal is custodia Mica y el menor retina los requisites de la definicion de nine extranjero no acompanado, debe notificar a ORR al 1-800-203-7001. La liberacion del menor mendonado anteriormente de fa Oficina de Reubicado'n de Refugiados para su cuidado no le oborga al menor ningun estado de inmigracion legal y el menor debe presentarse a los procedimientos del tribunal de inmigraclon. ORR UAWRP-ft [Rev. 05/14120181 Page 2 of 2 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 178 of 189 Q {T r r Declaracio' n del p► atr®cinlador Ofirinn tits Rm ihiraririn rip Rpfi mi irinc Dedaro y afirmo, bajo pens de perjurio, que soy el pabocinador propuesto para el menor y que mi Solidlud de raunlfncaddn familiar y los documentos usados comp respaldo a la solicitud funcionan eomo evidencia de que tengo la plena intenctcin de proporclonarie cuidado al menor que pretendo patrocinar. Asimismo, no me presento coma patrocinador para no terser a un menor a mi cuidado y luego transferir ese menor a otra persona, en incumplimiento de la politica de la Oficina de Reubicad6n de Refugiados Office of Refugee Resettlement; ORR) y las leyes federales. Salo puedo transfedr a un menor al cuidado de otra persona en las siguientes situaciones: (1) a los padres biol6gicos del menor, en caso de que al hacerlo no exponga al nino a un peligro inmediato y que no haya una finallzact6n de los derechos parentates; (2) en el caso de que no pueda o no desee continuar el patrocinio debido a una difrcultad inesperada o en el caso de que deje inminentemente los Estados Unidos, transferire el cuidado del menor a un cuidador atte nativo (y unicamente al cuidador alternativo) identificado en mi respuesta a las Preguntas 12a-e de mi Salieitud de reunifica do familiar, conforme a to aprobado por la ORR en mi Plan de cuidado del patro nador, si al hacerlo no expongo al menor a un peligro inmediato; (3) a funcionarios encairgados del cumplimiento de las leyes locales, estatales o federates o funcionarios del Servicio de Protecci6n de Menores (Child Protective Service, CIS), o a las personas designadas del gobiemo focal o estatal. Antes de intentar transferir a un menor, debo notificar al Centro de Atenci6n Telef6nica Nacional (National Call Center, NCC) de la ORR al 1-800-203-7001. La Ofidna de Reubicaci6n de Refuglados puede requerir mas informaci6n antes de que pueda realizar una transferencia de cuidado o puede requerir una medida correctiva antes de aprobar una transferencia.. Si no notifico a la Oficina de Reuhcado'n de Refugiados sobre una transferencia o si transfiero al menor a una persona no auborizada, entiendo que el gobiemo federal puede procesarme par perjuido, fraude, trata de personas u otros delitos penales establecidos en la ley federal, segdn corresponda. Comprendo que la conspiracio'n o la cooperaci6n en la comisi6n de cualquiera de los siguientes actos constituye un delito: (1) ingresar o intentar ingresar a un extranjero a los Estados Unidos par un lugar que no sea el puerto de entrada designado u otro lugar designado por el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (Department of Homeland Security, DHS); (2) transportar o mover, o intentar transportar y mover, a un extranjero que no gene una condicion legal dentro de los Estados Unidos para apoyar una violacion de is ley; (3) alojar u ocultar, o intentar alojar y ocultar, a un extranjero que no tiene una condicidn legal dentro de los Estados Unidos; o ORR UAC FRP-10s [OS/1412M] Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 179 of 189 (4) incentivar o inducir a un extranjero para que venga a los Fstados Unidos: si su residenda es o sera una violacion a la ley. Ademas, puedo estar sujeto a tener que asumir una responsabilidad civil derivada de una transferencia del cuidado de un menor a una persona no autorizada de forma negligence o imprudente. La Qfidna de Reubicacion de Refugiados coopers plenamente con las autoridades encargadas del cumplimiento de [as [eyes locales, estatales y federales, induidas las autoridades de inmigracd6n federales o las autoridades de bienestar de menores, para goner en prAcUca fielmente las leyes que involucran is divulgadon de mi infomiadon personal en el caso de que un menor sea transferido de una manera no autorizada. Ademas, entiendo que, si no soy un cludadano estadounidense, una translerencia no autorizada de un menor puede afectar mi capacidad de permanecer en los Fstados Unidos, independientemente de mi eondiciNon legal de inrnigraci6n. Afirmo o certifico que entiendo la advertencia proporcionada en esta declaracio"n. Nombre del patrocinador ORR UAC FOIE'=10s 105/1412018] Fecha Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 180 of 189 Please wait... If this message is not eventually replaced by the proper contents of the document, your PDF viewer may not be able to display this type of document. You can upgrade to the latest version of Adobe Reader for Windows, Mac, or Liinuxg by visiting http://www.adobe.com/go/reader—download. For more assistance with Adobe Reader visit http://www.adobe.com/go/acneader. Windows is eidter a registered trademadc or a trademark of Microsoft Cotpumflon in the United States andfor other cumtries. [else is a trademark of Apple foe, registered in the United States and other countries. Limo is Ow registered trademark of L'mus Terralde; in the U.S. and oHrer Cotwtrles. Case Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 181 of 189 EXHIBIT 6 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 182 of 189 GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Child and Family Services Agency "F~'Rti re IIIIIIIIIIIIIL---J Request for a Child Protection Register (CPR) Check The purpose of the Child Protection Register is to protect children and to ensure their safety by maintaining an index of perpetrators of child abuse and neglect in the District of Columbia. This confidential index includes the names of individuals with substantiated and/or inconclusive findings from the investigative reports of the Child Protective Services Unit of the Child and Family Services Agency. Authorized individuals may request background checks to establish whether an individual has a record of substantiated abuse or neglect of a child that occurred in the District of Columbia. / To request a local police clearance for the District of Columbia, please visit https://mpdc.dc.gov/node/187552. For information about the Sex Offender Registry, visit: https://mpdc.dc.gov/service/sex-offender-registry. / If you are making a request on behalf of a state child welfare agency outside of the District of Columbia and need the history of a family previously living in the District of Columbia, you may call 202-671-SAFE. / For other questions, call the CPR Unit at 202-727-8885 between 8:30 am and 4:30 pm Monday through Friday. Read all instructions — incomplete, incorrect or illegible forms will be returned and your request may be delayed ■ Do not complete an old version of the form; get the latest form at https://cfsa.dc.gov/service/baclground-checks. ■ Mail or deliver original application (no photocopies); no faxed, emailed, or scanned applications accepted. Part I ■ Schools (other than DCPS), child care facilities, private foster care agencies, and other private, community-based organizations should select "Non-Government Organization" as the Requestor Type. ■ CPR check results are not transferrable and cannot be shared from one agency or employer to another. Part II ■ If you have no middle name write "no middle name" or if a middle name is an initial, indicate "initial only." If the answer to any question is none, write "N/A". Part III ■ An individual must sign the form to provide consent for CFSA to release information to an authorized requestor. ■ The form must be signed in blue ink; electronic signatures are not permitted. ■ An employment request allows access to substantiated reports of child maltreatment, to chief executive officers or directors of day care centers, schools, or any public or private organization working directly with children, for the purpose of making employment decisions. Part IV ■ Forms shall be returned if not notarized (Note: applications for prospective and current CFSA resource parents and kin caregivers need not be notarized, but photo M must be provided and the form must be signed in the presence of a CFSA employee). Part V ■ Self-check applications must be submitted in person, not by mail. ■ Individuals requesting a self-check and CFSA resource parents and kin caregivers must present one non-expired, government-issued, photo identification: e.g., driver's license, state identification card, passport, "green card". ■ Results of CPR self-checks may not be used for employment purposes. Employers must directly request CPR clearances for prospective or current employees. MAIL or HAND DELIVER completed forms to: Attn: Child Protection Register Unit Child and Family Services Agency 200 1 Street SE, 3rd Floor Washington, DC 20003 Applications accepted between 8:30 am and 4:30 pm Monday through Friday Rev. October 2017 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 183 of 189 Please type or print clearly. Sign the form in blue ink, and date where indicated. Thoroughly review and submit to the CFSA CPR office. Allow up to 30 business days for results to be processed. Expedited requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Forms will be returned if incomplete, incorrect, or illegible resulting in a delayed response. PART I: Requesting Organization/Employer Information Request Date Corrected Application Re-submission Date Requestor Type ❑ Court ❑ Government Agency ❑ Non-Government Organization ❑ Self (personal use only) Purpose ❑ Adoption ❑ Visitation ❑ Court Request ❑ Current Employee/Volunteer ❑ Foster/Adoption Licensing ❑ New Hire/Volunteer ❑ Kinship Licensing ❑ Other: Requesting Organization/Employer Contact Information (results cannot be mailed to a P.O. Box) Requesting Organization U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, PROGRAM SUPPORT CENTER, DIVISION OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES Attention To Cynthia Ramos Requestor Address 5600 FISHERS LANE, ROOM 02E70, ROCKVILLE, MD 20857 Phone Number (301) 443-7047 (301) 480-0292 Fax Number ❑ By Mail Preferred method to return CPR check results to the requesting organization ❑✓ By Fax PART I1: Applicant Information Last Name (include suffix if applicable) Date of Birth (MM/DD/YYYY) Full Middle Name (write "no middle name' if there is none) First Name Social Security Number (or LISCIS/Alien Registration #) Gender (on birth certificate) ❑ Male ❑ Female Other Names Used (nicknames, alias, maiden name, previous married name, legal name change, etc.) Household Information. List all persons living at the current address with the applicant (including students away at college). Name (first name, middle name, last name) CPR Check Form I I Date of Birth obtain the latest form online at cfsa.dc.gov I I Relationship to Applicant Rev. October 2017 1 Page 2 of 4 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 184 of 189 Previous Residency Information. List all addresses (excluding zip code) and the start and end dates, to the best of your ability. Indicate L, W or M in the first column (L = lived, W = worked, M = received mail). • Applicants for employment or volunteer purposes must include all addresses of residence and where mail was received for the last five (5) years. • Applicants for adoption, foster care, and kinship care must provide addresses for residency, receipt of mail and employment from the age of 18, per Title 29 DCMR Chapter 60 § 6009.1. To calculate the starting date for the previous addresses, add 18 years to the date of birth (e.g., If you were born in 1970, add 18 so addresses going back to 1988 must be provided). To help obtain previous addresses, check the credit report bureaus (Equifax, Experian, TransUnion). • • Current Address (include Street #, Apt #, Quadrant if applicable) LWM Previous Address (Include street # and Apt #) City City State State Zip Start — End Dates (MM/YYYY — MM/YYYY) CPR Check Form ( obtain the latest form online at cfsa.dc.gov I Rev. October 2017 1 Page 3 of 4 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 185 of 189 PART III: Applicant Consent I hereby consent and authorize the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency to provide the Requestor (noted in Part 1) information concerning me that is contained in the Child Protection Register ("CPR"). Printed Name: Date: Signature: Must be signed in blue ink; electronic signatures not permitted PART IV: Certificate of Acknowledgement of the Applicant before a Notary Public Leave this space blank for Notary seal Applicant Name (Printed) Applicant Signature (must be signed in the presence of a Notary) Date Subscribed and affirmed or sworn to me, in my presence, on this day of Signature of Notary Public: My commission expires on _~ 20 in the state of, i PART V: Self Check, CFSA Resource Parent, and CFSA Kinship Caregiver Verification CFSA USE ONLY: Identification has been shown to me that I have deemed satisfactorily identifies the applicant: ID # Type of ID CFSA Employee Name (print) CFSA Employee Title (print) CFSA Employee Signature CPR Check Form I obtain the latest form online at cfsa.dc.gov I Rev. October 2017 1 Page 4 of 4 Case Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 186 of 189 Exhibit DD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 187 of 189 July 6, 2018 The Honorable Alex Azar Secretary U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20201 The Honorable Kristjen Nielsen Secretary U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528 Dear Secretary Azar and Secretary Nielsen: As governors representing states where separated migrant children are being detained, we write to express our growing concern with this Administration’s ability to reunify families in accordance with the federal court injunction issued on June 26, 2018. Given recent reports suggesting this process is being carried out chaotically and inconsistently, and in light of your agencies’ latest admission that hundreds more separated migrant children are in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) than were previously accounted for, we remain deeply concerned that wholly inadequate resources and procedures are in place to ensure children and parents are reunified safely and securely within the court-ordered deadlines. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) now claims it has as many as 3,000 children in its custody who were removed from their parents at the southern border, as a result of this Administration’s outrageous family separation policy. The substantial discrepancy between this number and the 2,047 children who were previously identified by Secretary Azar raises serious questions about this Administration’s systems and processes for ensuring these children, including infants and toddlers, can be safely returned to their parents. To date, your agencies have also consistently refused to account for the number of children who are already reunified with their parents or placed with another long-term sponsor. Let us be clear — the responsibility for these children’s plight rests solely in your hands. It is unequivocal that this Administration’s harmful “zero-tolerance” policy is to blame for the forcible separation of families at the southern border, not Congress or the courts. That’s why each of us forcefully and vocally opposed this destructive approach to immigration enforcement, which has inflicted intentional, gratuitous and permanent trauma on thousands of young children. Although we welcomed the decision to abandon the shameful practice of forced family separation, we strongly object to the omission in the President’s executive order on June 20, 2018, of any clear directive or strategy to reunify separated children with their parents. Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 188 of 189 A federal district court ruled correctly last week that this policy constitutes “irreparable harm” with long-term implications for children’s health, safety and well-being, and it ordered the Trump Administration to reunify separated children under the age of five within 14 days and all separated children within 30 days. Unfortunately, it remains entirely unclear whether your agencies have established the necessary protocols or dedicated adequate resources to meet these deadlines without compromising children’s safety and welfare. Perhaps even more troubling is a recent indication by representatives of your agencies that the Trump Administration does not believe separated children must be reunified with their actual parents under the court order. In a meeting with governors’ offices on June 29, 2018, these representatives shared that reunification may include the placement of separated children with any long-term sponsor — regardless of whether that placement is with their parents, another family member residing in the U.S., a family member residing in their home country or in a longterm foster care setting. If true, this interpretation appears to blatantly ignore the terms of the court order. The federal government has also recently admitted that reunification is being used as a bargaining chip to induce parents to agree to voluntary deportation. On behalf of the children residing in our states who have been needlessly traumatized and who remain justifiably frightened for themselves and their families, we ask that you immediately answer the following basic questions: 1. How many separated migrant children in HHS custody have already been reunified? Are there any new children who have been separated from their parents since the President’s executive order on June 20, 2018? If so, how many and where are they? 2. Of those children who have already been reunified, how many have been placed with the parents they arrived with at the U.S. southern border? How many were placed with a nonparent family member or other sponsor? Of the children placed with a non-parent family member or sponsor, in which states were they placed? 3. If any were placed with a non-parent sponsor, what policies do your agencies intend to put in place to enable long-term reunification between children and their parents? 4. What steps is the federal government requiring separated parents to comply with before gaining back custody of their children? (For example, must they consent to return to their country of origin, post bond, or submit to DNA testing or finger-printing?) 5. What safeguards are being put in place to ensure the results of any DNA testing of parents and children are not used for any purpose other than familial verification? Are these results de-identified and ultimately destroyed? 6. How many of the separated migrant children in HHS custody have been provided with legal services and representation? As parents, we are heartbroken by the unimaginable pain inflicted on thousands of unwitting children who have done nothing wrong and parents who often have valid claims for refugee or Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 189 of 189 asylum status. As governors, we will not stay silent as long as these children remain unjustly detained in our states, separated from their parents simply because of this Administration’s unwillingness or ineptitude to govern legally with humanity and compassion. Sincerely, Governor Jay Inslee State of Washington Governor Andrew Cuomo State of New York Governor Dannel P. Malloy State of Connecticut Governor Phil Murphy State of New Jersey Governor Tom Wolf State of Pennsylvania Governor Kate Brown State of Oregon Case Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 1 of 107 Exhibit EE Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 2 of 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 STATE OF WASHINGTON et al, Plaintiffs, 10 11 12 13 NO. 2:18-cv-00939MJP v. DONALD TRUMP in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., DECLARATION OF JENNIFER FLORIAN-VEGA Defendants. 14 15 I, Jennifer Florian-Vega, am over eighteen years of age, have personal 16 knowledge of and am competent to testify regarding the facts contained herein, and 17 declare the following: 18 I am from Guatemala, and I came to the United States with my 11-year-old 19 daughter. We arrived in Texas on the 18th of May, where immigration officers took 20 us to a place they call iceboxes (hieleras), because they are very cold, and you 21 freeze in there. When we arrived, we saw other mothers with children who were 22 crying. My daughter asked me why they were crying, and a guard who heard us 23 told us that the same thing was going to happen to us, that we would be separated. 24 My daughter began to cry. We were together until 11 o’clock at night. I covered my 25 daughter with an aluminum blanket so that she would not be cold. The guards 26 called her name, and my daughter asked me, “mommy, why are they calling me?” I DECLARATION OF JENNIFER FLORIANVEGA Page 1 of 3 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 (206) 464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 3 of 107 1 told her that everything would be OK. The guards took her to look her over. I could 2 see her through a door with a window. I saw that she was crying. She asked to go to 3 the restroom, she hugged me, and then they took her away. I tried not to cry, even 4 though I had a knot in my throat, so that my daughter would not be scared. I 5 remained in the icebox for three more days without my daughter and without 6 hearing anything from her. They took me to the court. Before entering the court, a 7 lawyer talked to us and told us that we had to declare ourselves guilty, or they 8 would leave us there another 14 days. So, when the judge asked me, I said that I 9 had entered illegally. The judge told us in the group of mothers who were there that 10 we would be able to see our children when we left. 11 But from there they took me to another icebox and I asked about my daughter, and 12 the guards told me that they didn’t know anything, that I would not see her again, 13 and they laughed while we were crying. I was there for two days, then they sent us 14 to Laredo. On June 3rd, they took us to the Federal Prison in Washington. One 15 morning they woke us up and took us to Tacoma. They did not tell us why. That 16 was 15 days ago. Recently, 3 days ago, I was able to speak with my daughter. A 17 mother who is detained here gave me a telephone number of a home in Texas 18 where her daughter is, so that I could try to see if my daughter was also there. 19 When I called, I found her, and I was able to speak with her for 15 minutes. 20 I told her that I signed my deportation order and that we would go back to 21 Guatemala soon. I renounced my request for asylum because they separated me 22 from my daughter, and the only thing I want is to be with her once more. 43 days 23 passed without me hearing anything from her. Every time I asked officers about 24 her, they did not know where she was. 25 26 I declare under penalty of perjury in accordance to the laws of the state of Washington and of the United States of America that the above is true and correct. DECLARATION OF JENNIFER FLORIANVEGA Page 2 of 3 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 (206) 464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 4 of 107 1 DATED this 5th day of July, 2018 in Tacoma, Washington. 2 [Signature] 3 Name: Jennifer Florian Vega 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF JENNIFER FLORIANVEGA Page 3 of 3 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 (206) 464-7744 gs? PM {Lisa gig 3% gig; sage g3; iglpg? ig?gssg wwi?ssii 5" f?si 9K gs g- gsgm? i sg?f's Maggy-bi 3% if}; 3 s??fsisxsf? ?gs? z?Es?g? is?? gs gs; g- s. gs gs. gisgss: .ss? isgsg gigs certify that the Declaration of Jennifer Florian was translated into English by a translator and editor working for Multilingual Connections who are both competent and qualified to perform translation into this language. These document has not been translated for a family member, friend, or business associate. attest that the final target file is an accurate and complete translation of the original Sganish version. ?lls/0W Jul 10 2018 Dionna Masciola Date Associate Project Manager Multilingual Connections, LLC THEODORE JACKSON SEAL 11' Notary Public. State of illinois My Commission Expires January 30 2022 Subscribed and sworn to before me this ildayof (Ml uj #20 Vb: Evanston, County of Cook, State of Illinois. Mull ilingual Connections, LLC #255450 A Notary Publi I 773.292.5500 828 DAVIS STREET SUITE 210 I EVANSTON, 60201 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 6 of 107 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., NO. 2:18-ev-00939 - MJP 9 Plaintiffs, DECLARACION DE 10 V. 11 12 DONALD TRUMP in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 f''s ae Yo, 11. , tengo mas de dieciocho anos de edad; tengo conocimiento personal y soy competente para testificar sobre los hechos aqui contenidos, y declaro to siguiente: yM ~ de, 6 ►~ ~~5 a'~ cur\ ivv i ) I u v~~ ~s V~; das LI qc.~AAO& 1~ ~ 19 i 20 urn os li~v~ 21 22 o d -e `y , CtJCtA^ dc ~< 23 i Cwt 24 ((C U O ~,. Vv0 3 llo 25 26 V`n DECLARACI6N DE - 11 , 2:18-CV-00939 - MJP V gat ,u J. de yel'C4 Sue C4 (J Pdgina t~ 1- t0-W405 OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 7 of 107 wo (I k c P t'T 't t *.A^ q 2 3 ,A Y\o 4 )4- 5 6 SO A C\ OINA V2 V-C .7 I 7 8 c( qVII rao.,ct3A rNA 0 -e- ~eUG4 0 f\, Ok-f b 5 q tf-xf I (I \j 9 10 (C) \C k~ a 11 12 13 L)e 14 15 t c-I A CAP^ 16 c 17 18 jCkCkjV 19 0 20 21 'Lawd't 4A Vie cilkie I V k 1c (X~ 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARAC16N DE 2:18-CV-00939 - MJP Pdgina 2- de'l OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 8 of 107 1 2 3 4 5 i Dos d, o clu ow e3ant 6 7 1-10 m e4 ®( 1 --`~ Sit V1 ~,{ t D _ ffk 8 < G kc~ fu 9 VN 4 41 ` ' 10 {/''CYl'~ 11 0 1. 12 0 u., ,..<<~ - CJ 13 wI 14 15 KAQ 16 17 18 19 20 y ( d` 21 22 23 tip fitj 1, •re (,~ ~i ` t ~, 24 25 26 DECLARACI6N DE 2:18-CV-00939 - MJP Pdgina -9 del OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 N Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 9 of 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Declaro bajo pena de perjurio bajo las leyes del estado de Washington y de los Estados Unidos de America que to anterior es verdadero y correcto. FECHADO este ( '~- dia de Julio, 2018 en Tacoma, Washington. 10 11 Nombre: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARAC16N DE 2:18-CV-00939 - MJP Pagina I de OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL D WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 Case Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 10 of 107 Exhibit FF Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 11 of 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 STATE OF WASHINGTON et al, Plaintiffs, 10 11 12 13 NO. 2:18-cv-00939MJP v. DONALD TRUMP in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., DECLARATION OF IBIS GUZMAN COLINDRES Defendants. 14 15 I, Ibis Guzman Colindres, am over eighteen years of age, have personal 16 knowledge of and am competent to testify regarding the facts contained herein, and 17 declare the following: 18 I am from Honduras and I came to the United States with my only son, aged 5 19 years. When we arrived, the immigration officers took us to the icebox (la hielera). 20 It was very cold. The sandwich they gave us was made with frozen bread. About 21 two hours later, they took my little boy from me. They told me that I should give 22 them the boy, they did not tell me where they were going to take him, but that the 23 law was to separate parents from their children. My son was crying because he did 24 not want to be without me. I asked them to leave him with me, but they did not pay 25 any attention. I was there two more days, then they took me to the dog kennel (la 26 perrera), where I was for three more days. I did not hear anything about my son for DECLARATION OF IBIS GUZMAN C. Page 1 of 2 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 (206) 464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 12 of 107 1 the entire time. In the dog kennel, they told us that we should forget about our 2 children, that they were going to stay in the United States. All of the mothers cried 3 when they told us that. From there, they took us to Laredo. I was there for 15 days, 4 with no contact with my son. They transferred us to Washington on June 3rd to 5 Federal Detention. I was there about 15 more days, still without being able to talk 6 with my son. One Wednesday in the morning, they told us that we would be 7 reunited with our children, but they took us here to the Tacoma Detention Center, 8 which was very sad and disheartening. 6 days after arriving, I was finally able to 9 speak with my son after more than a month and a half of not being able to talk with 10 him. But he didn’t want to talk when I called him, he is angry and sad, and he tells 11 me that he only wants to be with me now. When he spoke with my sister, he told 12 her that I brought him here to give him away. It makes me feel very bad to think 13 that he believes that I would do that. I left Honduras because of death threats and 14 am requesting asylum in order to live here in safety with my son. 15 I am very worried for the well-being of my son, and that he would believe that I 16 brought him all the way here just to leave him on his own. 17 18 19 I declare under penalty of perjury in accordance to the laws of the state of Washington and of the United States of America that the above is true and correct. DATED this 5th day of July, 2018 in Tacoma, Washington. 20 [Signature] 21 Name: Ibis Guzman 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF IBIS GUZMAN C. Page 2 of 2 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 (206) 464-7744 gw?o?s?i 2:222 3.22.222323252 1 . ?220222.??22322222 M22232?M?i??3252i222?2??i 2222222222 2.22 22322222222 22 2222222222: 2222222222222 . 2322222222. 22 canteen/2,2 22222222222223: 22222-222 ~22 2:2; 2.22 2222222222 2-2 22212222222 222.22 222222222 -- -- - .2222? 22.22 222222222 2.222212 22 232222222222 2:13.22 22, 22222262222222 422222222 22 22?? 22 ?22-222?? ?2 12222 2222.2. 222222222: .22 22222222222222} 2222 21222 2. (.821, I certify that the Declaration of Ibis Guzman was translated into English by a translator and editor working for Mul The - fina Dio Ass Mult WU ltilingual Connections who are both competent and qualified to perform translation into this language. so document has not been translated for a family member, friend, or business associate. attest that the target file is an accurate and complete translation of the original Spanish version. Jul 10 2018 ma Masciola Date sciate Project Manager tilingual Connections, LLC THEODORE S. JACKSON .- OFFICIAL SEAL Notary Public. State of iilinois - My Commission Expires January 30. 2022 Subscribed and sworn to before me this Amman . Translators _._dav 0f 20 [3 ,In Assn Evanston, County of Cook, State of illinois. lingual Connections, .W Notary Publl 773.292.5500 828 DAVIS STREET SUITE 210 i EVANSTON, 22.60201 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 14 of 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., NO. 2:18-cv-00939 - MJP 9 Plaintiffs, DECLARACI6N DE 10 V. T B(S (,~ 11 12 DONALD TRUMP in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 !l Yo, ~> , tengo mas de dieciocho anos de edad, tengo conocimiento personal y soy competente para testificar sobre los hechos aqui contenidos, y declaro to siguiente: 11 Q"o r~-Nk U ni C o ~~ ~o de -Y g ios . cuaA,~o 19 20 \ 1 f-105<<~1~ rt f 21 22 23 d ~: ~. rn O( Cam_ C/1t N° h C-. 24 25 26 DECLARAC16N DE . 2:18-CV-00939 - MJP Pagina de OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL I WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 15 of 107 2 no~ 4 C)n e-tA 5 CD, VA 6 o' 0, o"s C)cs C~ o ~~Os eu A-f-eV* 7 h) C) ~,e 9 10 11 uw~ 12 V\c bo5 dos c)-e ~;'A ec' +-U \j C, 13 14 15 CAA 40CA ~y C(5 Vly e 16 4~"3 A- -U \1 e- 17 ow" 18 C ~ c- C(>V~c GL"~ (r) hA YA V C> U J\A CO 19 20 co" 21 LA 22 c"ue oL)-(> fvkw, i-x> I tf 23 de co, C4 k c)ol los 24 25 I 26 DECLARACION DE C ,) 2:18-CV-00939 - MJP Pdgina C de I OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 2061464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 16 of 107 1 CCU,., Lue iv, CO- IZ, 2 3 4 0 CVA o 5 (1k L 6 C~u CA 75 0' 7 ob C-4. V k-I 6 0 8 9 C)j de 10 1, J 11 12 13 ~4 Ij 14 \1 15 0 16 17 18 19 2.0 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARAC16N DE 2:18-CV-00939 - MJP Pdgina rj de'l OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 17 of 107 1 2 f 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Declaro bajo pena de perjurio bajo las leyes del estado de Washington y de los Estados Unidos de Am6rica que to anterior es verdadero y correcto. FECHADO este C)S dia de Julio, 2018 en Tacoma, Washington. 10 11 s Nombre:', ~ -, ~ ,~4 C U t Yv1 ck o. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARACI6N DE 2:18-CV-00939 - MJP Pagina L de OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL D WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 Case Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 18 of 107 Exhibit GG Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 19 of 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 STATE OF WASHINGTON et al, Plaintiffs, 10 11 12 13 NO. 2:18-cv-00939MJP v. DONALD TRUMP in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., DECLARATION OF DUNIA GARCÍA RAMÍREZ Defendants. 14 15 I, Dunia Garcia Ramirez, am over eighteen years of age, have personal 16 knowledge of and am competent to testify regarding the facts contained herein, and 17 declare the following: 18 I am from Honduras and I came to the United States with my 8-year-old daughter. 19 When we arrived, I told the immigration officers that I left Honduras because of 20 death threats and requested asylum when they took me to the icebox (hielera). We 21 were there for one night and then they took us to the place they call the dog kennel 22 (perrera). I was there with my daughter for a day until they took me to the court. I 23 told my daughter that I would see her once I came back from the court. But once 24 they separated me from my daughter, the officers in white told me that I would not 25 see my daughter again, that the children were to be given up for adoption. At that 26 point, all of us mothers began to cry out of fear for our children. After the court, I DECLARATION OF DUNIA GARCIA R. Page 1 of 2 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 (206) 464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 20 of 107 1 was in the dog kennel for about two more days. From there, they took me to a jail in 2 Texas, where I spent 9 days without news of my daughter. From there, they 3 transferred me to Washington, to Federal Detention. After being there for a week, I 4 was recently able to speak with my daughter, who is in a home in California. I try 5 to speak with her twice per week so that she feels better. When we speak, she wants 6 to leave where she is and be together once more, she misses me a lot. I am waiting 7 to see what happens with my asylum case, I want to be with my daughter more than 8 anything. My heart aches day and night because I am separated from her. I want for 9 us to be able to live here to have protection and safety for her and for me. 10 I declare under penalty of perjury in accordance to the laws of the state of 11 Washington and of the United States of America that the above is true and correct. 12 DATED this 5th day of July, 2018 in Tacoma, Washington. 13 [Signature] 14 Name: Dunia Sarai Garcia Ramirez 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF DUNIA GARCIA R. Page 2 of 2 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 (206) 464-7744 - Jib .33; 3?33? 33 33-33 3333 3333333333 33333333: 33333 3333 333333.13 agg 2g?33qg?g'39233? 333333.33?? 33333343.? ?33333333 =3 3.33 333.333 3.3. 3333333333? 33333333333333 333?? ?kw 13333.33 33: 3:3 333333333333 ?33.. 3.3333333333333333333 33333333333333 -- 3 3- 333333333333333?333?3333 33333333333333 3333333 333333333 33333 33333333333333.3333 333-33 3333333333: 333333333; 33333 33333333 3" 3.3333 333333 333.3 3.333.. 33.33 33.3.3.3 33:3}; 3 3333333 (3333? I ce ?tify that the Declaration of Dunia Ramirez was translated into English by a translator and editor working for Vlultilingual Connections who are both competent and qualified to perform translation into this language. These document has not been translated for a family member, friend, or business associate. attest that the final target file is an accurate and complete translation of the original Spanish version. Jul 10 2013 Dionna Masciola Date Associate Project Manager Multilingual Connections, LLC THEODORE JACKSON -. SEAL i, Notary Public, State of lliinois 3 I y-Cornmission Expires - January 38. 2022 Subscribed and sworn to before me this ..'.illeman' Transistors ?davof Oral? _,20 l8_, Assomhan' 33333333333333: Evanston, County of Cook, State of Illinois. Mul ilingual Connections, LLC #255450 Notary Publl - l. "2'7332925500 828 DAVIS STREET 210 EVANSTON, 33.60201 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 22 of 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ATSEATTLE 7 8 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., NO. 2:18-cv-00939 - MJP 9 Plaintiffs, DECLARACI6N DE 10 Wi ~Gyl V. 11 12 DONALD TRUMP in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 `, ' ..' A ~ ► Yo, , tengo mas de dieciocho anos de edad, U l,I tengo conocimiento personal y soy competente para testificar sobre los hechos aqui contenidos, y declaro to siguiente: 17 18 19 'Gv~ 20 r.,l ~G ~~ 2 ~ . i .. 21 22 23 x( 10 o .Gtr `~~. `~ ' ~ r-c 1~ CA .- ✓• 24 ~.. `li d 25 26 DECLARACI6N DE f, I8-CV-00939 - MJP Pagina "~` de OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 23 of 107 1 CA crx h ZVI 2 tu 3 4 5 P 6 .b 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 13 14 15 ~n — t 16 17 18 19 20 Y 21 CA 22 23 24 25 26 Pagina --de DECLARACI6N DE ~B 2:18-CV-00939 - MJP OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 24 of 107 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 9 Declaro bajo pena de perjurio bajo las leyes del estado de Washington y de los Estados Unidos de Amdrica que to anterior es verdadero y correcto. FECHADO este1 dia de Julio, 2018 en Tacoma, Washington. 10 0 11 Nombre: C 12) ew r'('" e Ca , 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARAC16N J)E 2:18-CV-00939 - MJP Plgina de 3 OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL D WASHINGTON 6uu rinn Avenue, mne zuuu Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 Case Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 25 of 107 Exhibit HH Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 26 of 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 STATE OF WASHINGTON et al, Plaintiffs, 10 11 12 13 NO.2:18-cv-00939-MJP DECLARATION OF SINDY ROSALESCOREAS v. DONALD TRUMP in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Defendants. 14 15 I, Sindy Rosales-Coreas, am over eighteen years of age, have personal 16 knowledge of and am competent to testify regarding the facts contained herein, and 17 declare the following: 18 I am from El Salvador and I came to the United States with my 9-year-old son. We 19 arrived in Texas on May 16th. The immigration agents took me to the icebox 20 (hielera), where it was very cold. There was no water to drink, just the tap in the 21 bathroom, or they gave frozen ice water and the bread was also frozen. A few hours 22 later they took us away to take our information. Then they took me and left him in 23 another room, and since then I have not seen him again. They did not let me say 24 goodbye to him. The immigration officers told me that they were going to give my 25 son up for adoption and that I would not see him again. Then, they took me to a 26 place that is called the dog kennel (perrera) for 5 days. There, I asked for my son, DECLARATION OF SINDY ROSALESCOREAS Page 1 of 2 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 (206) 464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 27 of 107 1 and the officers told me once more that they were going to deport me and that they 2 would give him up for adoption. From there, they took me to Laredo, where I was 3 until the 3rd of June. After being there for a week, I was able to talk to my son for 4 about 15 minutes. He is in a home in Arizona. He sounded very sad, and that 5 worries me. On the 3rd of June, they took me to Washington and I was only able to 6 speak with him one more time. The social worker told me that I can only talk to my 7 son once per week. I tried to call him again several times and there was no 8 response. I am requesting asylum because I fled El Salvador because of death 9 threats. I hope to be able to stay here with my son so we can live in safety, but they 10 11 have not yet told me when I can be with him. I declare under penalty of perjury in accordance to the laws of the state of 12 Washington and of the United States of America that the above is true and correct. 13 DATED this 5th day of July, 2018 in Tacoma, Washington. 14 [Signature] 15 Name: Sindy Rosales 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF SINDY ROSALESCOREAS Page 2 of 2 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 (206) 464-7744 m2 .222?: 222,3 2 -- -3 2 :2 323222122232 agii?F-y??qg i231} awa?g?eg Pa93228201c221202722 22222222222222-22222 2222222222. 2:22 M22222 2 222222222 2222222222222 Ice Mu The fine Dio Ass ?Iv .. . .23.: . ..M .. ?2 22 2222? 22222222. 2.22222 32? 22222.32 222?- MuitilingualConnections, LLC 2255450 3% Notary Public . 2 22222222222222 :2 22222222222222- 222222'22322222222212 22222-222 ., . . . 2 2- - 222-2 22 22-: 2.2.22 22222222222222.2222 2222222222222 -- 22: '32 2:2 222122222122 22222221222 . -2 2222: 222222222 512' 2 a, 2222222222 2222 2:222:22 2 2. 2: :22 ,2 3222222222 223222: 22 a, 22222.22: 22 222222222 222.2 222222222 222222222 4292-2 -3 22222222 2 - - -- :2 2% {33 2222332222222 . 22 22222222222222 2 222222222 3. 2? 2 2.2.. ?35 ~32: 3,2222% 22:: 22? 2 5 22-29 2 rtify that the Declaration of Sindy Rosales was translated into English by a translator and editor working for tilingual Connections who are both competent and qualified to perform translation into this language. se document has not been translated for a family member, friend, or business associate. attest that the target file is an accurate and complete translation of the original Spanish version. ETA . nna Masciola Date ociate Project Manager ltilingual Connections, LLC THEODORE S. JACKSON 2 OFFICIAL SEAL . Notary Public, State of My Commission Expires January 30. 2022 Subscribed and sworn to before me this ?davof {ii/[til #20 Evanston, County of Cook, State of Illinois. 7?732925500 i 828 DAVIS STREET SUITE 210 i EVANSTON, it. 60201 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 29 of 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9' STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Plaintiffs, 10 NO. 2:18-cv-00939 - MJP DECLARACION DE V. 11 12 DONALD TRUMP in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Yo, ': , tengo mas de dieciocho anos de edad, tengo conocimiento personal y soy competente para testificar sobre los hechos aqui contenidos, y declaro to siguiente: 17 18 `kS ell 19 20 21 22 23 24 LA 25 . t. 26 DECLARACION DE 2:18-CV-00939 - MJP Pagina_ de OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL I WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 30 of 107 Of 2 ~ ,,es' {CAS ``~o- ~~~✓ „x 5 6 7 g ! +~- li ~. z 9 10 12 13 ~- 0 x " 14 15 " ,x 16 D ; r 17 G 18 AX eOCA" 20 21 ko ii 1 22 23 ~ 24 25 26 DECLARACI6N DE 2:18-CV-00939 - MTP Pagina _ de OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 981043188 206-464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 31 of 107 l 1 2 4 j AG 3' 4 5' r ~ icG or"Ac4 ot A t . 6 7' 8 9 Declaro bajo pena de perjurio bajo las leyes del estado de Washington y de los Estados Unidos de America que to anterior es verdadero y correcto. FECHADO este 06— dia de Julio, 2018 en Tacoma, Washington. 10 11 Nombre: 3_1'n ~ 12 Q)S SA, S_ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARACION DE 2:18-CV-00939 - MJP Pagina de OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL E WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 Case Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 32 of 107 Exhibit 11 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 33 of 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 STATE OF WASHINGTON et al, Plaintiffs, 10 11 12 13 NO. 2:18-cv-00939MJP v. DONALD TRUMP in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., DECLARATION OF LESLY MARTINEZ SORIANO Defendants. 14 15 I, Lesly Martinez Soriano, am over eighteen years of age, have personal 16 knowledge of and am competent to testify regarding the facts contained herein, and 17 declare the following: 18 I am from Honduras and I came to the United States with my two children: my ten- 19 year-old daughter and my 6-year-old son. We decided to leave Honduras because I 20 was being threatened with death and on one occasion people tried to run me over. 21 We arrived in the USA on May 16th. The immigration officers took us to the icebox 22 (hielera) where we were for 5 days. We slept on the floor because there were no 23 mattresses, just some aluminum blankets. We were unable to bathe or brush our 24 teeth. An officer said that we stank. We were given bread and ham that was frozen. 25 It was incredibly cold there. The place was full of people, so many that we couldn’t 26 lie down. We slept in the bathroom because there was no space. I was taken to DECLARATION OF LESLY MARTINEZ SORIANO Page 1 of 2 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 (206) 464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 34 of 107 1 court with my hands and feet cuffed and with a chain around my waist. My children 2 saw all this. My son became afraid and asked me “mommy, are they going to kill 3 you?”, while crying. It hurts me so much to remember that moment, the trauma my 4 son went through, remembering his voice crying out of fear. Since that day, May 5 21st, I have not seen them again. From there, they took me to McCali (tr: McAllen), 6 Texas, then from there to detention in Laredo, where I was for more than 30 days 7 without being able to speak to my children. I tried to call them, but in the home 8 where they told me they were, in New York, no one answered. From Laredo, they 9 took me to Washington at the beginning of June, to Federal Detention. I was there 10 until June 20th, still unable to speak with my children. They woke us up one 11 Wednesday and told us that they were going to reunite us with our children, but 12 they took us here to Tacoma and [the children] weren’t here. It was a complete lie. 13 One week ago, I was able to speak with my daughter for the first time, for about 10 14 minutes. I couldn’t speak with my son. My daughter told me that he didn’t want to 15 be there anymore, that he was just crying and crying and couldn’t speak anymore. 16 They are in a home in New York. I also want to say that in Laredo, in the 17 Detention, the officers treated us very badly. They yelled at us, they gave us dirty 18 clothing. Now, what I want more than anything is to be with my children and to 19 continue with my asylum case to be able to live here in safety, since I am afraid of 20 going back to Honduras. I fear for my life and that of my children if we go back. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury in accordance to the laws of the state of 22 Washington and of the United States of America that the above is true and correct. 23 DATED this 5th day of July, 2018 in Tacoma, Washington. 24 [Signature] 25 Name: Lesly Martinez 26 DECLARATION OF LESLY MARTINEZ SORIANO Page 2 of 2 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 (206) 464-7744 m. Wm). ?v 3 ?2222?: 2:23?: 2.. 3. :23 223.3 2.342322422232233 3.32.2.2 ?gmagg?g 2;.2 3L8: 32232:: 3333.33": 23/523222 33 {2:333:33 .. WW2. W. 122:2: '2313 mi. 3 50': 222?. 93:2. :22: 22:22:22.2: 2: 2222;222:222: 222:1: 3:322:32 3' '2 .. 2.2-2.2 '22'2'222'g2353i32323n 22- 22222212222o22222-s22222222 2222222222 - - 33322222222222: -. 22. 2*:2 $222232: .522: 2232:2222: 2.75232 '3 :2 3322;333:123:222: 122.2223 2 2 222222.222 222222: "ex-222.222.: i-i - .22222:2322 :22? 3., 2:222 2223:3222: 222:3.2323 :33: 2:2 2: 22:22.2? .. .2: 33:22:12,222:- agreeing? 222:: 222?"2222 222.2 22222222232 W3 222:2. I ce2tify that the Declaration of Lesly Soriano was translated into English by a translator and editor working for Mu tilingual Connections who are both competent and qualified to perform translation into this language. These document has not been translated for a family member, friend, or business associate. attest that the final target file is an accurate and complete translation of the original Spanish version. 4m July 10. 2018 Di nna Masciola Date As ociate Project Manager ltilingual Connections, LLC THEODORE s. JACKSON 2 SEAL .. - Notary Public State 03 illinois My Commission Expires January 30, 2022 Subscribed and sworn to before me this Amman 7 [Translators tide: of TM .2017? iAss intro . 25522222522222: Evanston, County of Cook, State of Illinois. Mul ilingual Connections, LLC #255450 m3 Wm Notary Publi I ?73.292.5500 I 828 DAVIS STREET SUITE 210 I EVANSTON, EL 60201 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 36 of 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., NO. 2:18-cv-00939 - MJP 9 Plaintiffs, DECLARACI6N DE 10 Lk' `d ~AIXTIN~ V. 11 12 DONALD TRUMP in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 L Yo, ~1 S6?~ ftt\l ( , tengo mas de dieciocho anos de edad, tengo conocimiento personal y soy competente para testificar sobre los hechos aqui contenidos, y declaro to siguiente: 18 19 ~';^ (49 20 21 22 j . 23 J~ f 25 26 DECLARACION DE Pagiria _~' C10 j` 2:18-CV-00939 - MJP OFICINA DEL W GENERAL I ASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 37 of 107 1 2 0 3 4 25 c-4 CJ 6cA .5 6 \0-3 QC05 7 8 cx 9 is V V N 10 ~,U V 11 12 I t.ko(cc ck f %ick), 13 14 15 -,Lk %cC6 16 r\ i o ck a -t-t- ?Ct 17 18 19 I 1 JL-L 4 I 20 21 22 23 -Q- N 24 25 26 DECLARAC16NDE !I ~A )- r 2:18-CV-00939 - MJP Pdgina " de OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL E WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 38 of 107 1 2 (NOV 3 j~j CA 4 ,e ~t Ack^ y 5 6 7 8 9 :tL 10 11 -3v 12 I ~ IV i 13 ~JQ, G.s WE 15 i_ ~ l `.O ! ' ~✓ Qom. ~ L Lc 16 17 18 19 V 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARACI6N DE de Pagina 2:18AN-00939 - MJP ~r OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 IIA Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 39 of 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Declaro bajo pena de perjurio bajo las leyes del estado de Washington y de los Estados 8 Unidos de America que to anterior es verdadero y correcto. 9 FECIIADO este (Y3 dia de Julio, 2018 en Tacoma, Washington. 10 11 Nombre:Ve t:~ . .`~~ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARACI6N DE 2:18-CV-00939 - MJP Pagina t`, i de OFICINA DEL PROCURADOR GENERAL D WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 Case Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 40 of 107 Exhibit Case Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 41 of 107 Exhibit Sponsors of Migrant Children Face Steep Transport Fees and Red Tape - The New York ... Page 1 of 7 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 42 of 107 Sponsors of Migrant Children Face Steep Transport Fees and Red Tape By Miriam Jordan July 1, 2018 LOS ANGELES — Marlon Parada, a construction worker in Los Angeles, already was worried when he got an urgent call from his cousin in Honduras, asking if he would agree to take in the cousin’s 14-year-old daughter. She’d been taken from her mother while attempting to cross the border and detained in Houston, he said. She couldn’t be released unless a family member agreed to take her in. Mr. Parada, an immigrant himself who is supporting his wife and three daughters on $3,000 a month, wondered how he could afford to take on another responsibility. Then he learned that he would have to pay $1,800 to fly Anyi and an escort from Houston to Los Angeles. “It caught me by surprise when they demanded all that money. I asked them to just put her on a bus, but they wouldn’t,” said Mr. Parada, who scrambled to amass the cash from friends and wired it to the operator of the migrant shelter where Anyi was being held. But that was only one of the hurdles he would have to surmount to take custody of the girl. Families hoping to win release for the thousands of migrant children being held by federal immigration authorities are finding they have to navigate an exhausting, intimidating — and sometimes expensive — thicket of requirements before the youngsters can be released. Candidates for sponsorship must produce a plethora of documents to prove they are legitimate relatives and financially capable sponsors, including rent receipts, utility bills and proof of income. Home visits are increasingly common as part of the process. And once those conditions are met, many families must pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars in airfare to bring the children home. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/us/migrant-children-families.html 7/13/2018 Sponsors of Migrant Children Face Steep Transport Fees and Red Tape - The New York ... Page 2 of 7 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 43 of 107 “The government is creating impossible barriers and penalizing poverty,” said Neha Desai, director of immigration at the National Center for Youth Law in Oakland. An estimated 11,000 children and teenagers apprehended after crossing the border are currently housed in up to 100 government-contracted facilities across the country. Their numbers have grown in recent weeks as the Trump administration has imposed a “zerotolerance” policy on border enforcement, purporting to end the strategy of “catch and release” under which migrants were often allowed to go free pending hearings in the immigration courts. Under the most controversial part of the new strategy, more than 2,300 children were separated from their families and placed in shelters occupied mainly by young people who had made their way across the border alone. President Trump relented last week and ordered that families be kept together whenever possible, but authorities now are struggling to process the estimated 2,000 separated children still remaining in federal facilities. The Office of Refugee Resettlement, which has official custody of migrant children under detention and establishes conditions for releasing them, has made it clear that the requirements are intended to make sure children are not released to traffickers, and will be well cared for in their new homes. In testimony to the Senate in late April, Steven Wagner, the acting assistant secretary of health and human services, said that in assessing a sponsor’s suitability, the agency “evaluates the sponsor’s ability to provide for the child’s physical and mental well-being, but also the sponsor’s ability to ensure the child’s presence at future immigration proceedings.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/us/migrant-children-families.html 7/13/2018 Sponsors of Migrant Children Face Steep Transport Fees and Red Tape - The New York ... Page 3 of 7 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 44 of 107 Marlon Parada with Anyi at the Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project in Los Angeles. Rozette Rago for The New York Times The requirement for sponsors to pay transportation costs has long been part of the agency’s procedures and was not initiated by the Trump administration, officials said. Immigrant advocates say that migrant families often have spent their entire savings to reach the United States border, and their relatives in the United States may not have much money, either. One potential sponsor was rejected recently because authorities decided she could not afford the child’s medication, Ms. Desai said. A mother of two was told that her house was not large enough to accommodate a third child. Another was told that she had to move to a better neighborhood if she wanted to be approved. A new condition requires that all adults in the household where a migrant child will reside submit fingerprints to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Such a requirement has intimidated many undocumented immigrants, who represent the majority of sponsors but fear being targeted for deportation themselves. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/us/migrant-children-families.html 7/13/2018 Sponsors of Migrant Children Face Steep Transport Fees and Red Tape - The New York ... Page 4 of 7 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 45 of 107 “Previously, people readily identified themselves” to sponsor a child, said Lisa Rivera, managing attorney at the New York Legal Assistance Group. But, she added, “This is not an environment where someone is going to call and say, ʻI want to take my child, niece or nephew.’ They have to find someone who has legal status.” A Guatemalan immigrant in New York dreaded submitting her fingerprints in order to sponsor two teenage family members being detained at a shelter in Texas, but felt she had no choice. “I wouldn’t even be able to ask someone else to be their sponsor. All my family and friends are undocumented and afraid,” said the woman, who declined to be identified by name because she fears attracting the attention of authorities. The last straw: She had to borrow money to pay the $2,500 to fly them earlier this year from Texas to New York, where she lives. “It was a nearly impossible amount for a single mother earning $200 a week,” said Crystal Fleming, the lawyer at the Legal Assistance Group representing the teenagers. Brenda, a Salvadoran migrant who was separated from her 7-year-old son Kevin at the border on May 27, was charged $576.20 to cover the boy’s airfare from Miami to Virginia. His escort collected the money order at Washington Dulles airport on Friday upon handing over the child to his mother. “I was shocked that they had to pay for the boy’s airfare,” said Astrid Lockwood, the lawyer for the mother and child, who had been held at a shelter in Florida. Ms. Lockwood said that in a decade of practicing immigration law she had never seen this requirement, but noted that she also had not encountered children placed in facilities thousands of miles from their ultimate destination, as has occurred in recent weeks. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/us/migrant-children-families.html 7/13/2018 Sponsors of Migrant Children Face Steep Transport Fees and Red Tape - The New York ... Page 5 of 7 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 46 of 107 Brenda Garcia and Kevin leave Dulles Airport with their family on Friday. Ryan Christopher Jones for The New York Times Under the policy manual of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, sponsors are responsible for paying transportation costs for both the child and any escort, along with fees charged by airlines for handling transport of unaccompanied minors. The payment requirement was also in place during the Obama administration, though in 2016, when a surge of families crossing the border created large populations in migrant shelters, it was waived. Shelter operators were instructed to pay for transportation to enable families to reunite more quickly, and were then reimbursed by the government, said Bob Carey, who led the refugee resettlement office during the Obama administration. The thinking was, “It’s counterintuitive to keep a child in care,” he said. “The human cost incurred aside,” he added, “the financial cost for the government is significant. One day of care could cover transportation costs.” Each day that a child remains in a facility costs the government upwards of $600 a day, and costs can rise to as much as $1,000 daily if a provider has to absorb new children on short notice, Mr. Carey said. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/us/migrant-children-families.html 7/13/2018 Sponsors of Migrant Children Face Steep Transport Fees and Red Tape - The New York ... Page 6 of 7 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 47 of 107 On a case-by-case basis, immigrant families sometimes get help with transport costs. Nonprofits may help cover the airfare. Sometimes lawyers and other advocates convince a child’s case manager to reduce the travel fee or waive it altogether due to hardship. A shelter in South Texas asked a Salvadoran woman for $4,000 to fly her niece, 12, and nephew, 10, with an escort to California. They were there a month, until she convinced them that she could not pay, said Fred Morris, president of the San Fernando Valley Refugee Children Center, a nonprofit that helped her locate the children. The siblings arrived in Los Angeles on Saturday. It took Oscar Garcia of Anaheim, Calif., a month to complete the paperwork to sponsor his nephew, Diego, 11, who was held at a facility in southern Texas after crossing the border from El Salvador. As part of the process, Mr. Garcia, a father of three who does remodeling work on homes, sent pictures of his two-bedroom house to the case manager via Whatsapp. He also submitted fingerprints for a background check. “When everything was done, they told me it would cost $1,400 to bring the boy here,” he recalled. He borrowed $900 from his brother-in-law and depleted his $500 in savings to afford tickets for the boy and an escort. The child landed in Los Angeles in May. “I didn’t want to leave him stuck there,” said Mr. Garcia. In the case of the Parada family in Los Angeles, Mr. Parada said both Anyi and her mother had been through a lot in their journey and subsequent detention, and he knew it was important to get the girl out of the shelter as quickly as he could. Mother and daughter had traveled over land by bus and car to reach the southwest border in early May. After wading through the Rio Grande to reach Texas, they were promptly intercepted by the Border Patrol, Anyi told her family. They were then separated: Anyi’s mother was transferred to a detention center in Seattle; the girl was transported to Casa Quetzal, a shelter for minors in Houston that is operated by Southwest Key, one of the country’s largest shelter operators for minors. The separation prompted Anyi’s father in Honduras to reach out to his cousin in California. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/us/migrant-children-families.html 7/13/2018 Sponsors of Migrant Children Face Steep Transport Fees and Red Tape - The New York ... Page 7 of 7 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 48 of 107 After compiling dozens of documents and submitting his fingerprints for a background check, Mr. Parada learned that he would have to pay the $1,800 in airfare: one way for the girl, round trip for her escort. “They notified me a day before her release,” he said. “I had no choice.” A version of this article appears in print on June 30, 2018, on Page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: To Retrieve Detainee, Enter Mess of Red Tape And Buy $2,500 Flight https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/us/migrant-children-families.html 7/13/2018 Case Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 49 of 107 Exhibit KK Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 10427-2 Filed Filed 07/12/18 07/13/18 PageID.2056 Page 50 of 107 Page 1 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General SCOTT G. STEWART Deputy Assistant Attorney General WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director Office of Immigration Litigation U.S. Department of Justice WILLIAM C. SILVIS Assistant Director Office of Immigration Litigation SARAH B. FABIAN Senior Litigation Counsel NICOLE MURLEY Trial Attorney Office of Immigration Litigation U.S. Department of Justice Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20442 Telephone: (202) 532-4824 Fax: (202) 616-8962 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ADAM L. BRAVERMAN United States Attorney SAMUEL W. BETTWY Assistant U.S. Attorney California Bar No. 94918 Office of the U.S. Attorney 880 Front Street, Room 6293 San Diego, CA 92101-8893 619-546-7125 619-546-7751 (fax) Attorneys for Federal Respondents-Defendants Lee Gelernt* Judy Rabinovitz* Anand Balakrishnan* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 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 Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280) Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 T: (415) 343-1198 F: (415) 395-0950 skang@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org Attorneys for PetitionersPlaintiffs *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 10427-2 Filed Filed 07/12/18 07/13/18 PageID.2057 Page 51 of 107 Page 2 of 17 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 Case No. 18cv428 DMS MDD MS. L, et al., 4 Petitioners-Plaintiffs, 5 JOINT STATUS REPORT REGARDING REUNIFICATION vs. 6 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., 7 8 9 Respondents-Defendants. 10 11 On July 10, 2018, this Court held a status conference, and ordered the 12 parties to file a joint report on July 112, 2018 regarding the ongoing 13 14 reunification process. The parties submit this joint status report in accordance 15 with the Court’s instruction. 16 17 18 19 I. DEFENDANTS’ POSITIONS A. Defendants are in Compliance With The Court’s Order Defendants are in compliance with the Court’s order. Defendants have now 20 21 reunified 57 children identified by Defendants and this Court as eligible for 22 reunification at the status conference on July 10, 2018. Of the 63 identified by the 23 Court, 6 were ultimately determined not to be eligible for reunification after further 24 25 information was obtained regarding either parentage or the criminal background of 26 the parent. Additionally, Defendants identified one additional family with a child 27 28 1 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 10427-2 Filed Filed 07/12/18 07/13/18 PageID.2058 Page 52 of 107 Page 3 of 17 1 under age 5 that was eligible for reunification, and was able to reunify that family 2 as well. 3 For these children, cases were resolved as follows: 4 11 • 6 were determined not to be eligible for reunification following completion of parentage and background checks: o 3 had parents with serious criminal history o 1 was excluded because the accompanying adult was not the parent of that child o 1 was excluded on suspicion of not being the parent or of posing a risk to the child, because the accompanying adult presented a false birth certificate o 1 had a parent who was determined to be in the custody of the U.S. Marshals, not in ICE custody as previously believed 12 • 38 were reunified on or before July 10, 2018 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 • 19 were reunified on July 11, 2018 (this number includes one additional child who was identified by Defendants since their last submission to this Court) • 1 was reunified by 6:00 a.m. local time on July 12, 2018. For the 20 children who were reunified on July 11 and 12, 2018, transportation arrangements had been made on July 10, but could not be completed 19 20 for logistical reasons specific to each case until July 11 and July 12. Defendants 21 detail below the reasons for any delay in reunification, as well as the reasons why 22 21 of the parents of children originally believed to be class members were 23 24 ultimately determined not to be members of the class due to criminal history, 25 danger to the child, or not being the parent. 26 27 28 2 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 10427-2 Filed Filed 07/12/18 07/13/18 PageID.2059 Page 53 of 107 Page 4 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Criminal background of adults excluded from the class: 1. Warrant for murder in Guatemala 2. Child cruelty and narcotics convictions 3. Suspected transnational criminal organization involvement and human trafficking 4. Outstanding criminal warrant in El Salvador 5. 2 DUI convictions 6. Significant criminal history including assault conviction 7. Outstanding warrant in Florida for DUI 8. DUIs, assault, stolen vehicle 9. Robbery conviction 10.Wanted by El Salvador 11.Criminal charges including assault Not a parent or parentage in question: 12.Adult said he is uncle, not father 13.Negative DNA match, adult indicated he is not the child’s father 14.Adult said she is grandmother, not mother 15.During DNA testing, adult disclosed she is not the child’s mother 16.Negative DNA match, still under investigation 17.Adult disclosed that she is grandmother, not the parent 18.Adult presented false birth certificate, still under investigation Release presents danger to the child: 19.Before court order, adult was required to submit information and fingerprints of other adults in household where she will live with the child; background check on adult male in household shows an active warrant for aggravated criminal sexual assault of a 10-year-old female. 20.Child made allegations of abuse against adult Communicable Disease 22 23 24 25 26 27 21.Parent is being treated for communicable disease in ICE custody Reunifications completed on July 11 and 12: 1. Reunification in ICE custody completed at midnight Pacific time on 7/10, 3:00 a.m. Eastern on 7/11 2. Reunification was scheduled for 10:30 p.m. Pacific time on 7/10, 12:30 am Central time on 7/11 28 3 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 10427-2 Filed Filed 07/12/18 07/13/18 PageID.2060 Page 54 of 107 Page 5 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 3. Reunification was scheduled for 10:30 p.m. Pacific time on 7/10, 12:30 am Central time on 7/11 4. Parental verification was not complete; adult and child were in distant locations in New York state, reunification occurred before noon on 7/11. 5. Reunification was scheduled for 10:30 p.m. Pacific time on 7/10, 12:30 am Central time on 7/11 6. Reunification was scheduled for 10:30 p.m. Pacific time on 7/10, 12:30 am Central time on 7/11 7. Reunification in ICE custody completed at midnight Pacific time on 7/10, 3:00 a.m. Eastern on 7/11 8. Reunification was scheduled for 10:30 p.m. Pacific time on 7/10, 12:30 am Central time on 7/11 9. Parental verification was not complete; child placed on flight at 9:55 p.m. Pacific time 7/10, reunification occurred at 5:35 a.m. Eastern 7/11 10.Parental verification was not complete; Texas, reunification complete 7/11 11.Parental verification was not complete; adult was in Texas and child was in Maryland, reunification completed on 7/11 12.Parental verification was not complete; Texas, reunification complete 7/11 13.Parental verification was not complete; Texas, reunification complete 7/11 14.Parental verification was not complete; parent was in Louisiana and child in New York, reunification completed 6:00 a.m. on 7/12 15.Parental verification was not complete; parent was in Texas and child in Arizona, reunification completed on 7/11 16.Parental verification was not complete; child was in New York and parent was released to the interior, reunification in Georgia complete 7/11 17.Parental verification was not complete; discharge was coordinated with discharge of sibling 5 years of age or older, reunification completed on 7/11 18.Parental verification was not complete; child was in New York and parent was released to the interior, reunification in Georgia complete 7/11 19.Parental verification was not complete; child was in New York and parent was released to the interior in Texas, reunification complete in Texas 7/11 20.Parental verification was not complete; child was in Illinois and parent was released to the interior, reunification in Texas complete 7/11 The 23 remaining children aged 0–4, who HHS originally listed as possible 25 candidates for reunification under the Court’s order, cannot currently be reunified 26 with their parents because: their parents are in criminal custody (11), or their 27 28 4 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 10427-2 Filed Filed 07/12/18 07/13/18 PageID.2061 Page 55 of 107 Page 6 of 17 1 parents have been removed (12) and they will be considered for reunification on a 2 timetable to be determined as Plaintiffs and Defendants work together to locate 3 those parents and determined if they wish to be reunified. One child on the original 4 5 list has a parent who may or may not be a United States citizen (insufficient 6 information is available to make this determination, and the parent and others are 7 not available to provide that information). The child was separated from her parent 8 9 in 2015 when her parent was arrested on an outstanding warrant by the U.S. 10 Marshals Service. Defendants have not been aware of the parent’s location since 11 then and they remain unable to locate that parent. Because the parent is not 12 13 available, it is not possible to reunite the child with the parent. Unless the parent is 14 located, HHS will provide care and seek placement for the child using its ordinary 15 programs and procedures. 16 17 B. HHS Truncated Processes to Comply With the July 10, 2018 Order 18 In its July 10, 2018 ruling and order, the Court instructed Defendants to 19 release children on Defendants’ list who Defendants associated with adults in ICE 20 21 custody, and whose affirmative parental verification, including DNA testing, had 22 not yet been completed. The Court also instructed that reunification should not be 23 delayed for HHS to affirmatively verify parental status. 24 There were 16 such adults in ICE custody. Of those: 1 was found to be in 25 26 Marshal’s custody, not in ICE custody; 1 DNA test result came back negative prior 27 28 5 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 10427-2 Filed Filed 07/12/18 07/13/18 PageID.2062 Page 56 of 107 Page 7 of 17 1 to the Court’s deadline, causing good faith concern about parentage and risk to the 2 child; and 1 was found to have presented a false birth certificate, also causing good 3 faith concern about parentage and risk to the child. For the other 13 adults, HHS 4 5 transferred the children to ICE for reunification with those adults without further 6 parental verification process. 7 The Court’s order also required Defendants, by the Court’s deadline, to 8 9 reunify 8 children who Defendants had associated with adults previously released 10 to the interior of the United States. At the time of the Court’s order, HHS had not 11 yet completed parental verification of those purported parents, nor had HHS 12 13 received all biographical or fingerprint information that it requested for any other 14 adults who would be living in the same household upon release of the child.1 HHS 15 was able to confirm parentage of 1 of the 8 adults prior to the deadline. For the 16 17 remaining 7 of the 8 adults, in compliance with the Court’s order, HHS released 18 the children to the adults despite not having completed its affirmative verification 19 that those adults were the parents. HHS also did not complete any background 20 21 checks on other adults living in the same households as the children upon release. 22 C. Reunification With Removed Parents 23 24 25 1 In at least one instance where background investigations of cohabitants were 26 completed prior to the Court’s deadline, HHS found that an adult in the household had an outstanding warrant for aggravated sexual abuse of a 10-year-old child. 27 28 6 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 10427-2 Filed Filed 07/12/18 07/13/18 PageID.2063 Page 57 of 107 Page 8 of 17 1 With regard to those children whose parents are removed, Defendants are 2 working with Plaintiffs’ counsel to locate those parents and to provide them notice 3 to determine if they wish to be reunified with their children. It is difficult to 4 5 determine how much time will be necessary for those reunification until the 6 parents are contacted and it can be determined what those reunifications would 7 entail. Defendants ask the Court to allow those reunifications to occur on a flexible 8 9 schedule, and propose that for each such child for whom reunification is requested, 10 once the parent is located and the request for reunification is made, Defendants 11 will work with Plaintiffs’ counsel to identify the steps that need to be taken for 12 13 reunification and determine a reasonable amount of time to complete that process. 14 If the Court is inclined to set a definitive timeframe, Defendants request that any 15 deadline begin on the date that Defendants receive travel documents for the child. 16 17 18 19 C. Individuals in State Custody Defendants understand that Plaintiffs will reach out to class members in state criminal custody to ensure that they contact ORR following their release if they 20 21 wish to be reunified with their child. Defendants will provide Plaintiffs with any 22 information they have about class members who are sent to state criminal custody 23 to assist in these communications. 24 25 26 27 28 7 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 10427-2 Filed Filed 07/12/18 07/13/18 PageID.2064 Page 58 of 107 Page 9 of 17 D. Reporting: 1 Defendants agree that no later than July 13, 2018, they will provide 2 3 Plaintiffs’ counsel with a list of identified class members in ICE custody. 4 Defendants also agree that no later than July 13, 2018, they will provide Plaintiffs’ 5 6 counsel with a list of identified children of class members. Defendants agree to 7 meet and confer with Plaintiffs about the provision of additional information. 8 Defendants are aware that Plaintiffs are requesting to receive a chart with the level 9 10 of detail that was provided regarding the minors under-age-5, however the 11 compilation of that information took a significant amount of time on the part of 12 operators whose time would be better spent facilitating reunification and 13 14 production of the same level of detail on a much larger scale is not operationally 15 feasible under the current timeframes. Defendants request the opportunity to 16 continue to meet and confer with Plaintiffs to see if there is an option that would 17 18 provide Plaintiffs with the information that they need while minimizing demands 19 on the part of agency operators. 20 21 II. PLAINTIFFS’ POSITIONS 22 A. Reunifications of Children Under Five 23 1. As of today, Defendants represent that they have reunified 58 Class 24 Members. Of the 103 Class Members Defendants initially identified, apparently 25 10 remain in criminal custody, 12 were deported, and 23 have apparently dropped 26 out of the class or are not eligible for reunification at this time, either because they 27 28 8 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 10427-2 FiledFiled 07/12/18 07/13/18 PageID.2065 Page 59 ofPage 107 10 of 17 1 had criminal histories, evidence of abuse, communicable diseases, or they were not 2 actually the parents. 3 2. Plaintiffs have not yet received any specific information about most of 4 the 23 individuals who Defendants claim have dropped out of the class or are 5 ineligible for reunification. Plaintiffs have therefore not been able to verify 6 whether those parents are, indeed, Class Members eligible for reunification at this 7 time. Plaintiffs have also not been able to determine whether any criminal 8 convictions those parents have render them a danger to their children—and 9 therefore not entitled to reunification at all—or merely not Class Members. 10 3. As for the 58 parents whom Defendants have apparently reunified, 11 Plaintiffs have no independent verification that these 58 parents have in fact been 12 reunited with their children. During the meet and confer process leading up to July 13 10, Defendants claimed that they would provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with notice of 14 the time and place for each reunification, so that Plaintiffs’ counsel could arrange 15 for private and NGO service providers to assist the families and verify 16 reunification. This did not happen. Defendants did not provide specific time and 17 place information for a single Class Member. Instead, Defendants only provided a 18 general prediction about how most Class Members would be reunified. 19 Defendants’ lack of communication about reunification logistics caused 20 significant problems over the last three days. Plaintiffs are now hearing about a 21 number of troubling situations from service providers and attorneys for Class 22 Members and their children. These problems include: 23 • ICE left one Class Member alone at a bus stop with her children, one of 24 whom was six months old. Through a series of phone calls between the 25 Class Member, her attorney, and another advocate, the Class Member 26 finally obtained a bus ticket on Tuesday around midnight. 27 28 9 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 10427-2 FiledFiled 07/12/18 07/13/18 PageID.2066 Page 60 ofPage 107 11 of 17 1 • One Class Member was transported through a series of ICE facilities in 2 New Jersey and Michigan in a matter of days, with no prior notice to his 3 counsel. ICE refused access to his counsel while he was detained in 4 Michigan. Despite repeated requests by both the Class Member and his 5 lawyer, ICE did not allow his counsel to be present at the point of 6 reunification. 7 • A Class Member was kept in an ICE office for most of the day of her 8 originally-scheduled reunification. ORR had processed her children for 9 release that day. ICE officers attempted to process her for release on an 10 ankle monitor. Due to an apparent computer malfunction, the officers 11 were unable to complete the process. At the end of the business day, the 12 ICE officers ceased their attempts and told the mother that she would be 13 sent back to detention without her children. 14 B. Parents Deported Without Their Children 15 1. Twelve Class Members with children under 5 remain separated, because 16 they have already been deported. Plaintiffs and their NGO partners are in the 17 process of trying to contact these parents. For those deported Class Members who 18 choose to be reunited with their children, Plaintiffs propose that the Court order 19 Defendants to reunify them within 7 days after the parent obtains travel documents 20 for the child. This deadline will ensure that these Class Members are promptly 21 reunified, and that any delay in obtaining travel documents does not affect 22 Defendants’ obligations. 23 2. Defendants have represented that case-specific complications might 24 necessitate further delay. In that situation, Plaintiffs propose that the parties meet 25 and confer about any individual case where the government presents specific, 26 concrete reasons why 7 days is not sufficient. If any disputes remain, the parties 27 can submit the dispute to the Court for a ruling. But the Court should reject any 28 10 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 10427-2 FiledFiled 07/12/18 07/13/18 PageID.2067 Page 61 ofPage 107 12 of 17 1 request from Defendants to extend or avoid setting a deadline, which may lead to 2 indefinite delay. Indeed, to date, Plaintiffs are not aware of any specific steps 3 Defendants have taken even to locate these 12 Class Members. 4 C. Costs of Reunification 5 Plaintiffs’ counsel have heard reports that some Class Members have been 6 asked to pay for the costs of reunification, such as transportation costs (and 7 possibly DNA testing). For example, Plaintiffs’ counsel was informed that one 8 Class Member was initially told to wire around $1,900 to Western Union to pay for 9 reunification; another Class member arranged to pay for a plane ticket before being 10 told to cancel the ticket because someone else was purchasing a flight for the child. 11 It is not acceptable for Defendants to make compliance with this Court’s 12 injunction contingent on Class Members paying thousands of dollars to reunify 13 with their children. Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to order Defendants not to 14 charge Class Members for any of the costs of reunification, including DNA testing 15 and air travel, and to reimburse any individuals who were in fact charged. 16 D. Remedies for Non-Compliance 17 Defendants claim that only 58 parents were eligible for reunification as of 18 the July 10 deadline. As noted above, Plaintiffs have not been given sufficient 19 information to verify the accuracy of that eligibility number. 20 In any event, Defendants concede that they did not meet the July 10 deadline 21 even for these 58 Class Members. This morning, Defendants informed Plaintiffs’ 22 counsel that only 38 Class Members were reunified by the Court’s deadline. The 23 other 20 children were not returned to their parents until after July 10. In light of 24 this non-compliance, Plaintiffs propose specific remedies in order to ensure that 25 Defendants do not miss future deadlines. See infra Section E. 26 E. Class Members with Children 5 and Older 27 28 11 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 10427-2 FiledFiled 07/12/18 07/13/18 PageID.2068 Page 62 ofPage 107 13 of 17 1 As noted above, Plaintiffs believe that open communication and planning in 2 advance are critical to ensure that Defendants do not miss the future deadlines 3 ordered by the Court. 4 The past week has highlighted these concerns. Plaintiffs wrote to 5 government counsel on July 2 to ask for a list of class members and reunification 6 plans. The government did not provide any of this information before the July 6 7 status conference, when the Court ordered Defendants to produce the list the next 8 day. That list, however, did not contain the parents’ names or A numbers. 9 Defendants did not provide that critical information necessary to locate and track 10 Class Members until the next day—two days before the deadline. 11 When the deadline arrived, Defendants had not completed parentage 12 verification or background checks for many of the class members with children 13 under 5. The failure to complete these steps in advance delayed reunification for 14 more than a dozen class members until after the deadline. And despite promising 15 to provide advance notice of the time and place for each reunification, Defendants 16 provided no specific information to Plaintiffs’ counsel. As a result, Class 17 Members’ individual lawyers and service providers were left frantically scrambling 18 to find their clients and provide support. 19 The following seven (7) steps are designed to address each of these failures: 20 1. Defendants must provide Plaintiffs with a Class List for the remaining 21 Class Members by Monday, July 16, with all of the information that Defendants 22 provided for the children under 5. To ensure that reunification plans are not 23 formulated haphazardly at the last minute, this Class List should also contain 24 complete information regarding Defendants’ plans for reunifying each Class 25 Member, which was not provided for the children under 5. 26 2. Defendants must complete all parentage verifications and background 27 checks by Thursday, July 19. These steps, which must be completed prior to 28 12 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 10427-2 FiledFiled 07/12/18 07/13/18 PageID.2069 Page 63 ofPage 107 14 of 17 1 reunification, should already be in progress or completed. One week from today 2 should be more than enough time to complete them. 3 3. Starting Tuesday, July 17—the day after Defendants must provide the 4 Class List (see above, item 1)—Defendants should file with the Court a daily 5 report regarding the number of reunifications that have occurred that day. 6 4. Defendants must provide Plaintiffs’ counsel, as well as Class Members’ 7 immigration lawyers (if any), with at least 24 hours advance notice of the time, 8 place, and location of reunification. Defendants should also allow Class Members’ 9 immigration counsel access to the site of reunification. 10 5. For separated parents whom Defendants determine are not Class 11 Members, Defendants must provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with detailed reasons why a 12 putative Class Member was excluded from the Class List, including, at a 13 minimum: any criminal convictions or charges; any allegations of abuse or 14 unfitness; or the specific reasons why parentage could not be verified. 15 6. If Defendants choose to reunite Class Members in family detention 16 facilities, they should provide immediate access to immigration lawyers who can 17 advise the Class Members of their rights. DHS facilities frequently place 18 unwarranted restrictions on counsel access, such as limiting the rooms available to 19 meet with lawyers, or adopting restrictive phone policies. Any lawyer seeking to 20 meet with a Ms. L. Class Member should be provided immediate access to a 21 private facility where the Class Member can be counseled on his or her rights. 22 This is particularly important if that Class Member has received a removal order. 23 7. Defendants must establish a fund to pay for professional mental health 24 counseling, which will be used to treat children who are suffering from severe 25 trauma as a result of their forcible separation from their parents. The amount can 26 be set at a later time, subject to further negotiations between the parties and rulings 27 from the Court. Although many medical professionals have graciously offered pro 28 13 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 10427-2 FiledFiled 07/12/18 07/13/18 PageID.2070 Page 64 ofPage 107 15 of 17 1 bono services for the children, who plainly are in desperate need of counseling, 2 these medical professionals should not have to assume the costs associated with the 3 government’s policy, especially not their out-of-pocket expenses. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 10427-2 FiledFiled 07/12/18 07/13/18 PageID.2071 Page 65 ofPage 107 16 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DATED: July 13, 2018 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Lee Gelernt Lee Gelernt* Judy Rabinovitz* Anand Balakrishnan* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 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 11 12 13 14 15 16 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 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280) Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 T: (415) 343-1198 F: (415) 395-0950 skang@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs *Admitted Pro Hac Vice 27 28 15 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document 10427-2 FiledFiled 07/12/18 07/13/18 PageID.2072 Page 66 ofPage 107 17 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General SCOTT G. STEWART Deputy Assistant Attorney General WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director WILLIAM C. SILVIS Assistant Director 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 /s/ Sarah B. Fabian SARAH B. FABIAN Senior Litigation Counsel NICOLE MURLEY Trial Attorney Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 532-4824 (202) 616-8962 (facsimile) sarah.b.fabian@usdoj.gov ADAM L. BRAVERMAN United States Attorney SAMUEL W. BETTWY Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorneys for Respondents-Defendants 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16 18cv428 DMS MDD Case Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 67 of 107 Exhibit LL Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is budgeting for a surge in child separations. Page 1 of 10 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 68 of 107 Peter Strzok Trump in U.K. Alex Kozinski Sacha Baron Cohen Brett Kavanaugh News Quiz Search News & Politics Culture Technology Business Sign In Human Interest A MEAT-AND-POTATOES BANQUET FOLLOW US $135.99 JURISPRUDENCE Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement Is Budgeting for a Surge in Child Separations The agency is planning to move funds for refugees and HIV/AIDS patients to cover the possible costs. By MARK JOSEPH STERN JULY 10, 2018 • 2:57 PM TWEET SHARE COMMENT View of a temporary detention center for illegal underage immigrants in Tornillo, Texas, on June 18. Herika Martinez/AFP/Getty Images The Office of Refugee Resettlement is preparing for the possibility of another surge in family separations. Internal documents obtained by Slate show that ORR has modeled a scenario in which the Trump administration’s border policies could require the detention of thousands more immigrant children. ORR—an agency within the Administration for Children and Families, which is itself a division of the Department of Health and Human Services—was caught off guard by the family separation policy, the documents reveal. In April, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Department of Justice would henceforth have “zero tolerance” for immigrants who cross the border without authorization. He expanded the policy in May by partnering with the Department of Homeland https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budg... 7/13/2018 Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is budgeting for a surge in child separations. Page 2 of 10 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 69 of 107 Security to prosecute immigrants for unlawful border crossing, a misdemeanor. Under zero tolerance, parents are imprisoned, and children are placed in ORR shelters, sometimes far from the border. There are currently about 11,800 children in ORR’s care. Alex Azar, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, has stated that somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 of those children were separated from their parents at the border. The remaining children in ORR custody are unaccompanied minors—children who crossed the border without a parent or guardian. ADVERTISEMENT In the documents obtained by Slate, ORR officials describe the budget implications of a potential surge in immigrant minors over the next three months. The ORR’s budgeting exercise is premised on the possibility that the agency could need as many as 25,400 beds for immigrant minors by the end of the calendar year. The documents do not indicate that ORR officials have specific knowledge that family separations will increase but do show that the agency is preparing for the possibility. The internal documents estimate that if 25,400 beds are needed, ORR would face a budget shortfall of $585 million for ORR in fiscal year 2018, which ends on Sept. 30. Under this scenario, that shortfall would increase to $1.3 billion in the first quarter of fiscal year 2019, adding up to a total shortfall of $1.9 billion for the period between Oct. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2018. The documents stress that these budget estimates represent maximum possible expenditures and that actual expenses may be lower. The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to multiple requests for comment about these figures or anything else relating to the documents. ADVERTISEMENT inRead invented by Teads To help cover these potential costs, the documents say, HHS will seek supplemental appropriations from Congress. The documents also indicate that HHS plans to pay for child separation by reallocating money from the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, which, according to its website, “provides a comprehensive system of care that includes primary medical care and essential support services for people living with HIV who are uninsured or underinsured.” Per the documents, the process of transferring those HIV/AIDS funds has already begun. In addition, HHS plans to reallocate $79 million from programs for refugee resettlement, a move that could imperil social services, medical assistance, and English language instructions for refugees in the U.S., as well as programs for torture survivors. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budg... 7/13/2018 Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is budgeting for a surge in child separations. Page 3 of 10 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 70 of 107 ORR’s budgeting exercise does not account for a federal court decision ordering the administration to reunify separated parents and children within 30 days, or within 14 days if those children are younger than 5 years old. Azar has stated publicly that he will attempt to comply with these deadlines. The documents do, however, take into account the executive order that Trump signed on June 20 that purports to end family separation—and reveal that ORR does not seem to be ADVERTISEMENT operating on the assumption that the separation policy has truly ended. The budgeting exercise assumes that Trump’s order created a 20-day pause on family separations and that referrals would increase after that 20-day period—that is, after July 10—to 325 immigrant children per day for four weeks. If that estimate is correct, that means an additional 9,100 immigrant children would be detained and housed by the U.S. government in the four weeks beginning Tuesday. At the end of those four weeks, the agency documents assume, the deterrent effect of family separation would again reduce referrals—that is, the number of immigrant children in government detention. There is no evidence that a resumption of family separation will deter parents from crossing the border with their children; the number of families apprehended at the border stayed flat between May and June as the U.S. government implemented the zero-tolerance policy. The timeline laid out in these internal documents reflects a debatable reading of Trump’s executive order. ORR officials appear to think that the order allowed families and children to be detained together temporarily but that under the Flores settlement these children must be transferred to ORR’s custody after 20 days. Under this interpretation of the executive order, all children who are separated from a parent or guardian from this point forward must first be detained with that parent or guardian for 20 days. ADVERTISEMENT inRead invented by Teads While the executive order is ambiguous on this point, ORR’s interpretation is plausible. Moreover, not all of the referrals—ORR’s term for minors placed in its care—that are accounted for in ORR’s budgeting exercise would be children separated from their parents. Some of the additional beds would presumably go to minors who arrive at the border unaccompanied by a parent or guardian. But given the claim in the documents that referrals would increase after a pause on family separations, it appears ORR believes a substantial number of those beds would indeed go to children separated from their parents. Mark Greenberg, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute who led the Administration for Children and Families—the division of HHS that includes the Office of Refugee Resettlement—from 2013 to 2015, told Slate the plans indicate an “enormous increase” in the number of minors that will be held in custody. “This envisions having further family separation cases coming to HHS—a lot of them,” he said. Greenberg also noted that the documents suggest the possibility of a vast expansion of federal expenditures on unaccompanied minors. “The entire appropriation for unaccompanied alien children this year was $1.3 billion,” he said. Now ORR is “seeking an additional $1.3 billion” for just the last three months of 2018. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budg... 7/13/2018 Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is budgeting for a surge in child separations. Page 4 of 10 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 71 of 107 ADVERTISEMENT Bob Carey, who served as director of ORR under President Barack Obama, told Slate that the documents also reflect the possibility that the agency may “keep children for much longer periods of time.” Under Obama, the average minor in federal custody remained in ORR’s care for 33 days before being released to a sponsor, usually a family member. Under Trump, that average has increased to 55 days, and stints in detention could grow longer as the administration creates higher barriers to sponsorship. Carey said the Trump administration has implemented processes that have a “deterrent effect” on sponsors. For instance, ORR now shares information about potential sponsors with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That policy could dissuade undocumented family members from sponsoring minors, potentially keeping children languishing in ORR’s care for months. “That tactic represents muddying of mission,” Carey said. “ORR shelters were not established to care for children on a long-term basis. They were set to keep kids for as short a period of time as possible until the child could be released to a parent or other sponsor. Clearly [the agency] is creeping away from that.” One more thing The Trump administration poses a unique threat to the rule of law. That’s why Slate has stepped up our legal coverage—watchdogging Jeff Sessions’ Justice Department, the Supreme Court, the crackdown on voting rights, and more. Our work is reaching more readers than ever—but online advertising revenues don’t fully cover our costs, and we don’t have print subscribers to help keep us afloat. So we need your help. If you think Slate’s work matters, become a Slate Plus member. You’ll get exclusive members-only content and a suite of great benefits—and you’ll help secure Slate’s future. Join Slate Plus Tweet Children Share Immigration Comment Refugees ADVERTISEMENT inRead invented by Teads https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budg... 7/13/2018 Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is budgeting for a surge in child separations. Page 5 of 10 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 72 of 107 ADVERTISEMENT MOST RECENT VIEW ALL 14M AGO JOSHUA KEATING Schumer Calls on Trump to Cancel Putin Summit. Good Luck With That. 1H AGO APRIL GLASER We Wouldn’t Need Facebook to Ban Infowars if We Hadn’t Let Facebook Get So Massive 1H AGO BEN MATHIS-LILLEY Mueller Indicts Twelve Russians for Hacking Democrats Just Days Before Scheduled Trump-Putin Meeting 1H AGO CARMEN RUSSO Watch Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie Battle in New Mary Queen of Scots Trailer 1H AGO MATTHEW DESSEM Ted Koppel Escaped His Sacha Baron Cohen Interview Just by Knowing Night From Day 1H AGO CARMEN RUSSO The Big Bang Theory Gets Belated Emmy Nomination Thanks to New Rule 2H AGO SOFIE WERTHAN Black Resident Ordered to Leave Pool at His Own Apartment Complex for No Apparent Reason 2H AGO FRANK BOWMAN Trump’s Foreign Policy Carnage Is an Impeachable Offense 2H AGO JOSHUA KEATING Trump Has All But Pledged Allegiance to the European Far Right 2H AGO BEN MATHIS-LILLEY https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budg... 7/13/2018 Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is budgeting for a surge in child separations. Page 6 of 10 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 73 of 107 Trump Denounces His Own Attack on Theresa May as, Yes, “Fake News” 2H AGO FELIX SALMON Kylie Jenner Isn’t a Billionaire but Isn’t Not a Billionaire Because “Billionaire” Has Lost All Meaning 2H AGO JEAN-MARIE POTTIER What a World Cup Win Would Mean for France ADVERTISEMENT MOST READ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budg... 7/13/2018 Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is budgeting for a surge in child separations. Page 7 of 10 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 74 of 107 JEREMY STAHL The Peter Strzok Hearing Was a Total Fiasco, but One Moment Was Particularly Unreal GRAHAM STARR I Made a Don Jr. Shadow Instagram Account to Mimic What He Likes and Follows. It Was Scary. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budg... 7/13/2018 Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is budgeting for a surge in child separations. Page 8 of 10 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 75 of 107 ISAAC CHOTINER We’re Not Headed for Nazi Germany, but We’re Also Not Headed Anywhere Good CHRISTINA CAUTERUCCI How the Trump Administration Deploys Female Pain as Punishment https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budg... 7/13/2018 Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is budgeting for a surge in child separations. Page 9 of 10 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 76 of 107 BEN MATHIS-LILLEY Facebook Says InfoWars, Which Reported That NASA Has a Slave Colony on Mars, Is a Valid Source of “Opinion and Analysis” JOSHUA KEATING Trump Contradicts His Entire Worldview in Weird Remark About Africa https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budg... 7/13/2018 Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement is budgeting for a surge in child separations. Page 10 of 10 Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 77 of 107 FOLLOW US Reprints About us Advertise: Site / Podcasts Work with us Facebook Commenting User agreement Twitter Contact / Feedback Privacy policy Pitch guidelines AdChoices Slate is published by The Slate Group, a Graham Holdings Company. All contents © 2018 The Slate Group LLC. All rights reserved. Instagram Corrections https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budg... 7/13/2018 Case Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 78 of 107 Exhibit MM Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 8527-2 FiledFiled 07/03/18 07/13/18 PageID.1749 Page 79 ofPage 107 1 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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 Petitioner-Plaintiff *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Additional counsel on next page UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 Ms. L. and Ms. C., Case No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Petitioner-Plaintiff, 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 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, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Respondents-Defendants. Date Filed: July 3, 2018 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLASS ACTION Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 8527-2 FiledFiled 07/03/18 07/13/18 PageID.1750 Page 80 ofPage 107 2 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280) 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 skang@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 8527-2 FiledFiled 07/03/18 07/13/18 PageID.1751 Page 81 ofPage 107 3 of 19 1 2 3 INTRODUCTION 1. This case challenges the United States government’s forcible 4 separation of parents from their young children for no legitimate reason and 5 notwithstanding the threat of irreparable damage that separation has been 6 universally recognized to cause young children. 7 2. Plaintiff Ms. L. is the mother of a seven (7) year-old daughter, who 8 was ripped away from her, and then sent halfway across the country to be detained 9 alone. Plaintiff Ms. C. is the mother of a fourteen (14) year-old son, who was also 10 forcibly separated from his mother and detained more than a thousand miles away. 11 3. Ms. L. and Ms. C. bring this action on behalf of themselves and 12 thousands of other parents whom the government has forcibly separated from their 13 children. Like Ms. L. and Ms. C., many of these individuals have fled persecution 14 and are seeking asylum in the United States. Without any allegations of abuse, 15 neglect, or parental unfitness, and with no hearings of any kind, the government is 16 separating these families and detaining their young children, alone and frightened, 17 in facilities often thousands of miles from their parents. 18 4. Forced separation from parents causes severe trauma to young 19 children, especially those who are already traumatized and are fleeing persecution 20 in their home countries. The resulting cognitive and emotional damage can be 21 permanent. 22 5. Defendants have ample ways to keep Plaintiffs together with their 23 children, as they have done for decades prior to their current practice. There are 24 shelters that house families (including asylum-seekers) while they await the final 25 adjudication of their immigration cases. If, however, the government lawfully 26 continues detaining these parents and young children, it must at a minimum detain 27 them together in one of its immigration family detention centers. 28 1 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 8527-2 FiledFiled 07/03/18 07/13/18 PageID.1752 Page 82 ofPage 107 4 of 19 1 6. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not permit the 2 government to forcibly take young children from their parents, without justification 3 or even a hearing. That separation also violates the asylum statutes, which 4 guarantee a meaningful right to apply for asylum, and the Administrative Procedure 5 Act (APA), which prohibits unlawful and arbitrary government action. 6 JURISDICTION 7 7. This case arises under the Fifth Amendment to the United States 8 Constitution, federal asylum statutes, and the APA. The court has jurisdiction under 9 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (habeas 10 jurisdiction); and Art. I., § 9, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution (“Suspension 11 Clause”). Plaintiffs are in custody for purposes of habeas jurisdiction. 12 VENUE 13 8. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because Ms. L. was 14 detained in this District when this action commenced, Defendants reside in this 15 District, and a substantial portion of the relevant facts occurred within this District, 16 including the Defendants’ implementation of their practice of separating immigrant 17 parents from their children for no legitimate reason. 18 PARTIES 19 20 9. (the “Congo” or “DRC”). She is the mother of 7 year-old S.S. 21 22 23 24 25 Plaintiff Ms. L. is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo 10. Plaintiff Ms. C. is a citizen of Brazil. She is the mother of 14 year-old 11. Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has J. responsibility for enforcing the immigration laws of the United States. 12. Defendant U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) is the 26 sub-agency of DHS that is responsible for carrying out removal orders and 27 overseeing immigration detention. 28 2 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 8527-2 FiledFiled 07/03/18 07/13/18 PageID.1753 Page 83 ofPage 107 5 of 19 1 13. Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) is the sub- 2 agency of DHS that is responsible for the initial processing and detention of 3 noncitizens who are apprehended near the U.S. border. 4 14. Defendant U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is a 5 department of the executive branch of the U.S. government which has been 6 delegated authority over “unaccompanied” noncitizen children. 7 15. Defendant Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”) is the component 8 of HHS which provides care of and placement for “unaccompanied” noncitizen 9 children. 10 16. 11 12 13 14 Defendant Thomas Homan is sued in his official capacity as the Director of ICE, and is a legal custodian of Plaintiffs. 17. Defendant Greg Archambeault is sued in his official capacity as the ICE San Diego Field Office Director, and is a legal custodian of Plaintiff Ms. L. 18. Defendant Joseph Greene is sued in his official capacity as the ICE 15 San Diego Assistant Field Office Director for the Otay Mesa Detention Center, and 16 is a legal custodian of Plaintiff Ms. L. 17 18 19 19. Defendant Adrian P. Macias is sued in his official capacity as the ICE El Paso Field Office Director, and is a legal custodian of Plaintiff Ms. C. 20. Defendant Frances M. Jackson is sued in his official capacity as the 20 ICE El Paso Assistant Field Office Director for the West Texas Detention Facility, 21 and is a legal custodian of Plaintiff Ms. C. 22 21. Defendant Kirstjen Nielsen, is sued in her official capacity as the 23 Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. In this capacity, she directs 24 each of the component agencies within DHS: ICE, USCIS, and CBP. As a result, 25 Respondent Nielsen has responsibility for the administration of the immigration 26 laws pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1103, is empowered to grant asylum or other relief, and 27 is a legal custodian of the Plaintiffs. 28 3 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 8527-2 FiledFiled 07/03/18 07/13/18 PageID.1754 Page 84 ofPage 107 6 of 19 1 22. Defendant Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is sued in his official 2 capacity as the Attorney General of the United States. In this capacity, he has 3 responsibility for the administration of the immigration laws pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 4 1103, oversees the Executive Office of Immigration Review, is empowered to grant 5 asylum or other relief, and is a legal custodian of the Plaintiffs. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 23. Director of USCIS. 24. Defendant Kevin K. McAleenan is sued in his official capacity as the Acting Commissioner of CBP. 25. Defendant Pete Flores is sued in his official capacity as the San Diego Field Director of CBP. 26. Defendant Hector A. Mancha Jr. is sued in his official capacity as the El Paso Field Director of CBP. 27. Defendant Alex Azar is sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. 28. Defendant Scott Lloyd is sued in his official capacity as the Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. 18 19 Defendant L. Francis Cissna is sued in his official capacity as the FACTS 29. Over the past year, the government has separated thousands of migrant 20 families for no legitimate purpose. The government’s true purpose in separating 21 these families was to deter future families from seeking refuge in the United States. 22 30. Many of these migrant families fled persecution and are seeking 23 asylum. Although there are no allegations that the parents are unfit or abusing their 24 children in any way, the government has forcibly separated them from their young 25 children and detained the children, often far away, in facilities for “unaccompanied” 26 minors. 27 28 31. There is overwhelming medical evidence that the separation of a young child from his or her parent will have a devastating negative impact on the 4 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 8527-2 FiledFiled 07/03/18 07/13/18 PageID.1755 Page 85 ofPage 107 7 of 19 1 child’s well-being, especially where there are other traumatic factors at work, and 2 that this damage can be permanent. 3 32. The American Association of Pediatrics has denounced the 4 Administration’s practice of separating migrant children from their parents, noting 5 that: “The psychological distress, anxiety, and depression associated with 6 separation from a parent would follow the children well after the immediate period 7 of separation—even after the eventual reunification with a parent or other family.” 8 9 10 33. Prior Administrations detained migrant families, but did not have a practice of forcibly separating fit parents from their young children. 34. There are non-governmental shelters that specialize in housing and 11 caring for families—including asylum seeking families—while their immigration 12 applications are adjudicated. 13 35. There are also government-operated family detention centers where 14 parents can be housed together with their children, should the government lawfully 15 decide not to release them. The government previously detained, and continues to 16 detain, numerous family units at those facilities. 17 36. In April 2018, the New York Times reported that more than “700 18 children have been taken from adults claiming to be their parents since October [of 19 2016], including more than 100 children under the age of 4.” Caitlin Dickerson, 20 Hundreds of Children Have Been Taken from Parents at U.S. Border, N.Y. Times, 21 Apr. 20, 2018. 22 37. On May 7, 2018, Defendant Sessions announced “a new initiative” to 23 refer “100 percent” of immigrants who cross the Southwest border for criminal 24 immigration prosecutions, also known as the “zero-tolerance policy.” Defendant 25 Sessions stated that as part of that prosecution, all parents who are prosecuted 26 would be separated from their children. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Attorney General 27 Sessions Delivers Remarks to the Association of State Criminal Investigative 28 Agencies 2018 Spring Conference (May 7, 2018). The purpose of this new policy 5 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 8527-2 FiledFiled 07/03/18 07/13/18 PageID.1756 Page 86 ofPage 107 8 of 19 1 was to separate families in the hope that it would deter other families from seeking 2 refuge in the United States. 3 38. At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in May, a deputy chief of 4 Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection testified that between May 6 and 5 May 19 alone, a total of 658 children were separated from their family members 6 pursuant to this policy. The Washington Post reported that in the city of McAllen, 7 Texas, 415 children were taken from their parents during a two week period. 1 And 8 in June 2018, the Department of Homeland Security reported that in the six weeks 9 between April 19 and May 31, the administration took almost 2,000 children away 10 from their parents.2 11 39. Defendant Sessions and other government officials, including 12 Defendant Nielsen, have repeatedly defended the separation of children from their 13 parents in speeches and interviews with various media outlets. Among other 14 justifications for the practice, they have stated that separating families would be a 15 way to “discourage parents from bringing their children here illegally,” 3 and that it 16 would help “deter more movement” to the United States by asylum seekers and 17 other migrants. 4 Administration officials told the New York Times in May, “[t]he 18 president and his aides in the White House had been pushing a family separation 19 policy for weeks as a way of deterring families from trying to cross the border 20 illegally.” 5 21 22 23 1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-zero-toleranceat-the-border-is-causing-child-shelters-to-fill-up-fast/2018/05/29/7aab0ae4-636b11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?utm_term=.d52d94c37d05. 24 2 https://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN1JB2SF-OCATP. 25 3 http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1801/16/cnr.04.html. 26 4 27 28 https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/john-kelly-separating-children-fromparents-immigration-border/ 5 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/us/politics/trump-homeland-securitysecretary-resign.html 6 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 8527-2 FiledFiled 07/03/18 07/13/18 PageID.1757 Page 87 ofPage 107 9 of 19 1 2 40. Even if the separated child is released from custody and placed in a community setting or foster care, the trauma of the ongoing separation continues. 3 41. By taking away their children, Defendants are coercing class members 4 into giving up their claims for asylum and other legal protection. Numerous class 5 members have been told by CBP and ICE agents that they will see their children 6 again sooner if they withdraw their asylum applications and accept earlier 7 deportation. 6 8 9 42. Many class members have given up their asylum claims and stipulated to removal as a way to be reunited with their children faster. 10 43. For class members who have not been coerced into giving up their 11 asylum claims, separation from their children has made those applications much 12 more difficult. Separation prevents parents from helping their children apply for 13 asylum and navigate removal proceedings. Separation also makes it harder for 14 parents to present facts involving their children which support their own asylum 15 claims. 16 44. The trauma of separation also renders asylum-seeking class members 17 too distraught to effectively pursue their asylum applications. See, e.g., Angelina 18 Chapin, Separated Parents Are Failing Asylum Screenings Because They’re So 19 Heartbroken, Huffington Post (June 30, 2018).7 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 This practice has been widely reported. See, e.g., Dara Lind, Trump Will Reunite Separated Families—But Only if They Agree to Deportation, Vox.com (June 25, 2018), https://www.vox.com/2018/6/25/17484042/children-parents-separatereunite-plan-trump; Jay Root & Shannon Najmabadi, Kids in Exchange for Deportation: Detained Migrants Say They Were Told They Could Get Kids Back on Way Out of U.S., Texas Tribune (June 24, 2018), https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/24/kids-exchange-deportation-migrantsclaim-they-were-promised-they-could/?utm_campaign=tribsocial&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=1529859032. 7 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/separated-parents-too-grief-stricken-toseek-asylum-experts-say_us_5b379974e4b08c3a8f6ad5d9. 7 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 85 27-2 FiledFiled 07/03/18 07/13/18 PageID.1758 Page 88 ofPage 107 10 of 19 1 45. Defendants have deported class members without their separated 2 children. Their children are now stranded in the United States alone. Many of these 3 parents are now struggling to make contact with their children, who are being 4 detained thousands of miles away across multiple international borders. See Miriam 5 Jordan, “I Can’t Go Without My Son,” a Mother Pleaded as She Was Deported to 6 Guatemala, N.Y. Times (June 17, 2018). 8 7 46. On June 20, 2018, President Trump signed an Executive Order (“EO”) 8 purporting to end certain family separations going forward.9 The EO directs DHS to 9 “maintain custody of alien families during the pendency of any criminal improper 10 entry or immigration proceedings.” 11 47. The EO directs DHS to separate families any time DHS determines 12 that separation would protect “the child’s welfare.” It does not, however, set forth 13 how that standard will be applied. In prior cases the government has applied that 14 standard in a manner that is inconsistent with the child’s best interest, including in 15 Ms. L’s case. 16 17 48. who were separated prior to its issuance. 18 19 49. The EO makes no provision for returning separated children to parents who have been already been deported without their children. 20 NAMED PLAINTIFFS 21 22 The EO makes no provision for reunifying the thousands of families 50. Ms. L. and her daughter S.S. are one of the many families that have recently been separated by the government. 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/us/immigration-deported-parents.html. See also Nelson Renteria, El Salvador Demands U.S. Return Child Taken from Deported Father, Reuters (June 21, 2018), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usaimmigration-el-salvador/el-salvador-demands-us-return-child-taken-from-deportedfather-idUSKBN1JH3ER. 9 https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/affording-congress-opportunityaddress-family-separation/. 8 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 85 27-2 FiledFiled 07/03/18 07/13/18 PageID.1759 Page 89 ofPage 107 11 of 19 1 51. Ms. L. and her daughter are seeking asylum in the United States. 2 52. Ms. L. is Catholic and sought shelter in a church until she was able to 3 4 escape the Congo with S.S. 53. Upon reaching the United States, Ms. L. and S.S. presented themselves 5 at the San Ysidro, California Port of Entry on November 1, 2017. Although their 6 native language is Lingala, they were able to communicate to the border guards that 7 they sought asylum. 8 54. Based on her expression of a fear of returning to the Congo, Ms. L. 9 was referred for an initial screening before an asylum officer, called a “credible fear 10 interview.” She subsequently passed the credible fear screening but, until March 6, 11 2018, remained detained in the Otay Mesa Detention Center in the San Diego area. 12 55. On or about November 5, immigration officials forcibly separated 13 then-6 year-old S.S. from her mother and sent S.S. to Chicago. There she was 14 housed in a detention facility for “unaccompanied” minors run by the Office of 15 Refugee Resettlement (ORR). 16 56. When S.S. was taken away from her mother, she was screaming and 17 crying, pleading with guards not to take her away from her mother. While detained, 18 Ms. L. spoke to her daughter approximately 6 times by phone, never by video. For 19 months she was terrified that she would never see her daughter again. The few 20 times Ms. L. was able to speak to her daughter on the phone, her daughter was 21 crying and scared. 22 23 24 57. In December, S.S. turned 7 and spent her birthday in the Chicago facility, without her mother. 58. In detention, Ms. L. was distraught and depressed because of her 25 separation from her daughter. As a result, she did not eat properly, lost weight, and 26 was not sleeping due to worry and nightmares. 27 28 59. In one moment of extreme despair and confusion, Ms. L. told an immigration judge that she wanted to withdraw her application for asylum, 9 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 85 27-2 FiledFiled 07/03/18 07/13/18 PageID.1760 Page 90 ofPage 107 12 of 19 1 realizing her mistake only a few days later. She is seeking to reopen her case before 2 the Board of Immigration Appeals. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 60. The government had no legitimate interest in separating Ms. L. and her 61. There has been no evidence, or even accusation, that S.S. was abused child. or neglected by Ms. L. 62. There is no evidence that Ms. L. is an unfit parent or that she is not acting in the best interests of her child. 63. After Ms. L. filed this lawsuit and moved for a preliminary injunction, 10 Defendants abruptly released her from custody on March 6, 2018, due to the filing 11 of the lawsuit. Defendants informed her that she would be released mere hours in 12 advance, with no arrangements for where she would stay. S.S. was released to Ms. 13 L.’s custody several days later. Both are now pursuing their claims for legal 14 protection. 15 64. Ms. C. and her 14 year-old son, J., are another one of the families who 16 have been separated by the government. Like Ms. L. and her daughter, Ms. C. and 17 her son are seeking asylum in the United States. 18 65. Ms. C. and J. fled Brazil and came to the United States to seek asylum. 19 A few feet after Ms. C. entered the United States, a border guard approached her, 20 and she explained that she was seeking asylum. Ms. C. subsequently passed a 21 credible fear interview, and was put in removal proceedings, where she is applying 22 for asylum. 23 66. Despite having communicated her fear of persecution to border guards, 24 the government prosecuted Ms. C. for entering the country illegally, took her son J. 25 away from her, and sent him to a facility for “unaccompanied” children in Chicago. 26 67. The government continued to separate Ms. C. from her son even after 27 she completed serving her criminal misdemeanor sentence on September 22, 2017, 28 and was sent to an immigration detention facility, the El Paso Processing Center. In 10 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 85 27-2 FiledFiled 07/03/18 07/13/18 PageID.1761 Page 91 ofPage 107 13 of 19 1 early January 2018, she was transferred again, to another immigration facility, the 2 West Texas Detention Facility (also known as Sierra Blanca), but still was not 3 reunited with her son. Even after Ms. C was released from immigration detention 4 on April 5, 2018, the government did not reunify her with her son for another two 5 months, until June 9. 6 68. While separated from J., Ms. C. was desperate to be reunited with him. 7 She worried about him constantly and did not know when she would be able to see 8 him. They spoke on the phone only a handful of times while they were separated by 9 Defendants. 10 69. 11 from his mother. 12 70. 13 14 15 16 17 J. had a difficult time emotionally during the months he was separated The government had no legitimate interest for the separation of Ms. C. and her child. 71. There is no evidence, or even accusation, that J. was abused or neglected by Ms. C. 72. There is no evidence that Ms. C. is an unfit parent or that she is not acting in the best interests of her child. 18 19 CLASS ALLEGATIONS 73. Plaintiffs bring this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 23(b)(2) on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of all other persons 21 similarly situated. 22 23 24 25 26 27 74. Plaintiffs seek to represent the following class: All adult parents who enter the United States at or between designated ports of entry who (1) have been, are, or will be detained in immigration custody by the DHS, and (2) have a minor child who is or will be separated from them by DHS and detained in ORR custody, ORR foster care, or DHS custody, absent a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child. 28 11 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 85 27-2 FiledFiled 07/03/18 07/13/18 PageID.1762 Page 92 ofPage 107 14 of 19 1 2 3 75. Ms. L. and Ms. C. are each adequate representatives of the proposed 76. The proposed class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a)(1) because class. 4 the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. There are at a 5 minimum hundreds of parents who fit within the class. 6 77. The class meets the commonality requirements of Federal Rule of 7 Civil Procedure 23(a)(2). The members of the class are subject to a common 8 practice: forcibly separating detained parents from their minor children absent any 9 determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child. By definition, 10 all class members have experienced that practice, and none has been given an 11 adequate hearing regarding the separation. The lawsuit raises numerous questions 12 of law common to members of the proposed class, including: whether Defendants’ 13 family separation practice violates class members’ substantive due process right to 14 family integrity; whether the practice violates class members’ procedural due 15 process rights; whether the practice violates the federal asylum statute; and whether 16 these separations are unlawful or arbitrary and capricious under the APA. 17 78. The proposed class meets the typicality requirements of Federal Rule 18 of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3), because the claims of the representative Plaintiffs are 19 typical of the claims of the class. Ms. L., Ms. C., and the proposed class members 20 are all individuals who have had or will have their children forcibly taken away 21 from them despite there being no proven allegations of abuse, neglect, or any other 22 danger or unfitness. Plaintiffs and the proposed class also share the same legal 23 claims, which assert the same substantive and procedural rights under the Due 24 Process Clause, the asylum statute, and the APA. 25 79. The proposed class meets the adequacy requirements of Federal Rule 26 of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4). The representative Plaintiffs seek the same relief as the 27 other members of the class—namely, an order that they be reunified with their 28 children, whether through release or in family detention facilities. In defending their 12 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 85 27-2 FiledFiled 07/03/18 07/13/18 PageID.1763 Page 93 ofPage 107 15 of 19 1 own rights, Ms. L. and Ms. C. will defend the rights of all proposed class members 2 fairly and adequately. 3 80. The proposed class is represented by counsel from the American Civil 4 Liberties Union Immigrants’ Rights Project and the ACLU of San Diego and 5 Imperial Counties. Counsel have extensive experience litigating class action 6 lawsuits and other complex cases in federal court, including civil rights lawsuits on 7 behalf of noncitizens. 8 9 10 81. The members of the class are readily ascertainable through Defendants’ records. 82. The proposed class also satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 23(b)(2). Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class by 12 unlawfully separating parents from their young children. Injunctive and declaratory 13 relief is thus appropriate with respect to the class as a whole. 14 CAUSES OF ACTION 15 COUNT I 16 (Violation of Due Process: Right to Family Integrity) 17 18 19 83. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as though fully set forth herein. 84. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to all 20 “persons” on United States soil and thus applies to Ms. L., Ms. C., their children 21 S.S. and J., and all proposed class members. 22 23 24 85. Plaintiffs, their children, and all class members have liberty interests under the Due Process Clause in remaining together as families. 86. The separation of the class members from their children violates 25 substantive due process because it furthers no legitimate purpose and was designed 26 to deter. 27 28 87. The separation of the class members from their children also violates procedural due process because it was undertaken without any hearing. 13 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 85 27-2 FiledFiled 07/03/18 07/13/18 PageID.1764 Page 94 ofPage 107 16 of 19 1 COUNT II 2 (Administrative Procedure Act: Arbitrary and Capricious Practice) 3 88. 4 5 6 7 All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as though fully set forth herein. 89. The APA prohibits agency action that is arbitrary and capricious or violates a person’s legal or constitutional rights. 90. Defendants’ separation practice is final agency action for which there 8 is no other adequate remedy in a court. Defendants’ decision to separate parents is 9 not tentative or interlocutory, because Defendants have already separated thousands 10 of families and continue to do so, and the policy was announced by high-level 11 officials. And Defendants’ decision to separate gravely impacts class members’ 12 rights to remain together as families. 13 91. Defendants’ separation of Ms. L., Ms. C., and the other class members 14 from their children without any explanation or legitimate justification is arbitrary 15 and capricious and accordingly violates the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 706. 16 92. Among other things, Defendants failed to offer adequate reasons for 17 adopting their unprecedented new separation practice; they failed to explain why 18 they were not using alternatives to separation, including supervised release and 19 family detention; and for parents like Ms. L., Defendants have never explained why 20 they cannot verify parentage before imposing traumatic separation on both parent 21 and child. 22 COUNT III 23 (Violation of Right to Seek Protection Under the Asylum and Withholding of 24 Removal Statutes, and the Convention Against Torture) 25 26 27 28 93. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as though fully set forth herein. 94. Under United States law, noncitizens with a well-founded fear of persecution shall have the opportunity to apply for asylum in the United States. 8 14 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 85 27-2 FiledFiled 07/03/18 07/13/18 PageID.1765 Page 95 ofPage 107 17 of 19 1 U.S.C. § 1158(a). In addition, noncitizens have a mandatory statutory entitlement to 2 withholding of removal where they would face a probability of persecution if 3 removed to their country of nationality, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), or withholding or 4 deferral of removal where they would face a probability of torture. Foreign Affairs 5 Reform and Restructuring Act (“FARRA”), Pub. L. No. 105-277, Div. G., 6 Title XXII, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681-822 (Oct. 21, 1998) (codified as Note to 8 7 U.S.C.§ 1231). 8 95. 9 Class members have a private right of action to challenge violations of their right to apply for asylum under § 1158(a). That right is not barred by 8 U.S.C. 10 § 1158(d)(7), which applies to only certain procedural requirements set out in 11 Section 1158(d). 12 96. Defendants’ separation of families violates federal law that provides 13 for asylum and other protection from removal, as well as their due process right to 14 seek such relief. Separation severely impedes their ability to pursue their asylum 15 and other protection claims in a number of ways, including by denying them the 16 ability to coordinate their applications with their children, present facts related to 17 their children, and creating trauma that hinders their ability to navigate the complex 18 process. 19 97. The government is also using the trauma of separation to coerce 20 parents into giving up their asylum and protection claims in order to be reunited 21 with their children. 22 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 23 Plaintiffs request that the Court enter a judgment against Defendants and 24 25 award the following relief: A. Certify a class of all adult parents nationwide who enter the United States 26 at or between designated ports of entry who (1) have been, are, or will be detained 27 in immigration custody by the DHS, and (2) have a minor child who is or will be 28 separated from them by DHS and detained in ORR custody, ORR foster care, or 15 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 85 27-2 FiledFiled 07/03/18 07/13/18 PageID.1766 Page 96 ofPage 107 18 of 19 1 DHS custody, absent a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to 2 the child. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 B. Name Ms. L. and Ms. C. as representatives of the class, and appoint Plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel; C. Declare the separation of Ms. L., Ms. C., and the other class members from their children unlawful; D. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from continuing to separate the class members from their children; E. Order Defendants either to release class members along with their children, or to detain them together in the same facility; F. Enjoin Defendants from removing any class members from the country 12 who have received final removal orders until they are reunited with their children, 13 unless the class members knowingly and voluntarily decide that they do not want 14 their children removed with them; 15 G. Enjoin Defendants from removing any class member who received a final 16 removal order prior to the issuance of this Court’s preliminary injunction on June 17 26, 2018, or prior to receiving notice of their rights under the injunction, until they 18 have had an opportunity to consult with class counsel, or a delegate of class 19 counsel, to insure that these class members have knowingly and voluntarily chosen 20 to forego any further challenges to removal, rather than feeling coerced into doing 21 so as a result of separation from their children. 22 H. Require Defendants to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; 23 I. Order all other relief that is just and proper. 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: July 3, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783) ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES P.O. Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138-7131 /s/Lee Gelernt Lee Gelernt* Judy Rabinovitz* Anand Balakrishnan* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 16 Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 85 27-2 FiledFiled 07/03/18 07/13/18 PageID.1767 Page 97 ofPage 107 19 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 T: (619) 398-4485 F: (619) 232-0036 bvakili@aclusandiego.org Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280) 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 skang@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 T: (212) 549-2616 F: (212) 549-2654 lgelernt@aclu.org jrabinovitz@aclu.org abalakrishnan@aclu.org 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17 Case Document 27-2 Filed 07/13/18 Page 98 of 107 Exhibit NN Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 105 27-2Filed Filed 07/13/18 07/13/18PageID.2073 Page 99 of 107 Page 1 of 6 1 CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General 2 SCOTT G. STEWART 3 Deputy Assistant Attorney General WILLIAM C. PEACHEY 4 Director 5 Office of Immigration Litigation U.S. Department of Justice 6 WILLIAM C. SILVIS 7 Assistant Director Office of Immigration Litigation 8 SARAH B. FABIAN 9 Senior Litigation Counsel NICOLE N. MURLEY 10 Trial Attorney 11 Office of Immigration Litigation U.S. Department of Justice 12 Box 868, Ben Franklin Station 13 Washington, DC 20442 Telephone: (202) 532-4824 14 Fax: (202) 616-8962 15 ADAM L. BRAVERMAN 16 United States Attorney 17 SAMUEL W. BETTWY Assistant U.S. Attorney 18 California Bar No. 94918 19 Office of the U.S. Attorney 20 880 Front Street, Room 6293 San Diego, CA 92101-8893 21 619-546-7125 22 619-546-7751 (fax) 23 Attorneys for Federal Respondents24 Defendants 25 26 27 28 Lee Gelernt* Judy Rabinovitz* Anand Balakrishnan* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 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 Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280) Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 T: (415) 343-1198 F: (415) 395-0950 skang@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document105 27-2Filed Filed 07/13/18 07/13/18PageID.2074 Page 100 of 107 Page 2 of 6 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 4 Petitioners-Plaintiffs, 5 6 Case No. 18cv428 DMS MDD MS. L, et al., JOINT MOTION REGARDING SCOPE OF THE COURT’S PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION vs. 7 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., 8 Respondents-Defendants. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 In accordance with the Court’s orders and with the Court’s July 10, 2018 status conference, the parties respectfully jointly move the Court to enter the attached Order Regarding Scope of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction. This Proposed Order addresses compliance with this Court’s preliminary injunction. It would provide that the Court’s preliminary injunction order in this case, or subsequent orders implementing that order, does not limit the Government’s authority to detain adults in the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) custody. Accordingly, when DHS would detain a Class Member together with his or her child in a facility for detaining families, consistent with its constitutional and legal authorities governing detention of adults and families, but the child may be able to assert rights under the Flores Settlement Agreement to be released from custody or transferred to a “licensed program” pursuant to that Agreement’s terms, then this Court’s preliminary injunction and implementing orders permit the Government to require Class Members to select one of the following two options: First, the Class Member may choose to remain in DHS custody together with his or her child, subject to any eligibility for release under existing laws and policies, but 28 1 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document105 27-2Filed Filed 07/13/18 07/13/18PageID.2075 Page 101 of 107 Page 3 of 6 1 to waive, on behalf of the child, the assertion of rights under the Flores Settlement 2 Agreement to be released, including the rights with regard to placement in the least 3 restrictive setting appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs, and the right to 4 release or placement in a “licensed program.” By choosing this option, the class 5 member is waiving the child’s right under the Flores Settlement Agreement to be 6 released, including the rights with regard to placement in the least restrictive setting 7 appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs, and the right to release or 8 placement in a “licensed program.” Second, and alternatively, the Class Member 9 may waive his or her right not to be separated from his or her child under this Court’s 10 preliminary injunction and assert, on behalf of the Class Member’s child, any such 11 right under the Flores Settlement Agreement for the child to be released from 12 custody or transferred to a “licensed program” pursuant to that Agreement’s terms— 13 in which circumstance the child would, consistent with this Court’s orders, be 14 separated with the parent’s consent. In implementing this release or transfer, the 15 government could transfer the child to HHS custody for placement and to be 16 otherwise treated as an unaccompanied child. See 6 U.S.C. 279(g)(2). 17 The Proposed Order provides that in neither circumstance do this Court’s 18 orders create a right to release for a parent who is detained in accordance with 19 existing law. If a Class Member is provided these two choices and does not select 20 either one, the Government may maintain the family together in family detention 21 and the Class Member will be deemed to have temporarily waived the child’s release 22 rights (including the rights with regard to placement in the least restrictive setting 23 appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs, and the right to release or 24 placement in a “licensed program”) under the Flores Settlement Agreement until the 25 Class Member makes an affirmative, knowing, and voluntary decision as to whether 26 he or she is waiving his or her child’s rights under the Flores Settlement Agreement. 27 28 2 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document105 27-2Filed Filed 07/13/18 07/13/18PageID.2076 Page 102 of 107 Page 4 of 6 1 The parties further agree that the Court’s orders in this case, and the Flores 2 Settlement Agreement, do not in any way prevent the Government from releasing 3 families from DHS custody. No waiver by any Class Member of his or her rights 4 under this Court’s orders, or waiver by the Class Member of his or her child’s rights 5 under the Flores Settlement Agreement, shall be construed to waive any other rights 6 of the Class Member or Class Member’s child to challenge the legality of his or her 7 detention under any constitutional or legal provisions that may apply. 8 The parties agree a Class Member’s waiver under the Flores Settlement 9 Agreement or this Court’s injunction can be reconsidered after it is made, but 10 disagree about whether there are circumstances when such a waiver cannot be 11 reconsidered. The parties propose to meet and confer regarding this issue, and 12 provide a joint statement to the Court addressing the results of the meet and confer 13 and, if necessary, providing statements of their respective positions – by 3:00 p.m. 14 on July 20, 2018. 15 DATED: July 13, 2018 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Lee Gelernt Lee Gelernt* Judy Rabinovitz* Anand Balakrishnan* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 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 28 3 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document105 27-2Filed Filed 07/13/18 07/13/18PageID.2077 Page 103 of 107 Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 P.O. Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138-7131 T: (619) 398-4485 F: (619) 232-0036 bvakili@aclusandiego.org Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280) Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 T: (415) 343-1198 F: (415) 395-0950 skang@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs *Admitted Pro Hac Vice 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General SCOTT G. STEWART Deputy Assistant Attorney General WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director WILLIAM C. SILVIS Assistant Director /s/ Nicole N. Murley NICOLE N. MURLEY Trial Attorney SARAH B. FABIAN Senior Litigation Counsel Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 28 4 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJP Document Document105 27-2Filed Filed 07/13/18 07/13/18PageID.2078 Page 104 of 107 Page 6 of 6 1 2 (202) 532-4824 (202) 616-8962 (facsimile) sarah.b.fabian@usdoj.gov 3 4 5 6 7 ADAM L. BRAVERMAN United States Attorney SAMUEL W. BETTWY Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorneys for Respondents-Defendants 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 105-1 27-2 Filed Filed07/13/18 07/13/18 PageID.2079 Page 105 of 107 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MS. L, et al., Petitioners-Plaintiffs, 12 13 Case No. 18cv428 DMS MDD vs. 14 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., 15 Respondents-Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION REGARDING SCOPE OF THE COURT’S PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion Regarding Scope of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s preliminary injunction order in this case, or subsequent orders implementing that order, does not limit the Government’s authority to detain adults in the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) custody. Accordingly, when DHS would detain a Class Member together with his or her child in a facility for detaining families, consistent with its constitutional and legal authorities governing detention of adults and families, but the child may be able to assert rights under the Flores Settlement Agreement to be released from custody or transferred to a “licensed program” pursuant to that Agreement’s terms, then this Court’s preliminary injunction and implementing orders permit the Government to require Class Members to select one of the following two options: First, the Class Member may choose to remain in Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 105-1 27-2 Filed Filed07/13/18 07/13/18 PageID.2080 Page 106 of 107 Page 2 of 3 1 DHS custody together with his or her child, subject to any eligibility for release under 2 existing laws and policies, but to waive, on behalf of the child, the assertion of rights under 3 the Flores Settlement Agreement to be released, including the rights with regard to 4 placement in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs, 5 and the right to release or placement in a “licensed program.” By choosing this option, the 6 class member is waiving the child’s right under the Flores Settlement Agreement to be 7 released, including the rights with regard to placement in the least restrictive setting 8 appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs, and the right to release or placement in a 9 “licensed program.” Second, and alternatively, the Class Member may waive his or her 10 right not to be separated from his or her child under this Court’s preliminary injunction and 11 assert, on behalf of the Class Member’s child, any such right under the Flores Settlement 12 Agreement for the child to be released from custody or transferred to a “licensed program” 13 pursuant to that Agreement’s terms—in which circumstance the child would, consistent 14 with this Court’s orders, be separated with the parent’s consent. In implementing this release 15 or transfer, the government could transfer the child to HHS custody for placement and to be 16 otherwise treated as an unaccompanied child. See 6 U.S.C. 279(g)(2). 17 In neither circumstance do this Court’s orders create a right to release for a parent 18 who is detained in accordance with existing law. If a Class Member is provided these two 19 choices and does not select either one, the Government may maintain the family together in 20 family detention and the Class Member will be deemed to have temporarily waived the 21 child’s release rights (including the rights with regard to placement in the least restrictive 22 setting appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs, and the right to release or 23 placement in a “licensed program”) under the Flores Settlement Agreement until the Class 24 Member makes an affirmative, knowing, and voluntary decision as to whether he or she is 25 waiving his or her child’s rights under the Flores Settlement Agreement. 26 The parties further agree that the Court’s orders in this case, and the Flores Settlement 27 Agreement, do not in any way prevent the Government from releasing families from DHS 28 custody. No waiver by any Class Member of his or her rights under this Court’s orders, or Ex Parte Motion to File Exhibits as Restricted 1 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Case 2:18-cv-00939-MJPDocument Document 105-1 27-2 Filed Filed07/13/18 07/13/18 PageID.2081 Page 107 of 107 Page 3 of 3 1 waiver by the Class Member of his or her child’s rights under the Flores Settlement 2 Agreement, shall be construed to waive any other rights of the Class Member or Class 3 Member’s child to challenge the legality of his or her detention under any constitutional or 4 legal provisions that may apply. 5 The parties agree a Class Member’s waiver under the Flores Settlement Agreement 6 or this Court’s injunction can be reconsidered after it is made, but disagree about whether 7 there are circumstances when such a waiver cannot be reconsidered. They are directed to 8 meet and confer regarding this issue, and provide a joint statement to the Court addressing 9 the results of the meet and confer and, if necessary, providing statements of their respective 10 positions – by 3:00 p.m. on July 20, 2018. 11 Dated: 12 13 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ex Parte Motion to File Exhibits as Restricted 2 18cv428 DMS MDD