Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 171 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.3040 Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General SCOTT G. STEWART Deputy Assistant Attorney General WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director Office of Immigration Litigation 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 14 15 ADAM L. BRAVERMAN United States Attorney 16 SAMUEL W. BETTWY 17 Assistant U.S. Attorney California Bar No. 94918 18 Office of the U.S. Attorney 19 880 Front Street, Room 6293 San Diego, CA 92101-8893 20 619-546-7125 21 619-546-7751 (fax) 22 Attorneys for Federal Respondents23 Defendants 24 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 PetitionersPlaintiffs *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 171 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.3041 Page 2 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 2 MS. L, et al., 3 4 Case No. 18cv428 DMS MDD Petitioners-Plaintiffs, JOINT STATUS REPORT 5 vs. 6 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., 7 8 9 Respondents-Defendants. 10 11 The Court ordered the parties to file a joint status report on August 2, 2018, in 12 13 anticipation of the telephonic status conference scheduled for August 3, 2018, at 14 1:00pm PST. The parties submit this joint status report in accordance with the 15 16 Court’s instruction. 17 I. 18 19 20 21 22 23 DEFENDANTS’ POSITIONS A. Processes for Reunifications of Released and Removed Class Members 1. Reunification Processes i. Released Possible Class Members Since Defendants’ last report, HHS has appropriately discharged a number of 24 additional children, and those discharges have included additional reunifications 25 with eligible class members in the interior of the United States. The reunifications 26 were made through the ordinary ORR case management process. That is, HHS 27 28 1 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 171 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.3042 Page 3 of 20 1 personnel and contractors used the information from the ORR case management 2 records for each child, together with any additional information from DHS, to locate, 3 contact, assess class membership, and arrange reunifications for eligible and 4 5 available class members in the interior. 6 7 Defendants propose that they continue reunifying class members who have been released into the United States with children in HHS care using the following 8 9 modifications to the ordinary ORR case management process, which will expedite 10 and streamline reunification through collaboration between Plaintiffs and 11 Defendants. This proposed process also places responsibility for ascertaining the 12 13 wishes of class members regarding reunification with Plaintiffs’ counsel, who can 14 provide any legal advice or consultations to class members that they deem necessary 15 before the class member makes a decision regarding reunification. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Under the modified process: • Defendants will produce information regarding putative class members and children to Plaintiffs’ counsel in the manner described in subsequent sections of this Joint Status Report. • Every Monday, Plaintiffs will provide to Defendants any new information that Plaintiffs and their network of law firms, NGOs, volunteers, and others have obtained regarding the location of putative class members in the interior, and will describe the efforts that Plaintiffs’ counsel and their network are taking to contact these individuals. • For any individuals who are located, Plaintiffs will provide final, unequivocal, written confirmation of whether that newly-identified putative class member in the interior wishes to be reunified with his or her child. Where the putative class member chooses reunification, HHS will proceed with reunification 28 2 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 171 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.3043 Page 4 of 20 under the reunification process developed in accordance with prior orders of this Court. 1 2 • For individuals who are not yet located, the parties will continue to meet and confer to determine whether HHS can reasonably provide any additional information to assist in the efforts of Plaintiffs and their network of law firms, NGOs, volunteers, and others to locate putative class members in the interior. As needed, the parties may also meet and confer on logistics related to reunifications of eligible and available class members in the interior. 3 4 5 6 7 • The parties will report their progress, and raise any disputes that require the Court’s intervention in the Joint Status Report due each Thursday. 8 9 ii. Removed Possible Class Members 10 Defendants’ proposed process for reunifying additional, removed class 11 12 members has three core components. 13 Contact Possible Class Members. Plaintiffs’ counsel should use their 14 15 considerable resources and their network of law firms, NGOs, volunteers, and 16 others, together with the information that Defendants have provided (or will soon 17 provide), to establish contact with possible class members in foreign countries.1 18 Ascertain the Wishes of Possible Class Members. Plaintiffs’ counsel should 19 20 ascertain whether each possible class member wishes to be reunified with his or her 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Defendants note that in an attempt to further aid the process of locating removed class members, they have reached out to officials at the U.S. Department of State, who are assisting in facilitating communications with local government officials of countries where removed class members are located. Defendants have already begun discussions with those officials to discuss how they may be able to assist the parties in the process of locating removed class members. Defendants will provide further updates to the Court as these communications continue. 28 3 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 171 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.3044 Page 5 of 20 1 child, or whether he or she wishes to waive reunification. Plaintiffs’ counsel would 2 be responsible for ensuring that each possible class member has the opportunity to 3 consult with a lawyer regarding that decision, and to discuss that decision with his 4 5 or her child. Defendants will help facilitate communications between possible class 6 members and their children for this purpose. Plaintiffs’ counsel would then be 7 responsible for providing Defendants with a final, unequivocal, written confirmation 8 9 of whether each possible class member wants to be reunified with his or her child. 10 11 If a class member chooses reunification, then Plaintiffs’ counsel would also be responsible for ensuring that the possible class member provides the information 12 13 required to complete the Court’s process for confirming that the Court’s criteria for 14 class membership and reunification are met (e.g., parentage, criminal history, 15 parental fitness, or child safety). Plaintiffs’ counsel likewise would be responsible 16 17 for ensuring that a class member provides any additional information or documents 18 that Defendants may require to facilitate reunification of the class member and his 19 or her child.2 20 Reunification. As noted above, Defendants are in contact with officials from 21 22 the U.S. Department of State, and with government officials of the countries where 23 24 25 2 If a class member declines reunification, then ORR would follow its normal 26 procedures for sponsorship placement of the child under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. 27 28 4 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 171 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.3045 Page 6 of 20 1 removed class members are located, in an effort to determine the best way to 2 complete these reunifications.3 Defendants intend to meet and confer with plaintiffs 3 and update the Court as soon as they have determined the process by which 4 5 reunifications can best be completed. Defendants also will notify the Court and 6 Plaintiffs as to what information or documents Plaintiffs will need to obtain from 7 class members so that reunification can be completed. 8 2. Report and Proposal Regarding Information Sharing 9 10 11 On August 1, 2018, Defendants asked Plaintiffs to share with Defendants any information that they have regarding released or removed class members. As of the 12 13 time of this filing, Plaintiffs have provided Defendants with a list of 13 names and 14 A-numbers for individuals who Plaintiffs state “have been located.” To facilitate the 15 steps in the reunification processes described above, Defendants ask that the Court 16 17 order Plaintiffs to provide Defendants, on a rolling basis each Monday, all 18 information that they obtain regarding the location of released or removed class 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 3 Defendants note that there are multiple factors that may impact the final determination of how best to complete these reunifications. One is the ongoing proceedings in M.M.M. v. Sessions, Case No. 18-1759 (D.D.C.), and in other cases before this Court, which concern the rights of the children of class members regarding removal or asylum proceedings and their parents’ decisions on reunification. These pending legal issues are good reason for the Court not to accept Plaintiffs’ proposal that the Court simply order that reunification occur within 7 days, or any particular time period. Rather, the Court should allow Defendants time to work with these foreign governments, and with Plaintiffs’ counsel, to determine how best to complete reunifications following the resolution of the legal issues. 28 5 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 171 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.3046 Page 7 of 20 1 members, as well as a description of the efforts that Plaintiffs’ counsel and their 2 network of law firms, NGOs, volunteers, and others are taking to locate these 3 individuals. 4 5 Also on August 1, 2018, Defendants asked Plaintiffs to provide a list of the 6 information that Plaintiffs would find useful in locating released or removed class 7 members. Plaintiffs identified the following list of information: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 • The phone number of a parent; • If the child in ORR custody has been in contact with their deported parent; • The phone numbers and addresses of any relatives of the child, whether in or outside the United States; • The address of the parent in the home country (if you have additional addresses that have not been provided); • If the child or parent speaks an indigenous language, what language. • Any information regarding the town, location, or community that the parent is from. • The name/contact information of the child’s lawyer, so we can speak to them to get information about the parent’s location; • Parent’s place of birth; • Parent’s national identification number in country of origin, if any; • Parent’s membership in any community organizations or groups; • Copies of the birth certificates of either parent or child; and • G-28s or E-28s for attorneys who have entered appearances for the parent. 20 21 In light of this clarification regarding the information that Plaintiffs believe would 22 be helpful in the locating released or removed parents, Defendants contend that the 23 Court should not order that Defendants produce A-files for released and removed 24 25 possible class members (as identified by the Court in its July 30, 2018 Order), but 26 instead should allow Defendants to produce relevant and likely more helpful 27 28 6 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 171 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.3047 Page 8 of 20 1 information from other files in the manner discussed below. When combined with 2 the information that Defendants have already provided, Defendants’ proposal for 3 information sharing will more efficiently provide Plaintiffs with information that is 4 5 useful to the process of locating removed and released class members. 6 7 First, Defendants have already provided Plaintiffs with all information in ICE systems of record regarding address information for released or removed possible 8 4 9 class members (including any address information provided by class members at 10 the time of their release). Defendants have also provided data showing any date of 11 removal, country of removal, and/or last known detention location for these 12 5 13 individuals. 14 15 Second, HHS believes that some of the information identified by Plaintiffs may be found in the case management records maintained by ORR on its portal 16 17 4 The addresses reflect any address that was entered over the span of a class 18 member’s immigration history. Because address information is not leveraged for 19 statistical analysis purposes, it not tracked in such a way to determine whether it is the latest instance of the address or whether it is a temporary or permanent address. 20 An alien may have multiple addresses associated with their record. The 21 information, therefore, is most likely overly inclusive as it could contain a work address, temporary address, any U.S. address, as well as any foreign permanent 22 residence, if provided by the alien. 23 5 Defendants have asked Plaintiffs to let them know if they have any questions regarding the data that has been provided to them so far. As of the time of filing of 24 this report, Plaintiffs have sent questions regarding some of the data that 25 Defendants have produced, and Defendants are working to provide answers to those questions. At this time, to Defendants’ knowledge, there are no outstanding 26 questions from Plaintiffs regarding the lists of removed or released class members 27 that were sent on July 25, 2018. 28 7 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 171 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.3048 Page 9 of 20 1 (though the specific information available may vary from child to child). By way of 2 example, the ORR case management record for a child in ORR care may contain 3 some or all of the following data points: contact information for the parent or other 4 5 relatives that the child has or that was provided to ORR by DHS; whether the child 6 speaks an indigenous language and what language; any information the child has 7 disclosed about where he or she is from; and contact information for the child’s 8 9 lawyer. ORR must collect and compile such data through a manual review of case 10 management records, and cannot generate a compilation of it through automated 11 means. ORR believes that it can complete a review of the files for the children of 12 13 removed possible class members, and provide a data compilation to Plaintiffs by 14 August 10, 2018, while still proceeding with ongoing reunifications. This process 15 would provide Plaintiffs with a significant amount of the information they state that 16 17 they are seeking. 18 19 Finally, the remainder of the information that Plaintiffs are seeking is likely to be less useful in locating released or removed parents, and in any event may not 20 21 be available in the A-file. It is, for example, possible that an A-file may contain 22 information regarding the town, location, or community that the possible class 23 member is from; the possible class member’s place of birth; the possible class 24 25 member’s national identification number in his or her country of origin, if any; the 26 possible class member’s membership in any community organizations or groups; 27 28 8 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 171 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.3049 Page 10 of 20 1 copies of the birth certificates of the possible class member; or G-28s or E-28s for 2 attorneys who have entered appearances for the possible class member. But it is far 3 from certain that an A-file would contain this information, and the value of this 4 5 information is likely to be far lower than the information discussed above. Given the 6 time and burden involved in locating, reviewing, redacting, and producing, a large 7 number of A-files, it is almost certain that the burden of this review and production 8 9 would outweigh its benefits in the vast majority of cases. At the same time this 10 review and production would involve personnel resources that could otherwise be 11 devoted to facilitating these remaining reunifications. 12 Therefore, Defendants submit that in light of the information they have 13 14 already provided, the information that they are committing to provide as described 15 above, and the limited value of any information that might be found in A-files, the 16 17 Court should decline to order the production of class member A-files to Plaintiffs at 18 this time. 6 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 6 Defendants propose that if Plaintiffs contend that the information Defendants have provided, and will provide, is insufficient for them to locate any individual class member using reasonable efforts, then Plaintiffs should be required to submit the name of that individual to Defendants along with a description of the efforts already made to locate the individual, and Defendants can then undertake a review of the information in that individual’s A-file to determine if it contains additional information that may be useful. 28 9 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 171 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.3050 Page 11 of 20 1 2 3 C. Additional Information Sharing In addition to the data discussed above, Defendants have provided Plaintiffs with the following additional data and information: 4 5 • Spreadsheets containing data regarding the reunification process for class members with children under age 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 • Spreadsheets containing data regarding the reunification of class members with children age 5-17, including the date and location of reunification (Defendants’ database did not track the time of reunification), whether those class members were removed, released, or detained, following reunification, and the last known address information in Defendants’ possession for those individuals (Defendants’ database does not contain current location and phone number information; but Defendants have provided information regarding the NGO that assisted each family following reunification, and these organizations may have more up to date contact information for each reunified family) • Spreadsheets containing data from ICE regarding possible class members who were excluded on the basis of criminal history, or who, to the best of Defendants’ knowledge, are currently in criminal custody or recently released from criminal custody (Defendants intend to provide updated information regarding individuals who are in, or released from, criminal custody) • A spreadsheet containing data from HHS regarding exclusions from the class based on reasons other than criminal history; and • Spreadsheets identifying removed and released possible class members, along with spreadsheets containing all address information for those individuals that is contained in Defendants’ electronic database 24 25 26 27 28 10 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 171 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.3051 Page 12 of 20 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 II. PLAINTIFFS’ POSITIONS A. Plaintiffs’ Position On Reunification With Deported Parents Plaintiffs have made clear that they will do whatever they can to help locate the deported parents, but emphasize that the Government must bear the ultimate burden of finding the parents. Not only was it the government’s unconstitutional separation practice that led to this crisis, but the United States Government has far more resources than any group of NGOs (no matter how many NGOs and law firms are willing to try to help). Plaintiffs therefore hope that the Government will take significant and prompt steps to find the parents on their own. Relatedly, Plaintiffs believe that the Government should be taking the initiative to continually provide Plaintiffs with whatever useful information they possess, without constantly waiting for Plaintiffs to request specific information, especially because the Government knows better than Plaintiffs what types of information are contained in various files and databases. The Government has consistently asked Plaintiffs what information they believe would be useful. Plaintiffs have provided the Government with that list and detail it below. But, as Plaintiffs have stressed several times, there is no blueprint for finding deported parents. It is largely commonsense, practical detective-type work. The Government should therefore recognize on its own what types of information would be useful and be constantly providing that information to Plaintiffs, even if on a rolling basis. For instance, a phone number is obviously useful, and likely the best piece of information. Yet it now appears that ORR has had phone numbers for many of the parents (See Brane Declaration, filed herewith). The Court made clear that the deadlines were firm, not aspirational. And, as Plaintiffs understood that meant that the Government was under an obligation to try and reunite even the deported 27 28 11 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 171 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.3052 Page 13 of 20 1 parents by the July 10 and 26 deadlines. Assuming the Government has had phone 2 numbers all this time for some or many deported parents, those phone numbers 3 should have been provided to Plaintiffs and the Government itself should have 4 been reaching out to those parents for purposes of reunification. In short, Plaintiffs 5 understood the Court to allow the Government to miss the deadline for deported 6 parents on the assumption that the Government could not possibly locate these 7 parents before the deadline. As the Court is aware, the children with deported 8 parents are suffering as much, if not more, than the children whose parents 9 remained in the United States. 10 Similarly, the Government only yesterday provided Plaintiffs with addresses 11 for deported parents. Plaintiffs obviously have not had time to ascertain whether 12 the addresses are current or even specific enough (e.g., some are just a street). But 13 these addresses should have been provided to Plaintiffs sooner, especially because 14 the Government informed us late yesterday that these addresses could be culled by 15 a database search. 16 Finally, Plaintiffs note that they are now definitively aware of 12 deported 17 Class members who are in contact with law firms and NGOs, and that those 18 lawyers have already been negotiating on their own with the Government to 19 reunify those 12 families. Plaintiffs have provided those names to the 20 Government. The Government to date has not provided any names to Plaintiffs of 21 deported parents with whom they are in contact, even though the Government 22 presumably knew for some time of (at least) these 12, given that the Government 23 has been working with these individual lawyers on reunification. It is critical that 24 the Government provide these names on a rolling basis. Plaintiffs will at times 25 learn of deported parents from organizations and law firms with which they are 26 working directly. But often there will be individual lawyers and NGOs who reach 27 out to the Government on their own, without alerting Plaintiffs. The Government 28 12 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 171 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.3053 Page 14 of 20 1 of course will know of these parents, and can pass them on to Plaintiffs so we can 2 stop searching for those individuals. 3 In sum, Plaintiffs need as much information as possible, as quickly as 4 possible. And as Plaintiffs have told the Government, we do not need the entire A 5 file, ORR file, or any other file, provided that the useful information is culled from 6 those files. 7 1. Information Needed To Locate Deported Parents 8 In the experience of Plaintiffs and legal services providers, it often takes a 9 degree of detective work and investigation in order to track down the most up-to10 date contact information for deported individuals. In addition, because deported 11 parents may be hiding from persecutors, it is often not easy to track down exactly 12 where they may be located. This means that every possible lead must be pursued. 13 On July 31, the government produced a list of addresses contained in ICE 14 databases that are linked to Class Members. If the government can vouch for these 15 addresses, then the Government can easily send notice to Class Members at these 16 addresses. But on Plaintiffs review, many of the addresses are not helpful. Many 17 of the address entries are plainly non-informative: for example, some addresses 18 are listed as “In DHS Custody,” “failed to provide,” or the addresses for 19 immigration detention centers in the United States. When these non-informative 20 entries are removed, the number of deported parents with no potentially viable 21 addresses is about 120. Some portion of the remaining information appears to be 22 of limited use: for example, some foreign addresses are provided as “calle sin 23 nombre” (street without a name), or they include only a city name (as one example, 24 six addresses connected to of one Honduran child are simply for San Luis Potosi, a 25 city of about 685,000 in Mexico). 26 Moreover, it is Plaintiffs understanding that the government is in possession 27 of phone numbers of many Class Members and that social workers or other 28 13 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 171 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.3054 Page 15 of 20 1 officials in ORR have been in touch with the deported parents. A working and 2 current phone number for Class Members is certainly of more utility than a list of 3 addresses that may or may not be current, accurate, or even complete. 4 In short, Plaintiffs require as much information as the government can 5 provide. A non-exhaustive list of this information is described here: 6 • The parent’s phone number; 7 • Whether the child in ORR custody has been in contact with their deported 8 9 10 11 12 parent; • The phone numbers and addresses of any relatives of the child, whether in or outside the United States; • The address of the parent in the home country (if Defendants have additional addresses that have not been provided); 13 • If the child or parent speaks an indigenous language, what language; 14 • Any information regarding the town, location, or community that the parent 15 16 17 is from; • The name and contact information of the child’s lawyer, so Plaintiffs’ counsel can speak to them to get information about the parent’s location; 18 • Parent’s place of birth; 19 • Parent’s national identification number in country of origin, if any; 20 • Parent’s membership in any community organizations or groups; 21 • Copies of the birth certificates of either parent or child; 22 • G-28s or E-28s for attorneys who have entered appearances for the parent. 23 As the Court has recognized, some or most of this information is likely 24 contained in a parent’s A-file. In addition to the items set forth above, there may be 25 other information in the government’s possession that would provide clues as to 26 where a deported parent is located, such as in ORR files. However, Plaintiffs’ 27 primary interest is not in obtaining A-files or ORR files per se (or any other file), 28 14 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 171 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.3055 Page 16 of 20 1 but in receiving as comprehensive a set of information as possible that would help 2 locate the parents. 3 2. The Government should provide a list of children whose parents they have located and the status of the reunification process. 4 5 Plaintiffs understand that several children in ORR custody and their case 6 workers have already spoken to their deported parents. In some of these cases, both 7 child and parent have requested reunification. The child has, through their lawyer, 8 either requested and been granted voluntary departure or is in the process of doing 9 so. This information is obviously in the government’s possession. In addition to the 10 information set forth in Part A, supra, the government should provide a list of such 11 children. 12 13 14 3. Initial Proposal for Reunification of Deported Parents with Their Children Once a Class member has confirmed that they want reunification with their 15 children and any necessary travel documents are arranged, Defendants should 16 reunify the child with the Class member within seven days. See Dkt 159 at 8-9; 17 July 13 Hearing Transcript, at 7 (The Court: “Once the Government is in receipt of 18 those travel documents [then] reunification could occur within seven days.”). 19 Reunification can be accomplished in two different ways. First, for parents 20 who do not want to return to the United States, and wish to have their child sent 21 back to them in their country of origin, the government can arrange travel 22 documents for the child and transport back to the country of origin. The child 23 should be accompanied by an ORR case worker who knows the child and can 24 facilitate reunification in the country of origin. 25 Second, parents who want to return to the United States should be granted 26 humanitarian parole, so that they can come back and reassume custody over their 27 children. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5); 8 C.F.R. § 212.5. The government should 28 15 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 171 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.3056 Page 17 of 20 1 arrange travel documents for the parents and children, and pay for their return to 2 the United States and back to their country of origin. Given that there are different options, parents and children should also be 3 4 given time to speak to counsel. Plaintiffs understand that the Government may 5 wish the parents to expressly indicate their desired outcome and plaintiffs are 6 prepared to work with the Government on that issue. 7 B. Information Needed To Locate Parents Released to the Interior, But Not Yet Found or Identified 8 9 As with the deported parents, there is no single or simple way to find parents 10 who the government has thus far failed to find or identify. To the extent that the 11 government’s vast resources have not been successful in this regard, Plaintiffs are 12 willing to engage their networks of domestic service providers and advocates who 13 may be able to assist. 14 Plaintiffs therefore request a set of information (similar to that requested for 15 deported parents) in order to locate parents released to the interior, which could 16 include: 17 • The phone number or last known address of a parent; 18 • The phone numbers and addresses of any relatives of the child or parent, 19 20 21 whether in or outside the United States; • The name and contact information of the child’s lawyer, so Plaintiffs’ counsel can speak to them to get information about the parent’s location; 22 • Parent’s place of birth; 23 • Parent’s national identification number in country of origin, if any; 24 • Parent’s membership in any community organizations or groups; 25 • Copies of the birth certificates of either parent or child; 26 • G-28s or E-28s for attorneys who have entered appearances for the parent. 27 28 16 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 171 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.3057 Page 18 of 20 Once the parent has been found, ORR should release the child to the parent 1 2 pursuant to the streamlined procedures ordered by this Court. See Dkt. 101. 3 4 C. More information is necessary to challenge exclusions from the class. The government has not provided all the necessary information it was 5 ordered to provide by the Court regarding class exclusions. In the July 26 JSR, 6 Plaintiffs requested (and the Court ordered) the following information: 7 8 9 10 • The details of all crime-based exclusions, including the specific crime, jurisdiction, and disposition of all charges and convictions. • The details of all other exclusions, including specific reasons why Defendants concluded the adult was not a Class Member 11 12 The government has provided lists of excluded parents, but the information 13 remains too vague and incomplete to allow the parties to meaningfully meet and 14 confer regarding the propriety of exclusions. For example, grounds for exclusions 15 16 include general allegations such as “gang activity” and “Red flag – background 17 check.”7 . 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 The Government supplemented the information on criminal class 26 exclusions less than an hour before this Joint Status Report was due, but it appears 27 that all of the necessary information remains lacking. 28 17 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 171 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.3058 Page 19 of 20 1 DATED: August 2, 2018 Respectfully submitted, 2 /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 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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 18 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 171 Filed 08/02/18 PageID.3059 Page 20 of 20 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 19 18cv428 DMS MDD