Case Document 6 Filed 07/27/18 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M.M.M., on behalf of his minor child, et (11., CIVIL ACTION N0. Plaintiffs, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, 111, Attorney General of the United States, et (11., Defendants. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiffs hereby move this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and Local Rule 65.1 to enter an immediate Temporary Restraining Order against Defendants? policy of removing children from the United States before permitting them the opportunity seek asylum pursuant to their rights under the Immigration and Nationality Act (including 8 U.S.C. 1 158, 1225, or 1229a), the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, and the Mandamus Act (the ?Policy?), pending a full hearing before this Court on, and this Court?s adjudication of, Plaintiffs? Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs further move this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) and Local Rule 65.1, to preliminary enjoin the Policy and order Defendants to provide all non-citizen children who were separated from their parents or guardians upon (or after) entry into the United States with their rights to Case Document 6 Filed 07/27/18 Page 2 of 3 petition for asylum under Section 240 and Section 235 of the INA following reuni?cation with, and in consultation with, their parents or guardians, until such proceedings are terminated. For the reasons more fully set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs? Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiffs are entitled to a temporary restraining order and a reliminary injunction because (1) they can demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims for a permanent injunction against the Policy; for a declaratory judgment that the Policy violates the INA, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution; and-?or for a Writ of Mandamus to compel Defendants to comply with the (2) they will suffer irreparable hann if they are removed from the United States without being provided with their constitutional and statutory right to seek asylum; and (3) issuance of a temporary restraining order ande?or preliminary injunction is in the public interest and the balance of equities favors Plaintiffs, because it protects Plaintiffs? rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and under the INA to pursue asylum based on Plaintiffs? well-founded fear of persecution and life-threatening violence in their country of origin. Plaintiffs request a hearing on their Motion for Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Local Rule For the reasons stated in the accompanying Motion to Request Expedited Hearing on Plaintiffs? Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiffs request a hearing on or before August 9, 2018. Proposed orders and the certi?cate of counsel in accordance with Local Rule 65.1 accompany this Motion. Respectfully submitted, Date: Case Document 6 Filed 07/27/18 Page 3 of 3 July 27, 2018 Justin 29% Bemick (DC Bar No. 988245) Clark Weymouth *Zachary W. Best HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5600 Facsimile: (202) 637-5910 t.weymouth@hoganlovells.com zacharybest@hoganlovells.com *Oliver J. Armas *Ira M. Feinberg HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 918-3020 Facsimile: (212) 918-5310 oliver.a1rnas@ho ganlovellscom ira.feinberg@hoganlovells.com *Katherine A. Nelson HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1601 Wewatta Street, Suite 900 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 454-2539 Facsimile: (303) 899-7333 admission pro hac vice to be sought Attorneyfor Plaintgf?s Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 1 of 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M.M.M., ON BEHALF OF HIS MINOR CHILD, J.M.A., ET AL. Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. Defendants. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 2 of 37 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2 ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................. 9 I. PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS BECAUSE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WRONGLY DEPRIVED THEM OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK ASYLUM IN THE UNITED STATES .................. 10 A. Defendants’ Policy of Denying Plaintiffs the Right to Pursue Asylum is Unlawful Under the INA....................................................................... 10 B. Plaintiffs’ Removal from the United States Without Allowing Them to Petition for Asylum Violates their Fifth Amendment Rights....... ....... 11 C. Plaintiffs’ Removal from the United States Without Allowing Them to Petition for Asylum Violates the APA. ................................................ 14 D. i. The U.S. government has denied Plaintiffs the right to pursue their asylum claims under the INA. .............................................. 14 ii. The U.S. government denied Plaintiffs the right to a credible fear determination for their entire family under the INA. ............ 16 iii. The other requirements of the APA are met. ................................ 17 a. The U.S. Government’s Policy of Refusing to Give Plaintiffs a Credible Fear Interview Constitutes a Final Agency Action. ................................................................. 18 b. Plaintiffs Have No Adequate Remedy.............................. 19 c. The U.S. Government’s Failure to Permit Plaintiffs to Seek Asylum is Reviewable.............................................. 20 Plaintiffs Will Likely Prevail on Their Mandamus Claim to Compel the U.S. Government to Allow Them to Seek Asylum. ........................... 20 II. PLAINTIFFS WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM IF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS NOT GRANTED. .............................................................................. 23 III. THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE BALANCE OF EQUITIES FAVOR GRANTING THE TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. ........................ 26 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 27 i Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 3 of 37 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES: Al?Fayeal v. Central Intelligence Agency, 254 F.3d 300 (DC. Cir. 2001) 10 Ali v. Ashcroft, 213 F.R.D. 390 (W.D. Wash. 2003) 25 Am. Hosp. Ass ?n v. Burwell, 812 F.3d 183 (DC. Cir. 2016) 21 Aracely, R. v. Nielsen, Civ. A. No. 17-1976 (RC), 2018 WL 3243977 (D.D.C. July 3, 2018) 15, 18 Ass ?n of Cmty. Orgs. For Reform Now (ACORN) v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency (FEMA), 463 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2006) 26 Bennett v. Spear, 520 US. 154 (1997) 18 Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 US 879 (1988) 19 Chhoeun v. Marin, 306 F. Supp. 3d 1147 (CD. Cal. 2018) 24 Damus v. Nielsen, Civ. A. No. 18-578-JEB, 2018 WL 3232515 (D.D.C. July 2, 2018) 23 Davis v. District of Columbia ., 158 F.3d 1342 (DC. Cir. 1998) 23 Davis v. Pension Bene?t Guaranty Corp, 571 F.3d 1288 (DC. Cir. 2009) 10 El Rio Santa Cruz Neighborhood Health Ctr. v. US. Dep 't of Health Human Servs., 396 F.3d 1265 (DC. Cir. 2005) 19 Gutierrez-Rogue v. Immigration Naturalization Serv._. 954 F.2d 769 (DC. Cir. 1992) 13 ii Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 4 of 37 Iddir v. Immigration Naturalization Serv., 301 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2002) 22 Innovation Law Lab v. Nielsen, No. 2018 WL 3114530 (D. 01'. June 25, 2018) 25, 26 Kirwa v. US. Dep ?t of Def, 285 F. Supp. 3d 21, 43?44 (D.D.C. 2017) 24 Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2011) 25 Lofton v. District of Columbia, 7 F. Supp. 3d 117 (D.D.C. 2013) 10 Lajan v. Nat '1 Wildlife Fed 97 US. 871 (1990) 18 Maldonado-Perez v. Immigration Naturalization Serv., 865 F.2d 328 (DC. Cir. 1989) 13 Mills v. D. C., 571 F.3d 1304 (DC. Cir. 2009) 23 Nken v. Holder, 556 US. 418 (2009) 25 P.K. v. illerson, 302 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2017) 20 v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164 (D.D.C. 2015) 27 Ramirez v. US. Immigration Customs Enf?t, Civ. A. No. 18-508 (RC), 2018 WL 1882861 (D.D.C. Apr. 18,2018) 15, 18, 20 Reid v. Hood, N0. 1:10 CV2842, 2011 WL 251437 (ND. Ohio Jan. 26, 2011) 27 Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) 24 Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 US. 206 (1953) 11 Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388 (DC. Cir. 2011) 10 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 5 of 37 United States ex rel. Knauffv. Shaaghnessy, 338 US. 537 (1950) 2, 11 United States v. Raya- Vaca, 771 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2014) 12 United States v. Wilbur, 283 21,22 Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 US. 390 (1981) 25, 27 Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 1998) 24, 25 Winter v. Natural Res. Def Counsel, 555 US. 7 (2008) 10 Xie v. Kerry, 780 F.3d 405 (DC. Cir. 2015) 20 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 US. 678 (2001) 11, 12 STATUTES: 18 5 U.S.C. 701(a) 17 5 U.S.C. 704 17 5 U.S.C. 14 6 U.S.C. ?279(g) 3, 16 8 U.S.C. 1101 1 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(3)(A), (C) 3, 16 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1) assim 8 U.S.C. 1229a 3,14 8 U.S.C. 19, 22 28 U.S.C. 1361 20, 21 iv Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 6 of 37 FEDERAL REGULATIONS: 8 C.F.R. 208.30 3, 14, 16 8 C.F.R. 235.3(b) 3,19, 21, 22 RULES: Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 9 OTHER AUTHORITIES: Exec. Order No. 13,841, 83 Fed. Reg. 29,435 (June 20, 2018); A?ording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation 1, 2018 WL 3046068 6 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 7 of 37 Plaintiffs submit this Memorandum of Law in support of their Application for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction barring Defendants from deporting them ?'om the United States without being afforded the procedures to which they are entitled under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101, et seq. and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. INTRODUCTION When the U.S. government began separating migrant families under its ?zero tolerance? policy, it departed from the statutory procedures set forth in the INA that permit migrants to seek asylum. This policy created a situation in which thousands of children were denied the opportunity to seek asylum, even when they expressed a fear of returning to their home country, or their parents would have done so on their behalf. Notwithstanding that these children have been denied this right to seek asylum which is guaranteed both by statute and by the Constitution the U.S. government now seeks to deport these children as quickly as possible. Plaintiffs are part of a large group of migrant children who were separated from their parents at the borderdeported without the opportunity to seek asylum. These children were initially placed into proceedings under INA Section 240 through which they should have been able to seek asylum, but have since been removed from these proceedings. Forced to reunify families through court order in a different case, the U.S. government now seeks to deport entire families without affording the children with any right to seek asylum under the statutory process to which they are entitled, under either Section 240 or through a ?credible fear?interview under section 235. Their experiences illustrate the harmful consequences of the U.S. government?s family separation policy. Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 8 of 37 Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. As discussed below, the INA and the Constitution entitle Plaintiffs the opportunity to seek asylum through full removal proceedings, which the US. government initiated and should continue, with the bene?t of their parents? presence. At the very least, the INA entitles Plaintiffs to an interview in which they can articulate whether they have a credible fear of returning to their home country. If there is a positive ?nding of credible fear, the US. government must allow them to pursue asylum in immigration court and may not deport them or their parents until their asylum application has been adjudicated and any appeals exhausted. The Constitution requires that Plaintiffs be granted these statutory rights. All persons present in the United States are entitled to due process under the Fifth Amendment, even if they are non-citizens and are here without any lawful status. Due process requires that Plaintiffs receive all procedural protections conferred by Congress to non-citizens. United States ex rel. Knau? v. Shaughnessy, 338 US. 537, 544 (1950). Denying migrants procedural protections afforded by statute or regulation therefore violates the Fifth Amendment. See id. If the US. government deports Plaintiffs without affording them the right to seek asylum, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm because they will be prevented from seeking asylum from the violence and persecution they have traveled so far to escape. BACKGROUND The INA sets forth specific procedures for migrants who have not been admitted to the United States. Any non-citizens who enter or attempt to enter the United States without having been admitted, and who cannot show that they were physically present in the United States for the previous two years, may be subject to expedited removal proceedings under Section 235 of Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 9 of 37 the INA. 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(l)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. In particular, under Section 235, ifa migrant expresses fear of persecution or a desire to apply for asylum during the migrant?s inspection by an immigration of?cer, the of?cer must refer the migrant to an asylum of?cer for an interview. See 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(l)(A). If the asylum of?cer then determines that the migrant has a ?credible fear? of persecution, the migrant ?shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum? pursuant to full removal proceedings under Section 240, including a hearing before an immigration judge. Id. at 1225(b)(l)(B); see also 8 C.F.R. 8 U.S.C. 1229a. In preparing for a ?credible fear? interview with an asylum of?cer, the migrant is entitled to consult with persons of the migrant?s choosing. See 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(l)(B)(iv). If the migrant demonstrates a ?credible fear? of persecution, then the migrant?s spouse or children who arrived with the migrant can be included in that determination and are entitled access to full removal proceedings under Section 240. See 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. A spouse or child may also have his or her credible fear determination made separately, if he or she desires. 8 C.F.R. Unaccompanied child migrants are not subject to the same expedited removal proceedings under Section 235. Instead, they are afforded direct access to an asylum of?cer and full removal proceedings under Section 240. 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(3)(C). Once in Section 240 proceedings administered by an immigration judge, a migrant is entitled to be represented by counsel and to seek relief from removal through an asylum application. 8 U.S.C. 12293(b)(4), 1229a(c)(4). An unaccompanied child migrant is de?ned as a person who, among other things, is under age 18 and ?with respect to whom there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States.? 6 U.S.C. 279(g). Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 10 of 37 Numerous migrants, like Plaintiffs, seek asylum in the United States because they fear persecution in their countries of origin, including threats of physical violence or even death. See, e. Ex. 1 (Declaration of L.A.A.) at 1] 2 (fear of sexual assault and death); Ex. 2 (Declaration of I.A.T.) at 111] 2, 7 (fear of extortion and gang violence); Ex. 3 (Declaration of G.M.A.) at 1] 2 (threat of religious persecution); Ex. 4 (Declaration of D.B.G.) at 1[1[ 2, 14 (fear of emotional abuse and death); Ex. 5 (Declaration of M.M.M.) at 1] 2 (fear of abuse and gang violence); Ex. 6 (Declaration of .J .M.A.) at 11 10 (fear of gang violence). Earlier this year the US. government implemented a ?zero tolerance? policy whereby all adult non-citizens entering the United States illegally would be subject to criminal prosecution, and if accompanied by a minor child, the child would be separated from the parent, even if the migrants intended to seek asylum in the United States.l The US. government even separated families who presented themselves law?illy at a port of entry seeking asylum.2 In so doing, the US. government separated families who had arrived seeking asylum together, sending thousands of parents and children to separate detention facilities, sometimes hundreds of miles apart. See, Ex. 1 at 11] 7-8; Ex. 2 at 111] 3-4; Ex. 3 at 1111 6-12; Ex. 4 at 111] 3-11; Ex. 5 at 1111 6-7; Ex. 6 at 11114-7. Arriving families often had no notice that they would be forcibly separated, or for how long, causing immense fear, anxiety, and emotional harm to parents and children alike. Id. 1 See US. Att?y Gen. Jeff Sessions, Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration Enforcement Actions of the rump Administration (May 7, 2018), 2 See Order Granting Pls.? Mot. for Classwide Prelim. Inj. at 3, Ms. L. v. US. Immigration and Customs Enf?t, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018), ECF No. 83 [hereinafter ?Ms. Order?]. 4 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 11 of 37 In the chaos of these family separations, the US. government departed from statutory and regulatory procedures intended to ensure that all arriving non-citizens have an opportunity to express a fear of persecution and seek asylum. Parents were put into expedited removal proceedings under Section 235 of the INA. See Ex. 7 (Declaration of M. Govindaiah) at 1111 8-9; Ex. 8 (Declaration of Shalyn Fluharty) at 11 5. However, many parents who were permitted credible fear interviews received a negative determination: They could not articulate their grounds for asylum because they were so distressed and distracted with frantic concern about the safety and whereabouts of their children, and did not have their children present to provide further support for their claims. Ex. 7 at 1111 8-9; Ex. 8 at 11 5?6. Prevented from effectively presenting their asylum claims, these parents received negative credible fear determinations, and expedited orders of removal. Ex. 7 at 1111 8-9; Ex. 8 at 11 5-6. Separately, the US. government classi?ed the children as unaccompanied minors and issued them Notices to Appear in immigration court for removal proceedings under Section 240These removal proceedings would have afforded the children the right to petition an immigration court for asylum, and would have entitled them to be represented by counsel. In February 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the practice of family separation in a class action before Judge Dana Sabraw of the Southern District of California in Ms. L. v. US. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal.). After intense media scrutiny and public pressure, on June 20? 2018, the President reversed course and signed an Executive Order to ?maintain family unity? by keeping migrant families together during criminal and immigration proceedings to the extent permitted by law, while maintaining ?rigorous[] enforce[ment] of immigration laws.? But the Executive Order did not address Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 12 of 37 reuni?cation of approximately 2,000 children already separated from their parents.3 Six days later, Judge Sabraw granted the plaintiffs? motion for a preliminary injunction. See Ms. Order. In his order, Judge Sabraw mandated the US. government to stop detaining migrant parents apart from their minor children absent a ?nding that the parent is un?t or presents a danger to the child, unless the parent af?rmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be reunited with the child. Id. at 22?23. Judge Sabraw also ordered the US. government to reunify all class members with their children under age ?ve by July 10, and children older than ?ve by July 26, 2018. Id. at 23. The US. government has since struggled to reunify parents and children in accordance with the Court?s timetable. But the US government has also communicated its intent to deport the reuni?ed families as quickly as possible. On June 23, the Department of Homeland Security released a Fact Sheet entitled ?Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reuni?cation,? which laid out the agency?s plans for family reuni?cation. By its own terms, the Administration?s process is designed ?to ensure that those adults who are subject to removal are reunited with their children for the purposes of removal.?4 The next day, on June 24, 2018, a DHS of?cial told Correspondent Jacob Soboroff that parents separated from their children ?were quickly given the option to Sign paperwork leading to deportation. Many chose to do so.?5 3 Exec. Order No. 13,841, 83 Fed. Reg. 29,435 (June 20, 2018); A?ording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation 1, 2018 WL 3046068. 4 Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification, Dep?t of Homeland Security (June 23, 2018), (emphasis added). 5 Jacob Soboroff (@jacobsoboroff), Twitter (June 24, 2018, 5:29 AM), 6 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 13 of 37 On or about July 2, 2018, ICE began providing parents subject to ?nal orders of removal with a ?Separated Parent?s Removal Form? that offered them two choices: (1) reuni?cation with their minor children ?for the purpose of repatriation to? the parent?s home country, or (2) repatriation without reuni?cation, leaving their children behindThe ?rst option puts the parents in the position of purportedly waiving their children?s independent asylum and other statutory protection rights, and would purport to agree to their children?s repatriation without any opportunity for them to pursue asylum or other immigration relief on their ownThe second option is simply unthinkable to many parents, and would also deprive the child of the assistance that the parent can offer the child in the asylum process. Id. The form says nothing about any other option that the parent and child are lawfully entitled to the option for parent and child to be reunited and for the parent to remain to assist the child in the asylum processresult, because the only opportunity for family reuni?cation afforded by the Separated Parents Removal Form requires parents to consent to removal, the US. government?s form coerces parents into waiving their own rights, and those of their children, to pursue asylum. The waivers the US. government obtained were not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary. Many parents were told that they needed to sign the Separated Parents Removal Form in order to be reunited with their children, but were not told of the consequences8,9. Moreover, in some cases, the form was provided in English when most migrant parents 6 Angelina Chapin, ICE Officials Are Pressuring Separated Parents 0 Sign Deportation Forms, Huf?ngtonpostcom (July 4, 2018), 7 Some forms also provided a third option of being able to speak to a lawyer, but many parents elected to be deported with their children because they were so desperate to be reunited and believed it as the only way to be reunited, or at least the quickest wayCase Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 14 of 37 speak only Spanish or indigenous languages. Defendants have been using similarly coercive tactics to pressure parents with pending asylum claims to waive their rights and consent to removal for themselves and their children in exchange for reuni?cation.8 Several parents have been told by US. immigration of?cials that they will be reunited with their children faster if they agree to withdraw their asylum applications and accept deportation.9 Presumably on the basis of these ?waivers,? the US. government revoked the separated children?s NTAs, or never ?led them with immigration court1111 2, 9. In so doing, the US. government effectively terminated the children?s removal proceedings under Section 240, and the access to asylum procedures that Section 240 provides. The separated minors were therefore denied the opportunity to petition for asylum through Section 240 proceedings before being reuni?ed with their parents. Many of the parents now have expedited removal orders under Section 235. But the US. government is not permitting separated children to have their own credible fear determinations under Section 235 either. In so doing, the US. government has impermissibly blocked the children from seeking asylum relief under either Section 240 or Section 235. Despite this omission, the US. government has not denied that it intends to carry out mass deportations imminently upon reuni?cation. See Pls.? Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Stay of 8 See ICE O?icials Are Pressuring Separated Parents 0 Sign Deportation Forms, 9 See Dara Lind, rump will reunited separated families but only if they agree to deportation, V0x.com (June 25, 2018), reunite-plan-trump; Molly Hennessy?Fiske, ?If you want to see your kids, agree to leave detained parents told, The Sydney Morning Herald (June 26, 2018), 8 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 15 of 37 Removal at 1, Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration Customs Enf't, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. July 25, 2018), ECF No. 154. In particular, Plaintiffs understand that, despite the fact that they have been denied a credible fear interview, they will be deported with their parents among hundreds of other children in similar circumstances. See, Ex. 1 at 1111 13-16; Ex. 2 at 111] 10-13; Ex. 3 at 17-20; Ex. 4 at 11?? 15-19; Ex. 5 at 12-14; Ex. 6 111114, 17;Ex. 7 at at 10-11. Indeed, Plaintiffs have requested credible fear interviews and have received no response from the U.S. government. Id. On July 16, 2018 the ACLU moved before Judge Sabraw to prohibit removal of families until seven days after reuni?cation, so that parents have time to evaluate the best options for their children. See Pls.? Mot. for Stay of Removal and Emergency TRO Pending Ruling on the Stay Mot. at 1, Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration Customs Enf?t, No. 18-00428 (S.D. Cal. July 16, 2018), ECF No. 110. That same day, Judge Sabraw granted a temporary stay of deportations only until he resolves the motion. See Order Granting Pls.? Mot. for Emergency TRO Pending Ruling on Mot. to Stay and Amending July 13, 2018 Order Following Status Conference, Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration Customs Enf?t, No. 18-00428 (SD. Cal. July 16, 2018), ECF No. 116. The U.S. government ?led their opposition to the Motion for Stay on July 24, 2018, and the ACLU ?led its reply on July 25, 2018. See id., ECF Nos. 148, 153. Judge Sabraw has scheduled a hearing on the motion to stay today, July 27, 2018. If the stay of removal is lifted, families that have been reuni?ed could be removed from the United States imminently. ARGUMENT Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a plaintiff to seek a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. plaintiff seeking a Case Document 6?1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 16 of 37 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.? Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Counsel, 555 US. 7, 20 (2008). The standards for issuing a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are the same. Lo?on v. District ofColambia, 7 F. Supp. 3d 117, 120 (D.D.C. 2013); see also Al?Fayed v. Central Intelligence Agency, 254 F.3d 300, 303 n.2 (DC. Cir. 2001). The Court may weigh these factors on a ?sliding scale,? where the movant must show that the four factors, taken together, weigh in favor of the injunction. Davis v. Pension Bene?t Guaranty Corp, 571 F.3d 1288, 1291?92 (DC. Cir. 2009). ?If the movant makes an unusually strong showing on one of the factors, then it does not necessarily have to make as strong a showing on another factor.? Id; see also Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 .3d 388, 392?93 (DC. Cir. 2011) (acknowledging circuit split regarding sliding-scale analysis but not overruling the practice). I. PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS BECAUSE THE US. GOVERNMENT WRONGLY DEPRIVED THEM OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK ASYLUM IN THE UNITED STATES This Court should grant Plaintiffs? request for a TRO and preliminary injunction because they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the INA, the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, the Administrative Procedures Act and the Mandamus Act. A. Defendants? Policy of Denying Plaintiffs the Right to Pursue Asylum is Unlawful Under the INA. The INA speci?cally contemplates judicial review of orders of removal by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, including challenges to the ?validity of the system? as a whole where a Government policy violates the law. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(e)(3). 10 Case Document 6?1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 17 of 37 Here, the Government?s policy of denying Plaintiffs their rights to pursue asylum in the United States is inconsistent with Section 240 ands?or Section 235 of the INA and is otherwise in violation of the law. That policy is re?ected in written statements and directives discussed above and set forth in Plaintiffs? complaint, including but not limited to the DHS Fact Sheet, which states that the reuni?cation process is designed ?to ensure that those adults who are subject to removal are reunited with their children for the purposes of removal.?10 Pursuant to Defendant?s unlawful policy, Plaintiffs? requests for credible fear interviews have been unlawfully denied and Plaintiffs face an imminent threat of deportation without access to asylum proceedings. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that Defendant?s policy violates the INA and therefore should be permanently enjoined. B. Plaintiffs? Removal from the United States Without Allowing Them to Petition for Asylum Violates their Fifth Amendment Rights. Plaintiffs seek only to receive the opportunity to seek asylum to which they are entitled under the INA. The US. government?s plans to remove Plaintiffs without the opportunity to seek asylum violates the procedural and substantive due process rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs and hundreds of others who are similarly situated. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to ?all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.? Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 US. 678, 679 (2001). Thus, non-citizens who have entered the United States, even illegally, may legally be removed from the United States only ?after ?0 Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reuni?cation, Dep?t of Homeland Security (June 23, 2018), 11 Case Document 6?1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 18 of 37 proceedings conforming to . . . due process of law.? Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953). This requirement applies with equal force to individuals subject to expedited removal proceedings. United States v. Raya-Vaca, 771 F.3d 1195, 1202?03 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693). ?Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned.? Knauff, 338 U.S. at 544. The INA unequivocally provides migrants with the opportunity to seek asylum. When migrants are in full removal proceedings under Section 240, they are entitled to apply for relief for removal, including through seeking asylum, before the immigration judge. 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(4); 1229a(c)(4). The U.S. government separated Plaintiffs and others like them from their families, re-labeled them contrary to law as ?unaccompanied minors,? and placed them into removal proceedings under Section 240. These proceedings, if permitted to proceed, would have provided Plaintiffs with the right to petition for asylum or other legal status in the United States before an immigration judge. However, the U.S. government has since reversed course and removed them from these proceedings by revoking or failing to ?le their NTAs. After reuni?cation, Plaintiffs are now set to be deported pursuant to their parents? expedited orders of removal. The U.S. government has therefore denied Plaintiffs their right to pursue asylum before an immigration judge under Section 240. In addition, the U.S. govemment denied Plaintiffs the right to a credible fear interview in Section 235 proceedings. Migrants subject to expedited removal proceedings under Section 235 of the INA are entitled to have a credible fear interview before an asylum of?cer if they express fear of persecution or seek to apply for asylum. 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A). If migrants receive a positive credible fear determination, then they are entitled to pursue asylum in full proceedings 12 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 19 of 37 before an immigration judge. Id. at 1225(b)(1)(B). Therefore, since the INA permits migrants to seek asylum, a migrant has a Fifth Amendment procedural due process right to petition the US. government for asylum, and a statutory procedural due process right to a meaningful or fair evidentiary hearing. Gutierrez-Rogue v. Immigration Naturalization Serv., 954 F.2d 769, 772?73 (DC. Cir. 1992) (citing Maldonado-Perez v. Immigration Naturalization Serv., 865 F.2d 328, 332?33 (DC. Cir. 1989)). The US. govemment?s plan to remove Plaintiffs immediately upon reuni?cation violates their due process rights under Section 235 of the INA. The US. government has failed to provide Plaintiffs with credible fear interviews, to which they are entitled under Section 235 of the INA, after expressing fear of persecution or a desire to seek asylum. Plaintiffs? parents cannot waive these rights on Plaintiffs? behalf Plaintiffs? parents may have signed the removal form, but many parents did so under a belief that signing the paper would be the only way to see their children again. Many parents could not read or understand the form, much less understand the legal implications of signing it. The waivers were not knowing or voluntary and cannot bar Plaintiffs? due process claims. The US. government has effectively prevented Plaintiffs from any avenue to present their case for asylum, contrary to their rights under Sections 235 and 240 of the INA and due process rights under the Constitution. Mezei and the cases that follow it are unanimous that no one on American soil, even an individual in the country unlawfully, can be deported lawfully without an opportunity to petition the US. government for asylum. The US. government?s actions here do just that. 13 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 20 of 37 C. Plaintiffs? Removal from the United States Without Allowing Them to Petition for Asylum Violates the APA. The APA requires that courts ?hold unlawful and set aside any agency action . . . found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.? 5 U.S.C. As set forth below, the U.S. government?s anticipated issuance of expedited removal orders without affording Plaintiffs the opportunity to pursue asylum violates the INA. Therefore Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under the APA. i. The U.S. government has denied Plaintiffs the right to pursue their asylum claims under the INA. Pursuant to Section 240 of the INA, a person in removal proceedings may pursue his or her claims for asylum before an immigration judge. 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4). Under Section 235 of the INA, a person who requests asylum by expressing a fear of persecution in his or her home country has the right to be interviewed by an asylum of?cer to determine whether that individual has a credible fear to returning to their home country. See 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii) (stating that if an individual expresses fear of persecution or an intention to seek asylum, the immigration of?cer ?shall? refer them for an interview with an asylum of?cer). If the individual demonstrates a credible fear of persecution in his or her country meaning there is a ?signi?cant possibility? that the individual is eligible for asylum during an interview with an asylum of?cer, he or she is entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge to adjudicate the asylum claim. See id. 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) (stating that if there is a credible fear of persecution in the home country, the individual ?shall be detained for further consideration? of his or her asylum application) (emphasis added); see also 8 C.F.R. 14 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 21 of 37 Despite this clear and controlling law, the US. government has denied Plaintiffs the opportunity to seek asylum. Plaintiffs are non-citizens who have expressed a fear of persecution in their home country or an intention to seek asylum in the United States. When they were separated from their parents and initially placed into Section 240 proceedings, they were entitled to pursue their asylum claims in front of an immigration judge. The US. government?s termination of those Section 240 proceedings violates Plaintiffs? rights to pursue asylum and is therefore contrary to law under the APA. Now that the US. government has improperly revoked Plaintiffs? Section 240 status, Plaintiffs also have, at a minimum, an independent right under Section 235 of the INA to be interviewed by an asylum of?cer to determine whether they have a credible fear of returning to their home country, and if they do, to remain in the United States until their asylum application is processed. The US. government cannot deport Plaintiffs from the United States without affording them this right. However, Plaintiffs understand that the US. government intends to begin mass deportations of families shortly after reuni?cation, without providing Plaintiffs with an opportunity to seek asylum. Indeed, Plaintiffs have requested and been denied such interviews. The US. govemment?s policy to deny Plaintiffs their right to pursue asylum under Section 235 also is ?not in accordance with? the INA and therefore violates the law under the APA. See Aracely, R. v. Nielsen, F.Supp.3d_, Civ. A. No. 17-1976 (RC), 2018 WL 3243977, at *25 (D.D.C. July 3, 2018) (?nding likelihood of success on merits of APA claim where plaintiffs showed that ICE failed to consider agency guidance when adjudicating parole request); Ramirez v. US. Immigration Customs Enf?t, F.Supp.3d__, Civ. A. No. 18-508 (RC), 2018 WL 1882861, at *16?17 (D.D.C. Apr. 18, 2018) (?nding likelihood of success on 15 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 22 of 37 merits of APA claim where plaintiffs showed that ICE did not comply with INA requirements when placing them in adult detention centers). ii. The U.S. government denied Plaintiffs the right to a credible fear determination for their entire family under the INA. If any member of a migrant family detained at the border demonstrates a ?credible fear? of persecution, then the entire family is included in that determination and permitted ?ill removal proceedings under Section 240. See 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. Moreover, in preparing for a ?credible fear? interview with an asylum of?cer, the migrant may consult with persons of the migrant?s choosing, including the migrant?s family and attorneys. See 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(iv). The U.S. government?s ?zero tolerance? policy separated children from their parents and treated such children as unaccompanied minors, even though they were accompanied by a parent into the United States and therefore should not have been considered unaccompanied as a matter of law. See 6 U.S.C. 279(g). After children and parents were separated, parents were coerced into signing waivers that purportedly gave up their rights and those of their separated children to seek asylum under the INA in exchange for reuni?cation with their children. The court in Ms. has already found that the plaintiffs in that case had a likelihood of success on their claim that the U.S. government?s separation of parents from their children is unconstitutional. See Ms. Order at 17, 22. The U.S. government?s actions violated Plaintiffs? rights under the INA. As a threshold matter, by denying parents consultation with the rest of their family prior to credible fear interviews, the U.S. government has denied Plaintiffs the bene?t of a full and fair credible fear determination under the INA. Plaintiffs should have had the bene?t of their parents? credible 16 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 23 of 37 fear determination, and that determination should have been made with the bene?t of Plaintiffs? consultation with their parents, free from the coercive pressure and anguish associated with separation. The US. government?s removal of Plaintiffs prior to affording these rights violates the INA and therefore is contrary to law under the APA. Moreover, the INA provides children with the bene?t of a favorable credible fear determination made with respect to their parents, but also gives them the right to an independent credible fear determination. The INA does not permit children to be removed without an independent credible fear determination simply because their parents have been given an unfavorable credible fear determination (or purportedly waived a credible fear interview altogether under duress). Put differently, the INA creates a one-way ratchet that bene?ts children if their parents demonstrate a credible fear. The US. government?s policy has, contrary to law, imposed a converse one-way ratchet that harms children if their parents do not receive a credible fear ?nding, or if their parents signed a waiver electing reuni?cation. The US. government had placed Plaintiffs in Section 240 removal proceedings, which entitled them to a hearing on their asylum claims irrespective of their parents? credible fear determinations. The US. government cannot now reverse course and deprive Plaintiffs of that right under either Section 235 or Section 240 simply because of their parents? conduct. Plaintiffs are entitled to an independent credible fear interview under the INA and cannot be removed simply because of their parents? unfavorable credible fear determination or their parent?s coerced waiver of the right to such a determination. The other requirements of the APA are met. 17 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 24 of 37 Under the APA, a court may set aside and enjoin unlawful agency action that is: 1) a ??nal agency action,? and (2) ?for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court,? so long as (3) there are no ?statutes [that] preclude judicial review? or ?agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.? 5 U.S.C. 701(a), 704. None of these criteria prevents this Court from enjoining the U.S. government from deporting Plaintiffs without ?rst being accorded credible fear determinations. a. The U.S. Government?s Policy of Refusing to Give Plaintiffs a Credible Fear Interview Constitutes a Final Agency Action. An agency action is ??nal? when it meets two requirements: (1) it is the ?consummation of the agency?s decision-making processwhich ?rights or obligations have been determined,? or from which ?legal consequences will Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177?78 (1997) (internal citations omitted). Failure to act may also be considered an ?action? under the APA. See 5 U.S.C. 551(13). Further, ?an agency action is reviewable ?to the extent that, speci?c, ??nal agency action? has an actual or immediately threatened effect.? Aracely, R., 2018 WL 3243977, at *16 (quoting Lzy'an v. Nat ?1 Wildlife Fed 497 U.S. 871, 894 (1990)). ?Even discrete agency actions are reviewable by a court under the APA only if they are ?nal.? Ramirez, 2018 WL 1882861, at *9 (?nding failure to follow statutory requirements when detaining plaintiffs to be a ?nal action reviewable under the APA). Here, the U.S. government?s failure to afford Plaintiffs an opportunity to seek asylum is a ??nal? act reviewable under the APA. It is the culmination of the U.S. govemment?s decision- making process with respect to whether Plaintiffs may remain in the United States to seek asylum. The U.S. government consummated its decision-making process with respect to Plaintiffs when it (1) presented their parents with the waiver that permitted reuni?cation only 18 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 25 of 37 upon deportation, thus depriving the children of the ability to seek asylum; (2) revoked or failed to ?le Plaintiffs? NTAs, thus removing them from Section 240 proceedings, and (3) transferred reuni?ed families to detention centers for the purpose of swift deportation. The US. government?s denial of an opportunity to seek asylum is also an action that will result in immediate and serious consequences: If not set aside, Plaintiffs? deportation is imminent. b. Plaintiffs Have No Adequate Remedy. The no ?other adequate remedy? limitation on the APA should be reviewed narrowly and ?should not be construed to defeat the central purpose of providing a broad spectrum of judicial review of agency action.? Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 US. 879, 903 (1988); see also El Rio Santa Cruz Neighborhood Health Ctr. v. US. Dep ?t of Health Human Servs., 396 F.3d 1265, 1270 (DC. Cir. 2005) (?The Supreme Court has long instructed that the generous review provisions of the APA must be given a hospitable interpretation such that only upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence of a contrary legislative intent should the courts restrict access to judicial review?) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Here, there is no other remedy available to Plaintiffs. They have no avenue through the immigration system to appeal the US. government?s decision to remove them from Section 240 proceedings or deny them a credible fear determination. They also have no way to appeal an expedited order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. (depriving any court of jurisdiction to review expedited orders of removal). Nor is an expedited order of removal appealable through an administrative process. 8 C.F.R. (aliens subject to expedited orders of removal are not entitled to hearings and appeals before an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals). Instead, the only remedy that will correct the US. 19 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 26 of 37 government?s statutory and constitutional violations is to require that the U.S. government provide them with the procedures to seek asylum to which they are legally entitled. c. The U.S. Government?s Failure to Permit Plaintiffs to Seek Asylum is Reviewable. No statute prohibits judicial review of Plaintiffs? claims. This is especially true because Plaintiffs are not disputing the outcome of any speci?c determination by the U.S. government, but rather challenging the U.S. government?s unlawful policy of denying Plaintiffs the opportunity to seek asylum. Indeed, this Court permitted a similar challenge to the INA in Ramirez on the grounds that seeking to compel the agency to take ?discrete and concrete action of considering statutorily speci?ed factors? was permissible. 2018 WL 1882861, at See also Xie v. Kerry, 780 F.3d 405 (DC. Cir. 2015) (?nding a challenge to delaying review of visa applications actionable under the APA). Because the U.S. government?s decision to deport Plaintiffs without affording them an opportunity to seek asylum (either individually or with their entire family) is a ?nal agency action that is not in accordance with the law, and one for which there is no adequate alternative remedy, Plaintiffs have a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their APA claim. D. Plaintiffs Will Likely Prevail on Their Mandamus Claim to Compel the U.S. Government to Allow Them to Seek Asylum. Plaintiffs also have a likelihood of success on the merits on their mandamus claim. Plaintiffs seek a writ of mandamus to compel the U.S. government to afford them with the opportunity to seek asylum. Mandamus relief is an appropriate remedy to compel an 20 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 27 of 37 administrative agency to act when, as here, it has failed to perform a non-discretionary, ministerial duty. See P.K. v. Tillerson, 302 F. Supp. 3d 1, 8?9 (D.D.C. 2017) (ordering the Department of State to reserve visa numbers for plaintiff?s visa application). Section 1361 of Title 28 of the US. Code provides: ?The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an of?cer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.? 28 U.S.C. 1361. Mandamus relief is proper when a plaintiff demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief, (2) that the government agency or of?cial is violating a clear duty to act, and (3) that no adequate alternative remedy exists.? Am. Hosp. Ass ?11 v. Burwell, 812 F.3d 183, 189 (DC. Cir. 2016). Each of these elements is met here. First, Plaintiffs have a clear right to the relief they seek. When they were placed into Section 240 proceedings, Plaintiffs were entitled to adjudicate their asylum claims in front of an immigration judge. And as described above, Congress, through Section 235 of the INA, has determined that all non-citizens who request asylum or express a fear of returning to their home country must be provided certain procedural rights, including the right to a determination on whether their fear of return to the home country is credible. 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii). At a minimum, Section 235 clearly applies to Plaintiffs because they are migrants who entered the United States without having been admitted, who could not show that they were physically present in the United States for the previous two years, and who have expressed a fear of returning to their home country. 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. Second, the INA gives the US. government a clearly de?ned duty to provide Plaintiffs the relief they seek. A writ of mandamus ?will issue only where the duty to be performed is 21 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 28 of 37 ministerial and the obligation to act peremptory and plainly de?ned. The law must not only authorize the demanded action, but require it; the duty must be clear and indisputable.? United States v. Wilbur, 283 US. 414, 420 (1931). The law that Plaintiffs seek to enforce an opportunity to pursue their asylum claims under Section 240 or at least engage in the credible fear determination process under Section 235 of the INA is clear and non-discretionary. The word ?shall? in Section 235 establishes a non-discretionary duty to provide all non-citizens who express either a fear of persecution in their home country or an intention to seek asylum access to the credible fear process. See Iddir v. Immigration Naturalization Serv., 301 F.3d 492, 499 (7th Cir. 2002) (?The term ?shall? denotes a clear directive, a command, as opposed to the terms ?may? or ?in his discretion?? used in other immigration statutes). The US government?s duty under the statute is ?clear and undisputable,? Wilbur, 283 US. at 420, yet the US. government has failed to execute that duty. Third, Plaintiffs have no other adequate remedy available to them. Plaintiffs have no way to appeal the US government?s decision to withhold a credible fear determination and deny them the opportunity to seek asylum. The INA does not provide any mechanism for appealing an expedited order of removal to a court. See 8 U.S.C. (depriving any court of jurisdiction to review expedited orders of removal). Nor is an expedited order of removal appealable through an administrative process. 8 C.F.R. (aliens subject to expedited orders of removal are not entitled to hearings and appeals before an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals). Additionally, if the US. government is allowed to execute these expedited orders of removal, Plaintiffs will be deported from the United States and their claim for a writ will be moot. Therefore, the only remedies available to Plaintiffs are those 22 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 29 of 37 available through this Court. For these reasons, Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the claim for a writ of mandamus. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the Fifth Amendment, the APA, and the Mandamus Act. Section 235 and Section 240 of the INA provide them with a clear right to a credible fear determination before they can be deported, and procedural due process requires that they be given the opportunity to petition for asylum in some manner. The US. govemment?s actions have clearly violated these rights. Therefore, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their case. II. PLAINTIFF WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM IF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS NOT GRANTED To establish irreparable harm, a party must demonstrate that its injury is: imminent, establishing a clear and present need for equitable relief; (ii) actual, rather than theoretical; and incapable of remediation. Damus v. Nielsen, Civ. A. No. 18-578-J EB, 2018 WL 3232515, at *17 (D.D.C. July 2, 2018). Plaintiffs meet that burden here: Without this Court?s immediate relief, Plaintiffs will be denied any chance to assert their rights guaranteed by the INA and the Constitution, and will be denied the opportunity to seek asylum from persecution. Plaintiffs are suffering imminent and actual harm from the deprivation of their rights under the INA and Constitution. Plaintiffs are statutorily entitled, and have a due process right, to seek asylum because Congress has granted Plaintiffs these procedural rights in the INA. The US. government?s threat to remove Plaintiffs without affording them this mandatory procedural protection warrants this Court?s intervention. It is well established that ?the loss of constitutional 23 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 30 of 37 freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.? Mills v. D. C., 571 F.3d 1304, 1312 (DC. Cir. 2009); see also Davis v. District ofColumbia, 158 F.3d 1342, 1346 (DC. Cir. 1998) prospective violation of a constitutional right constitutes irreparable injury? for the purposes of seeking equitable relief). Harm suffered from the deprivation of their statutory and constitutional rights is incapable of remediation because Plaintiffs would have no way to seek asylum or retroactively challenge their removals once they?ve been deported. Absent equitable relief, Plaintiffs will lose the opportunity to seek asylum and will be permanently deprived of their statutory and constitutional rights. Indeed, this Court has enjoined government policies that ?block[] access to an existing avenue for avoiding removal.? Kirwa v. US. Dep?t of Def, 285 F. Supp. 3d 21, 43?44 (D.D.C. 2017). Other courts have done the same. See, e. Walters v. Reno, 145 .3d 1032, 1048 (9th Cir. 1998) (enjoining INS procedures allowing for deportation of aliens without a hearing as violative of constitutional due process); Chhoeun v. Marin, 306 F. Supp. 3d 1147, 1162 (CD. Cal. 2018) (?nding irreparable harm from deprivation of opportunity to contest removal). See also Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204, 1213 (2018) Court has reiterated that deportation is ?a particularly severe penalty,? which may be of greater concern to a convicted alien than ?any potential jail sentence?) Plaintiffs will suffer imminent harm beyond the loss of their statutory and constitutional rights if this Court does not grant relief because they have a well-founded fear of persecution upon return to their home countries. Returning to their home countries could be a death sentence. See, Ex. 1 at 11 2 (fear of sexual assault and death); Ex. 4 at 1111 2, 14 (fear of emotional abuse and death). The US. government?s plan to remove Plaintiffs would cast them 24 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 31 of 37 back into this violence, causing imminent, actual harm. It would also be incapable of remediation, since there would be no way to remove the peril of being forced to return to an environment of persecution and mortal danger. Courts consistently recognize that the likelihood of violence is relevant to a ?nding of irreparable harm, and this Court should do the same. See, e. Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2011) (granting stay of removal and noting ?the likelihood of [violence] . . . should be part of the irreparable harm inquiry? in the asylum context); Innovation Law Lab v. Nielsen, F.Supp.3d_, No. 2018 WL 3114530, at *8 (D. Or. June 25, 2018) (recognizing importance of due process at the credible fear interview stage due to the ?serious harm?including persecution, torture, and death?that may result if asylum is improperly denied?); Ali v. Ashcroft, 213 F.R.D. 390, 400 (W.D. Wash. 2003), 346 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2003), 0p. withdrawn on denial of reh ?g sub nom. Ali v. Gonzales, 421 .3d 795 (2005), as am. on reh ?g (2005) (?Petitioners? fears of persecution and torture. . . are certainly relevant to a ?nding of irreparable harm?). Courts further recognize this harm cannot be remedied at law. See Walters, 145 F.3d at 1048 (?There is no way to calculate the value of such a constitutional [due process] deprivation [as deportation without a hearing] or the damages that result from erroneous deportation?). 25 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 32 of 37 THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE BALANCE OF EQUITIES FAVOR GRANTING THE TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION To obtain the equitable relief sought, Plaintiffs must demonstrate the injunction would serve the public interest and that the balance of equities favors granting this relief. These factors ?merge when the Government is the opposing party.? See, e. g, Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009) (articulating standard in the stay context). The public has an interest in preserving statutory and constitutional rights. is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party?s constitutional rights.? Innovation Law Lab, 2018 WL 3114530, at Accordingly, the DC. Circuit ?has clearly articulated that the public has an interest in the government maintaining procedures that apply with constitutional requirements.? Ass'n of Cmty. Orgs. For Reform Now (ACORN) v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency (FEMA), 463 F. Supp. 2d 26, 36 (D.D.C. 2006). Because the U.S. government?s plan to deport Plaintiffs without suf?cient process violates both the Constitution and the INA, the public interest counsels in favor of granting Plaintiffs? injunction. See ACORN, 463 F. Supp. 2d at 36 (holding that where government procedures ?do not comport with the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, the interest of the public weighs strongly in favor of a preliminary injunction?). The balance of equities also favors granting Plaintiffs? injunctive relief. As discussed above, if relief is not granted Plaintiffs will suffer the loss of their rights to pursue their asylum claims and be returned to life-threatening conditions despite their well-founded fear of persecution. Conversely, Defendants will suffer no cognizable harm if the injunctive relief is granted, because the INA imposes the duty to permit a noncitizen to pursue asylum claims in Section 240 proceedings, or in grant a credible fear interview to any noncitizen in Section 235 proceedings who expresses a fear of persecution. To the extent Defendants cite to the burden 26 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 33 of 37 associated with conducting so many interviews and reconciling disparate statuses among family members, that burden is self-created, and pales in comparison to the risks to Plaintiffs. See Innovation Law Lab, 2018 WL 3114530, at *9 (holding an injunction which requires the government to abide its own statutes or regulations cannot pose an undue burden on the government?s time, resources, or personnel, and further noting ?any such burden . . . is more than justi?ed by the need to ensure ful?llment of Plaintiffs? constitutional rights and to prevent the improper denial of meritorious asylum claims?). Moreover, as this Court previously noted, the U.S. government ?cannot suffer harm from an injunction that merely ends an unlawful practice or reads a statute as required to avoid constitutional concerns.? v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164, 191 (D.D.C. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). This is precisely the situation in which injunctive relief is warranted: when ?the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined, then there is cause to preserve the status quo.? Reid v. Hood, No. 1:10 CV2842, 2011 WL 251437, at *2 (ND. Ohio Jan. 26, 2011) (citing Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981)). Allowing Plaintiffs to remain in the United States so that they can pursue their asylum claims does just that. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to: (1) enter an immediate Temporary Restraining Order against Defendants to prevent them from removing from the United States all non-citizen children, and the parents or guardians of such children, who were separated upon entry into the United States, including but not limited to Plaintiffs and 27 Case Document 6?1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 34 of 37 their parents or guardians, pending a full hearing and this Court?s adjudication of Plaintiffs? pending Motion for a Preliminary Injunction; and (2) preliminary enjoin Defendants? policy of removing children from the United States before permitting them the opportunity seek asylum pursuant to their rights under the INA, the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, and the Mandamus Act and order Defendants to provide all non-citizen children who were separated from their parents or guardians upon (or after) entry into the United States with their rights to petition for asylum under Section 240 and Section 235 of the INA following reuni?cation with, and in consultation with, their parents or guardians, until such proceedings are terminated. July 27, 2018 WVELLS LLP Just?W. Bemick (DC Bar No. 988245) Clark Weymouth *Zachary W. Best 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5600 Facsimile: (202) 637-5910 t.weymouth@hoganlovells.com zachary.best@hoganlovells.c0m *Oliver J. Armas *Ira M. Feinberg 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 918-3000 Facsimile: (212) 918-3100 Oliver.arrnas@hoganlovells.com ira.feinberg@hoganlovells.com *Katherine A. Nelson 1601 Wewatta Street, Suite 900 28 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 35 of 37 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 899-7300 Facsimile: (303) 899-7333 admission pro hac vice to be sought Counsel for Plainti?'l? 29 Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 36 of 37 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on July 27, 2018, this motion and the accompanying memorandum Jefferson Beauregard Sessions Attorney General of the United States of America, United States Department of Justice 950 Avenue, NW Washington DC 20530 Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, SW Washington, DC 20528 Alex Azar, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20201 Ronald Vitiello, Acting Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street, sw Washington, DC 20536 L. Francis Cissna, Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Room 4210 MS: 2120 Washington, DC 20529 in support were ?led by hand delivery upon the Clerk of the Court. A service copy of this ?ling will be sent by ?rst class mail, postage prepaid, to all Defendants? at the addresses listed below: Kevin K. McAleenan, Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Avenue, NW MS: 1345 Washington, DC 20229 Scott Lloyd, Director of the Of?ce of Refugee Resettlement, Mary E. Switzer Building 330 Street, SW Washington, DC 20201 Daniel A. Bible, Director of ICE San Antonio Field Of?ce 1777 NE Loop 410, Floor 15 San Antonio, TX 78217 United States Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, SW MS: 0485 Washington, DC 20528 United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street, sw Washington, DC 20530 United States Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20229 Date: Case Document 6-1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 37 of 37 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20529 US. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20201 July 27,2018 Of?ce of Refugee Resettlement, Mary E. Switzer Building 330 Street, SW Washington, DC 20201 Jus? W. Bernick (DC Bar No. 988245) HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5600 Facsimile: (202) 637-5910 justin.bemick@hoganlovells.com Attorney for Plaintiffs Case Document 6-2 Filed 07/27/18 Page 1 of 10 EXHIBIT 1 Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-2 Filed 07/27/18 Page 2 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M.M.M., on behalf of his minor child, J.M.A., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. _________ DECLARATION OF L.A.A. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMNARY INJUNCTION v. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants. Case Document 6-2 Filed 07/27/18 Page 3 of 10 Yo. declare digo abajo de 28 1746: 1. Yo tengo 10 a?os. Yo hablo espa?ol. Yo prometo decir la verdad. Yo soy muy timida no me gusta hablar de las cosas malas que me han pasado. Pero, puedo hablar de todas estas cosas que yo declare aqui si es necesario. Escribo este declaraci?n jurada en apoyo de la Mocion de los Demandantes por Orden de Restriccion Temporal Mandato Preliminar. 2. Yo me fui de Guatemala con mi madre,_ porque tengo miedo de mi abuelo. El me toco en maneras que no me gustaba, en partes de mi cuerpo que son privadas. Mi madre intento conseguir ayuda de la policia para protegerme. Ellos le ignoraron. Mi abuelo se enojo mucho con mi madre, ha mandado la mara para matar a nosotras dos. 3. Yo vine a los Estados Unidos porque tengo miedo vivir en Guatemala quiero estar segura. Nosotras cruzamos la frontera el 14 de junio, 2018. 4. Estuvimos arrestados llevados a un lugar que se llama la hielera. A mi madre a mi nos pusieron en una celda. Tuvimos hambre, sue?o, frio, miedo. 5. Un oficial nos sacaron de la celda hizo preguntas a mi mama. Nadie me hizo preguntas. Mi madre dijo a1 o?cial que tuvimos miedo regresar a Guatemala por lo que mi abuelo me hizo. El o?cial le grito. El 1e pregunto, ?porque me estan diciendo mentiras de porque vienen, ustedes son todos lo mismo.? No nos creyeron. Yo tuve verg?enza. 6. Mas tarde este mismo dia, nos sacaron de la celda de nuevo. El o?cial dijo a mi mama que me iban a poner en adopcion. 7. Dos dias despu?s me quitaron de mi madre. Me llevaron en un carro a un lugar que se llama Ia perrera. Me pusieron en una jaula. Tuvo miedo lloraba. Estuve en la perrera por cuatro dias. Despu?s, me llevaron a un lugar en Raymondville, Texas para nifios que no tienen padres. - 0903341910508 - 12518702 v1 Case Document 6-2 Filed 07/27/18 Page 4 of 10 8. No habl? con mi mama por muchos dias. No sabia si 16 iba a ver otra vez. Me dijeron que no sabia donde estaba. Llor? todos los dias. 9. Muchas semanas despu?s habl? con mi mama por tel?fono por primera vez. Yo dije a mi mama que yo tuve miedo donde yo estaba yo queria que ella me sacaba de alla. Ella me pregunto que me pasaba pero no le podia decir porque mi trabajador social estaba a mi lado. No tuvimos chance de hablar de nuestro miedo de regresar a Guatemala. Estuve enferma mientras que estuve separada de mi mama. Esto lo hizo aim mas dificil para mi, porque queria mucho estar con ella. Habl? con mi mama tres cuatro veces mientras que estuve separada de ella. 10. No vi a mi mama por 35 dias, desde el 16 dejunio, 2018 hasta el 23 dejulio, 2018. Ahora estamos detenidas juntas en Dilley, Texas. 11. Tengo miedo de estar separada de mi madre de nuevo. Estoy triste todo el tiempo necesito a ella conmigo. Tengo miedo todos los dias que alguien me la va a quitar. 12. Me gustaria quedarme en los Estados Unidos donde mi madre yo podemos estar seguras de la mara de mi abuelo. Quiero estar con mi mama, quien me ama me protege. Es dificil para mi hablar de todo lo que me ha pasado. Cuando alguien pregunta porque tengo miedo, empiezo a llorar no puedo para. Mi mama puede explicar todo para mi. 13. Nunca he hablado con un juez de inmigraci?n ni un o?cial de asilo sobre porque tengo miedo de regresar 3 Guatemala. 14. Mi abogada me ayudo decir a los o?ciales de inmigraci?n que yo tengo miedo regresar a mi pais. Nosotros escribimos una carta juntas porque yo quiero aplicar para el asilo. Nadie contesto a mi carta. 15. A mi madre le ordenaron deportada. A mi, no. 0903341910508 - 12518702 v1 Case Document 6-2 Filed 07/27/18 Page 5 of 10 16. Mi madre me dijo que nos van a regresar para Guatemala. No quiero regresar porque tengo miedo. Yo declaro bajo pena de sanci?n por perjurio bajo las leyes de los Estados Unidos de Am?rica que lo precedente es verdadero correcto. Ejecutado e1 26 dejulio, 2018, en Dilley. - 0903341910508 12518702 v1 Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-2 Filed 07/27/18 Page 6 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M.M.M., on behalf of his minor child, J.M.A., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. _________ DECLARATION OF L.A.A. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMNARY INJUNCTION v. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-2 Filed 07/27/18 Page 7 of 10 I, , declare and state under 28 U.S.C. § 1746: 1. I am 10 years old. I speak Spanish. I promise to tell truth. I am very shy and don’t like to talk about the bad things that have happened to me. But, I can talk about all of these things I declare here, if necessary. I write this affidavit in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. 2. I left Guatemala with my mother, because I am afraid of my grandfather. He touched me in ways I did not like, on parts of my body that are private. My mother tried to get help from the police to protect me. They ignored her. My grandfather got very mad at my mother, and has sent the mara [translated to English as the gang] to kill both of us. 3. I came to the United States because I am afraid to live in Guatemala, and want to be safe. We crossed the border on June 14, 2018. 4. We were arrested and taken to a place called the hielera [translated to English as the ice box]. My mother and I were placed in a cell. We were hungry, tired, cold, and afraid. 5. An official took us out of the cell and asked my mom questions. No one asked me any questions. My mom told the official we were afraid to go back to Guatemala because of what my grandfather did to me. The official yelled at her. He asked her, “why are you telling me lies about why you came, you are all the same.” They did not believe us. I felt ashamed. 6. Later that same day, they took us out of the cell again. The official told my mom they were going to put me up for adoption. 7. Two days later they took me away from my mother. I was taken in a car to a place called the perrera [translated to English as the dog pound]. I was placed in a cage. He/She was Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-2 Filed 07/27/18 Page 8 of 10 afraid and cried. I was in the dog pound for four days. After, I was taken to a place in Raymondville, Texas for children who do not have parents. 8. I did not talk to my mom for many days. I did not know if I would ever see her again. They told me they did not know where she was. I cried every day. 9. Many weeks later I talked to my mom on the phone for the first time. I told my mom that I was scared where I was and that I wanted her to take me out of there. She asked me what was wrong, but I could not tell her because my case manager was next to me. We did not have a chance to talk about our fears to return to Guatemala. I was sick while I was separated from my mother. This made it even harder for me, because I really wanted to be with her. I talked to my mom three of four times while I was separated from her. 10. I did not see my mom for 35 days, from June 16, 2018, to July 23, 2018. We are now detained together in Dilley, Texas. 11. I am afraid of being separated from my mother again. I am sad all of the time and I need her with me. I am afraid every day that someone will take her away from me. 12. I would like to stay in the United States where my mother and I can be safe from the mara[, the gang] and from my grandfather. I want to be with my mom, who loves me and protects me. It is hard for me to talk about everything that has happened to me. When someone asks me why I am afraid, I start to cry and cannot stop. My mom can explain everything for me. 13. I have never talked with an immigration judge or asylum officer about why I am afraid to return to Guatemala. 14. My lawyer helped me tell immigration officials that I am afraid to return to my country. We wrote a letter together because I want to apply for asylum. No one responded to my letter. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-2 Filed 07/27/18 Page 9 of 10 15. My mother was ordered deported. I was not. 16. My mom told me that we are going to be sent back to Guatemala. I do not want to go back, because I am afraid. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 26th day of July 2018, in Dilley, ____[signed]_______________ Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-2 Filed 07/27/18 Page 10 of 10 CERTIFICATION BY TRANSLATOR I certify that I am fluent in both the English and Spanish languages and that the attached translation of the accompanying Declaration of L.A.A. is a true and correct translation of the original. _Gabriella Morello_____________________ Name of Translator __gabriella.morello@hoganlovells.com__________________ Email Address __305.459.6500__________________ Phone Number _______________________________ Signature __27 July 2018___________ Date \\DC - 046785/000001 - 12484088 v1 Case Document 6-3 Filed 07/27/18 Page 1 of 11 EXHIBIT 2 Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-3 Filed 07/27/18 Page 2 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M.M.M., on behalf of his minor child, J.M.A., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. _________ DECLARATION OF I.A.T. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMNARY INJUNCTION v. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-3 Filed 07/27/18 Page 3 of 11 Yo, declaro y afirmo conforme a 28 U.S.C. § 1746: 1. Escribo esta declaración en nombre de mi hijo, que tiene seis años. Mi lengua materna es el español. Los hechos en esta declaración jurada se basan en mi propio conocimiento personal, y podría y debería testificar de manera competente sobre los asuntos contenidos en este documento si se me solicitara hacerlo. Presento esta declaración jurada en apoyo de la Moción de los Demandantes por Orden de Restricción Temporal e Injunction Preliminar. 2. Mi hijo y yo nos fuimos de Honduras juntos porque mi amigo y yo habíamos sido amenazados anteriormente por miembros de pandillas. Fuimos a la policía en busca de ayuda, y en lugar de ayudar, nos arrestaron. La policía me extorsionó y me dijo que solo me liberarían si les pagaba dinero, yo lo hice. Unos meses después, la pandilla mató a mi amigo. Mi hijo y yo fuimos detenidos por agentes de inmigración de los Estados Unidos alrededor de McAllen, Texas, alrededor del 12 de junio de 2018. 3. y yo fuimos separados el 13 de junio de 2018 y eventualmente me enteré de que el estaba detenido en BCFS cerca de Harlingen, Texas. Mientras estaba en la custodia de la Patrulla Fronteriza, me esposaron por primera vez en mi vida y me dijeron que iba a ir a juicio, y que mi hijo debería quedarse donde estaba. Dijeron que el todavía estaría allí cuando volviera de la corte. Pero después de la corte, no estaba. Estaba frenético y les pregunté a los oficiales dónde estaba mi hijo, pero lo único que dijeron fue que no tenían esa información. Realmente no Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-3 Filed 07/27/18 Page 4 of 11 tuve la oportunidad de hablar con él y luego simplemente ya no estaba. No sabía nada sobre a dónde lo llevaron o qué le iba a pasar. Lo mismo le sucedió a muchos otros padres. 4. Estuvimos separados por aproximadamente 33 días. No tuve contacto con mi hijo hasta aproximadamente 9-10 días después de que nos separaron. Fue una llamada telefónica. Me dijeron que podía hablar por 10 minutos. Cuando comencé a hablar con , él simplemente comenzó a llorar incontrolablemente. Seguí tratando de calmarlo, pero fue muy doloroso para mí escucharlo y no poder hacer otra cosa más que hablar. Quería abrazarlo o consolarlo pero no pude. Comencé a llorar también, y luego le dije al guardia que detuviera la llamada temprano. No podía soportarlo, y no quería que passara por eso más tiempo. Todavía no tenía idea si alguna vez volvería a verlo. 5. Finalmente, el 16 de julio de 2018, y yo nos reunimos. Ese fue un día increíble. Él me vio y los dos empezamos a llorar y nos dimos un gran abrazo. Desde entonces hemos sido detenidos en el Centro Residencial del Condado de Karnes y casi no se ha ido de mi lado. 6. 7. Tengo miedo de ser separado de mi hijo de nuevo. y yo tenemos miedo de regresar a Honduras porque las pandillas son prevalentes y me han atacado antes, y han matado a mis amigos. Me preocupa que crezca allí porque las pandillas comienzan a reclutar niños a edades tempranas, y aunque solo tiene 6 años, creo que comenzarán a reclutarlo muy pronto. También soy políticamente activo y el partido nacional me amenazó recientemente por no apoyarlos. Me preocupa lo que nos pueda pasar si nos vemos obligados a regresar a Honduras. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-3 Filed 07/27/18 Page 5 of 11 8. Me gustaría quedarme en los Estados Unidos donde y yo podamos estar seguros. 9. Cuando y yo nos reunimos, me dieron varios documentos para mi hijo. Casi todo está en inglés, así que no sé lo que dice, pero mis abogados en Karnes dicen que recibió un Aviso de Comparecencia el 15 de junio de 2018. Hasta donde sé, nunca tuvo una audiencia en la corte y nunca visto un juez. No sé qué está pasando con su proceso de deportación. 10. Desde que llegó a Karnes, no ha tenido la oportunidad de explicar su temor de regresar a Honduras a los oficiales de inmigración o asilo. Le pedimos a nuestros abogados que nos ayudaran a solicitar una entrevista de miedo creíble para , lo cual hicieron, pero él todavía no tiene una entrevista programada. Mi abogado lo investigó y me dijo que no tendrá una entrevista. 11. Tuve una entrevista de miedo creíble antes de llegar a Karnes, pero parte de eso. No pude consultar con no fue antes de la entrevista, y obtuve un resultado negativo. El 13 de junio de 2018 recibí una orden de deportación acelerada. Durante la entrevista de miedo creíble, no me podía concentrar en contestar las preguntas que me hacía el oficial de inmigración porque estaba preocupado sobre mi hijo. No sabia donde estaba, y solo podía pensar en el. También, no conocía nada sobre el proceso de miedo creíble, ni entendía los requisitos de asilo. No sabía qué información debía de compartir acerca de mis experiencias en Honduras. Cuando firme el documento indicando que quería ser devuelto a mi país con mi hijo si fuese ordenado deportado, elegía esa opción porque la Señora que me presentó el documento para ser firmado me dijo que si firmaba en ese lugar, me reuniría con mi hijo ese mismo dia. Mi nivel de was-2mg Case ?l??ge 6 of 11 entendimiento a1 leer es muy bajo, me euesta mueho trabajo leer comprender, aunque las palabras seen escritas en Espa?ol. 12. - no tiene su propia orden de deportaeion acelerada que yo sepa, su nombre no est? en la orden que tengo. 13. Hable con el Consulado de Honduras eljueves pasado. Me dijeron que- 3; yo seremos deportados pronto. Declaro bajo pena de perjurio bajo las [eyes de los Estados Unidos de America que lo anterior es verdadero eorreeto. Executado en este 26 de julio clel 2018, en Karnes City, Texas Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-3 Filed 07/27/18 Page 7 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M.M.M., on behalf of his minor child, J.M.A., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. _________ DECLARATION OF I.A.T. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMNARY INJUNCTION v. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-3 Filed 07/27/18 Page 8 of 11 I, , declare and state pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746: 1. I write this statement on behalf of my son, , who is six-years-old. My native language is Spanish. The facts in this declaration are based on my own personal knowledge, and I could and should competently testify to the matters contained herein if called upon to do so. I submit this sworn declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. 2. My son and I left Honduras together because my friend and I were threatened by gang members. We went to the police for help, but instead of helping, they arrested us. The police extorted me and said they would only release me if I paid them money, which I did. A few months later, the gang killed my friend. My son and I were detained by United States immigration officers around McAllen, Texas, around June 12, 2018. 3. and I were separated on June 13, 2018, and I eventually learned that he was detained at BCFS near Harlingen, Texas. While in Border Patrol custody, I was handcuffed for the first time in my life and told I was going to court, and that my son should stay where he was. They said he’d still be there when I got back from court. But after court, was not there. I was frantic and asked the officers where my son was, but all they said was that they didn’t have that information. I didn’t really have a chance to talk to him and then he was just gone. I didn’t know anything about where he was going or what was going to happen to him. The same thing happened to many other parents. 4. We were separated for approximately 33 days. I did not have contact with my son until about 9-10 days after we were separated. It was a phone call. They told me I could talk for 10 minutes. When I started speaking to , he just started crying uncontrollably. I kept trying to calm him down, but it was so painful for me to hear him and not be able to do anything other Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-3 Filed 07/27/18 Page 9 of 11 than talk. I wanted to hug him or console him but I couldn’t. I started crying too, and then told the guard to stop the call early. I couldn’t take it, and I didn’t want to put through that any further. I still had no idea if I would ever see him again. 5. Finally on July 16, 2018, and I were reunited. That was an amazing day. He saw me and we both started crying and gave each other a big hug. Since then we have been detained at the Karnes County Residential Center and 6. has barely left my side. I am afraid of being separated from my son again. 7. and I are afraid to return to Honduras because the gangs are prevalent and have attacked me before, and have killed my friends. I worry about growing up there because the gangs start recruiting boys at early ages, and even though he is only 6, I think they will start trying to recruit him very soon. I also am politically active and I was recently threatened by the national party for not supporting them. I am worried about what might happen to us if we are forced to go back to Honduras. 8. I would like to stay in the United States where 9. When and I can be safe. and I were reunited, they gave me several documents for my son. Almost everything is in English so I don’t know what it says, but my lawyers at Karnes say was issued a Notice to Appear for removal proceedings on June 15, 2018. To my knowledge, he’s never had a court hearing and has never seen a judge. I don’t know what is happening with his removal proceedings. 10. Since being at Karnes, has not had a chance to explain his fear of returning to Honduras to immigration or asylum officers. We asked our attorneys to help us request a credible fear interview for , which they did, but he still does not have an interview scheduled. My attorney looked into it and told me that will not be having an interview. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-3 Filed 07/27/18 Page 10 of 11 11. I had a credible fear interview before I got to Karnes, but that. I was not able to consult with was not a part of before the interview, and I got a negative finding. On June 13, 2018, I received an order for expedited removal. During the credible fear interview, I could not concentrate on answering the questions that the immigration official requested because I was worried about my son. I did not know where he was, and I could only think of him. Also, I did not know anything about the credible fear process, nor did I understand the asylum requirements. I did not know the information I should share about my experiences in Honduras. When I signed the document indicating that I wanted to be returned to my country with my son if it were so ordered, I picked that option because the Lady that presented me with the document to be signed told me that if I signed there, I would be reunited with my son that same day. My level of understanding to read is very low, and it takes me a lot of work to read and understand, even when the words are written in Spanish. 12. does not have is own expedited removal order that I know of, and his name is not on the order that I have. 13. I spoke to the Honduran Consulate last Thursday. They told me that and I will both be deported soon. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 26th day of July, 2018, in Dilley. _____[signature]______________ Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-3 Filed 07/27/18 Page 11 of 11 CERTIFICATION BY TRANSLATOR I certify that I am fluent in both the English and Spanish languages and that the attached translation of the accompanying Declaration of I.A.T. is a true and correct translation of the original. _Gabriella Morello_____________________ Name of Translator __gabriella.morello@hoganlovells.com__________________ Email Address __305.459.6500__________________ Phone Number _______________________________ Signature __27 July 2018___________ Date \\DC - 046785/000001 - 12484088 v1 Case Document 6-4 Filed 07/27/18 Page 1 of 12 EXHIBIT 3 Case Document 6-4 Filed 07/27/18 Page 2 of 12 Yo._ declaroy digo abajo de 28 U.S.C. 1746: 1. Tengo nueve a?os. Hablo Espa?ol. Prometo decir la verdad sobre lo que me ha pasado. Presento esta declaracion en apoyo de la Moci?n de los Demandantes por Orden de Restriccion Temporal Mandato Preliminar. 2. Sali de Honduras con mi mama, porque tengo miedo de vivir en Honduras. En Honduras, gente mala hiri? a mi mama amenazaron con hacerme da?o porque somos mormonas porque ellos creen que mi mama hablo mal de ellos a la policia. 3. Viaj? con mi mama por Guatemala Mexico para llegar a los Estados Unidos. Llegamos a los Estados Linidos el 12 de Junio del 2018 cruzamos la frontera. Vinimos aqui porque queremos proteccion. 4. O?ciales de inmigracion nos arrestaron nos llevaron a la hielera. Nos pusieron en una celda nos dieron mantas de aluminio porque teniamos mucho frio. Las mantas no nos ayudaban. Estabamos congelandonos. 5. Un o?cial nos saco de la celda para hacerle preguntas a mi mama. Me pregunto de donde somos a d?nde ibamos. Le pregunt? a mi mama si teniamos miedo de regresar a Honduras ella dijo que 31'. No me hizo preguntas a mi. 6. Despu?s nos llevaron a la perrera. Cuando llegamos a la perrera, me dijeron que mi mama tenia que ir a la Corte. Era e1 14 de Junio del 2018. Me dijeron que iba a estar separada de mi por dos dias que luego nos juntarian. Le dijeron esto a muchos otros ni?os. Me dijeron que hiciera ?la con otros 15 ni?os aproximadamente. Todos los ni?os estaban llorando. Yo estaba llorando tambi?n. Case Document 6-4 Filed 07/27/18 Page 3 of 12 7. Estuve en la perrera por cuatro dias sin mi mama. Tambien teniamos que dormir en el suelo de la perrera. Una vez, mientras estaba durmiendo un guardia quiso despertarme me patio con su bota. 8. El Domingo, mi ?ltimo dia en la perrera, un o?cial llamo mi nombre. Me llevaron al aeropuerto en un furgon. Tenia miedo porque no sabia a donde iba. La mujer que estaba viajando conmigo me dijo que estabamos viajando a Nueva York para que me reunieran con mi mama. Me puse muy feliz. Tuvimos que tomar dos vuelos. En el primer vuelo, la mujer se enojo conmigo porque me puse a hablar con otro pasajero que era muy amable. Cuando estaba en el segundo vuelo, la mujer me dijo que mi mama no iba a estar en Nueva York que estar en un hogar para ni?os que no tienen pap?s. Yo me puse a llorar. Llor? durante e1 resto del viaje. 9. Estuve en Nueva York en un hogar por 32 dias. Tenia una madre de acogida. Es mejor para un ni?o vivir con la madre de verdad. Mis hermanos de acogida me pegaban. E1 primo de mi madre de acogida me gritaba. Ella me dijo que nunca iba a ver a mi mama de nuevo, que me iban a deportar a Honduras. Esto me hizo llorar. Me puso muy triste. Cuando estaba con mi mama me siento feliz. 10. Cuando llegue? a Nueva York no sabia donde estaba mi mama. No sabia si alguna vez la veria de nuevo. No habl? con ella durante muchos dias. 11. Cuando llegu? a Nueva York me dijeron que ?rmara mis papeles. Nadie me 105 explico. No s? lo que dicen. 12. La primera vez que habl? con mi mama, mi mama llorc'). Le dije que queria estar con ella. Estaba feliz de escuchar su voz, pero triste de que estuvi?ramos hablando por el tel?fono en vez de hablar en persona como yo queria. A1 principio, se me permitia hablar con mi Case Document 6-4 Filed 07/27/18 Page 4 of 12 mama una vez a la semana por diez minutos. Despu?s de eso, me dijeron que podia hablar con mi mama? dos veces a la semana. Cuando habl?bamos por tel?fono mi mama me decia que me cuidara. Me preguntaba Como estaba como me estaban tratando. Me preguntaba Como me estaba yendo en en la escuela, si estaba aprendiendo Ingl?s matematicas. No hablamos sobre nuestro miedo de regresar a Honduras. 13. Me reunieron con mi mama el 17 de Julio del 2018. Cuando vi a mi mama por la primera vez despu?s de que se la llevaron lejos de mi, yo estaba en un cuarto con muchos otros ni?os. La podia ver desde la ventana. La salud? con mi mano tan rapido como pude. Estaba tan feliz. Nos abrazamos Iloramos. 14. Mi mama yo ahora estamos detenidas juntas en Dilley, Texas. Quisi?ramos estar libres. Es dificil vivir en una c?rcel. 15. Tengo miedo de ser separada de mi mama otra vez. Hay una escuela en este centro en Dilley. Cuando reci?n llegu?, tenia mucho miedo de ir a la escuela. Tenia miedo de que iba a ser separada de mi mama de nuevo si iba a estudiar. Pensaba que iba a ir a la escuela nunca mas la iba a ver. Tenia miedo de que iban a enga?arme. 16. No puedo volver a Honduras porque no estar? segura. Estar? en peligro. 17. No he tenido la oportunidad de contarle a un juez de inmigraci?n a un o?cial de asilo por qu? tengo miedo de volver a Honduras. Le dije a mi trabajador social en el hogar en Nueva York que tenia miedo de regresar 3 Honduras. 18. Escribi una carta con mi abogado para pedir una eportunidad para explicar por qu? yo quiero obtener asilo en los Estados Unidos. Eso fue hace una semana. Aim no he hablado con nadie sobre mis miedos. l9. Un juez ordeno que deportaran a mi mama. Case Document 6-4 Filed 07/27/18 Page 5 of 12 20. Alguien me dijo que iba a ser deportada con mi mama. Quiero estar con mi mama, pero no quiero que me deporten. Declare bajo pena de perjurio bajo las leyes de los Estados Unidos de Am?rica que lo anterior es verdadero correcto. Ejecutado el dia 26 de Julio del 2018, en Dilley, Texas. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-4 Filed 07/27/18 Page 6 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M.M.M., on behalf of his minor child, J.M.A., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. _________ DECLARATION OF G.M.A. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMNARY INJUNCTION v. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-4 Filed 07/27/18 Page 7 of 12 I, , declare and state under 28 U.S.C. § 1746: 1. I am 9 years old. I speak Spanish. I promise to tell the truth about what has happened to me. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. 2. I left Honduras with my mom, , because I am afraid to live in Honduras. In Honduras, bad people hurt my mom and threatened to hurt me because we are Mormans and because they think my mom spoke bad about them to the police. 3. I traveled with my mom through Guatemala and Mexico to get to the United States. We arrived to the United States on June 12, 2018, and crossed the border. We came here because we want protection. 4. Immigration officials arrested us and took us to the hielera [or translated to English as the ice box]. They put us in a cell and gave us aluminum blankets because we were very cold. The blankets did not help us. We were freezing. 5. An official took us out of the cell to ask my mom questions. He asked me where we were from and where we were going. He asked my mom if we are afraid to return to Honduras, and she said yes. He didn’t ask me any questions. 6. Next they took us to the perrera [or translated to English as dog pound]. When we got to the perrera, they told me that my mom had to go to court. It was June 14, 2018. They said she would be separated from me for two days, and that later they would reunite us. They said this to many other children. They told me to stand in line with approximately 15 other children. All of the children were crying. I was crying too. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-4 Filed 07/27/18 Page 8 of 12 7. I was in the perrera for four days without my mom. We also had to sleep on the floor at the perrera. One time, while I was sleeping, a guard wanted to wake me up, and he kicked me with his boot. 8. On Sunday, my last day in the perrera, an official called my name. I was taken to the airport in a van. I was afraid because I did not know where I was going. The lady who was traveling with me told me we were traveling to New York so they could reunite me with my mom. I got very happy. We had to take two flights. On the first flight, the lady got mad at me because I started talking with another passenger who was very nice. When I was on the second flight, the lady told me that my mom was not going to be in New York, and instead, that I was going to a shelter for children who do not have parents. I started to cry. I cried the rest of the trip. 9. I was in New York in a shelter for 32 days. I had a foster mom. It is better for a child to live with your real mom. My foster siblings hit me. My foster mother’s cousin yelled at me. She told me that I was never going to see my mom again, and that I was going to be deported to Honduras. This made me cry. It made me feel very sad. When I am with my mom I feel happy. 10. When I got to New York I did not know where my mom was. I did not know if I would ever see her again. I did not talk to her for many days. 11. When I arrived to New York, I was told to sign many papers. No one explained them to me. I do not know what they said. 12. The first time I spoke with my mother, my mother cried. I told her I wanted to be with her. I was happy to hear her voice, but sad to talk to her by phone instead of talking in person like I wanted. At first, I was only allowed to talk to my mom one time per week for 10 minutes. After that, they told me I could talk to my mom two times a week. When we talked on Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-4 Filed 07/27/18 Page 9 of 12 the phone, my mom told me to take care of myself. She asked me how I was and how they were treating me. She asked me how I was doing in school, if I was learning English and math. We did not talk about our fears of returning to Honduras. 13. I was reunified with my mother on July 17, 2018. When I saw my mom for the first time after they took her far away from me, I was in a room with many other children. I could see her from the window. I waved at her as fast as I could. I was so happy. We hugged each other and cried. 14. My mom and I are now detained together in Dilley, Texas. We wish we were free. It is hard to live in jail. 15. I am afraid of being separated from my mother again. There is a school in this center in Dilley. When I first got here, I was very scared to go to school. I was afraid I would be separated from my mom again if I went to study. I thought I would go to school, and never see her again. I was afraid I would be tricked. 16. I cannot go back to Honduras because I will not be safe. I will be in danger. 17. I have never had the opportunity to tell an immigration judge or asylum officer why I am afraid to return to Honduras. I told my case manager at the shelter in New York that I am afraid to return to Honduras. 18. I wrote a letter with my lawyer to ask for an opportunity to explain why I want to win asylum in the United States. That was about a week ago. I still have not spoken with anyone about my fears. 19. A judge ordered my mother deported. 20. Someone told me that I am going to be deported with my mother. I want to be with my mother, but I do not want to be deported. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-4 Filed 07/27/18 Page 10 of 12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 26th day of July, 2018, in Dilley, Texas. ____[signature]______________ Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-4 Filed 07/27/18 Page 11 of 12 CERTIFICATION BY TRANSLATOR I certify that I am fluent in both the English and Spanish languages and that the attached translation of the accompanying Declaration of G.M.A. is a true and correct translation of the original. _Gabriella Morello_____________________ Name of Translator __gabriella.morello@hoganlovells.com__________________ Email Address __305.459.6500__________________ Phone Number _______________________________ Signature __27 July 2018___________ Date \\DC - 046785/000001 - 12484088 v1 Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-4 Filed 07/27/18 Page 12 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M.M.M., on behalf of his minor child, J.M.A., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. _________ DECLARATION OF G.M.A. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMNARY INJUNCTION v. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants. Case Document 6-5 Filed 07/27/18 Page 1 of 12 EXHIBIT 4 Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-5 Filed 07/27/18 Page 2 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M.M.M., on behalf of his minor child, J.M.A., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. _________ DECLARATION OF D.B.G. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMNARY INJUNCTION v. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants. Case Document 6-5 Filed 07/27/18 Page 3 of 12 Yo,? declaro digo bajo 23 U.S.C. 1746: Tengo doce a?os. Mi idioma materno es el Espa?ol. Los heohos en esta declaracion son basados en mis conocimientos personales. Yo podria testi?car sobre estos hechos lo haria si me preguntan. Yo doy esta declaracion en apoyo a Plaintiffs? Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Iniunction. 2. Tengo miedo de regresar a Honduras. La pandilla amenazo con matarme para vengarse en contra de mi mama, quien habia puesto una denuncia a la policia dCSpu?s de que mataron a mi primo en el segundo grado. Tambi?n tengo miedo de mi papa, quien me pego, amenazo con matarme, me abuso emocionalmente durante toda mi Vida. Mi mama vino a los Estados Unidos por las mismas razones tiene miedo de ser asesinada por mi papa por la pandilla. 3. Mi mama yo entramos a los Estados Unidos el 25 de Mayo del 2018 para buscar proteccion. Fuimos detenidas en Tejas el mismo dia. O?ciales de migracion nos llevaron mi mama a mi a un lugar donde habia mucho frio. Lo llamamos 1a hielera porque nos congelamos alli. Cuando entramos al edi?cio, e1 o?cial nos dio a las dos sandwiches de bolonga. E1 o?cial despu?s apunto hacia la puerta, indicando que queria que entrara a la celda mi mama comenzo a seguirme. El oficial entonces le dijo a mi mama "tt?l no? levanto su mando para que mi mama no me siguiera. 4. Entr? a la celda. Estaba frio. No habia cobijas ni camas. La celda tenia un piso de cemento, no tenia mesas ni sillas. Solo habia un ba?o en la celda, sin puerta. No me dieron un cambio de ropa, ni un cepillo de dientes, ni ninguna otra cosa. Pienso que habian alrededor de 40 nifias en la celda conmigo. Tenian entre 8 17 a?os de edad. Todas las ni?as estaban llorando, Case Document 6-5 Filed 07/27/18 Page 4 of 12 porque, como yo, no sabian donde estaban sus madres. Yo estaba llorando tambi?n. Nunca habia sido separada de mi mama antes. 6. En uno dos dias, un o?cial de inmigracion me saco de mi celda. No estoy segura de cuanto tiempo estuve en la celda antes de que hablaran conmigo porque nunca apagan las luces en la hielera. No habia ventanas, nunca podia saber cuando era de dia 0 de noche. El o?cial de inmigraci?n saco mi mama de su celda tambi?n. Estuve aliviada al verla. El oficial nos tomo una foto juntas, luego nos pregunto algunas cosas. Ellos me preguntaron mi nombre, preguntaron si era 1a hija de mi mama. Nunca me preguntaron si tenia miedo de regresar a Honduras. Si me hubieran preguntado, hubiera dicho que si. Despu?s de esta conversacion, que duro cinco minutos menos, regrese a mi celda sola. 7. Creo que pase tres dias en total en la hielera, durmiendo en el piso frio de mi celda. Llego mi menstruacion por la primera vez cuando estaba alli. No sabia que estaba pasando ni c?mo pedir productos femeninos. Pase tres dias con mis pantalones cubiertos en sangre menstrual. 8. Me pusieron en un carro con mi mama, nos manejaron a otro lugar que lo llaman la perrera. Me pusieron en una jaula con otras ni?as, quienes como yo, llegaron a los Estados Unidos con sus madres. Tuvimos mucho miedo porque no sabiamos qu? estaba pasando nadie nos dio nada de informacion. Nunca vi a mi mama otra vez, hasta 52 dias despu?s. 9. Muchos de los guardias en la perrera solo hablan Ingl?s. Yo seguia tratando de preguntar donde estaba mi mama. Ellos no me entendian. Se reian de mi, luego se iban. Creo que estuve en la perrera por siete ocho dias. Un dia un o?cial llamo mi nombre, el de otras ni?as. Me movi? a otra jaula. Una hora despu?s me sacaron de lajaula me dijeron que me metiera a un auto. No sabia a donde iba. No sabia a donde estaba mi madre. Me llevaron a un lugar que se veia como un aeropuerto. Yo nunca habia estado en un avion. E1 avi?n despego. Aterrizo horas Case Document 6-5 Filed 07/27/18 Page 5 of 12 despu?s.Cuando aterrizamos, nos dijeron que estabamos en Miami, Florida. Me llevaron a un hogar para ni?os que no tienen padres. 10. Mi mama yo fuimos separadas por 52 dias, aproximadamente desde el 25 de Mayo del 2018 hasta el 17 de Julio del 2018. Pas? todos estos dias en Miami, sola, sin una madre. Personal manejaba la casa se rotaban cada ocho horas. La casa estaba llena de termitas. 1 1. Despu?s de que me separaron de mi mama, no tuve contacto con ella por mas de un mes. no sabia donde estaba. Estaba muy triste. Llor? casi todos los dias. tenia miedo de lo que me iba a pasar a mi, no sabia si iba a ver a mi mama de nuevo alguna vez. 12. Alrededor del 15 de Julio del 2018, me dijeron que iba a juntarme con mi mama. Estaba tan feliz. Abrac? a mi mama por primera vez en 52 dias e1 17 de Julio del 2018. Ahora estamos detenidas en Dilley, Texas. Es di?cil estar en la carcel. Tuve piojos mientras he estado alli. Pero al menos estoy con mi mama. 13. Tengo miedo de ser separada de mi mama de nuevo, He tenido pesadillas. En mi pesadilla, me despierto mi mama no est?. En mi pesadilla no la puedo encontrar todo lo que hago es llorar. 14. Tambi?n tengo miedo de regresar 3 Honduras porque no quiero que mi papa me haga mas da?o no quiero ser asesinada por la mara. Quiero estar segura libre con mi mama. 15. O?ciales de inmigracion nunca me dieron ning?n papel. No recuerdo haber ?rmado ningl'm documento con inmigracion. Nunca he ido a la corte de inmigracion haber tenido ninguna entrevista con un o?cial de asilo. Me gustaria explicar por qu? tengo miedo de regresar a honduras a un o?cial de inmigraci?n a un juez de inmigracion. Case Document 6-5 Filed 07/27/18 Page 6 of 12 16. A trav?s de mi abogado, he pedido 1a oportunidad para explicar mi miedo de regresar 3 Honduras, pero no he recibido respuesta. Mi abogado es la unica persona que me ha preguntado si tengo miedo de regresar, yo tengo miedo. 17. Mi mama tiene miedo de regresar 3 Honduras tambi?n, pero han ordenado que la deporten. Mientras estaba separada de mi madre, solo tuve la oportunidad de hablar con ella por tel?fono dos tres veces. Cada vez que hablamos, e1 trabajador social en mi hogar estaba presente escuchaba nuestra conversaci?n. Solo se nos permitia hablar por cinco minutos. Durante nuestras llamadas, no pudimos hablar de nuestros casos de inmigracion nuestro miedo de regresar a Honduras. 18. I have never been ordered deported. 19. Dos dias antes de ser reunida con mi madre, my trabajador social me dijo que iba a ser deportada con mi mama. Ella no me dijo en que fecha iba a ser deportada, pero me dijo que iba a ser pronto. Yo declaro bajo pena de perjurio bajo las leyes de los Estados Unidos que todo lo anterior es verdadero correcto. Ejecutado este dia 26 de julio de 2018 en Dilley, Texas. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-5 Filed 07/27/18 Page 7 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M.M.M., on behalf of his minor child, J.M.A., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. _________ DECLARATION OF D.B.G. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMNARY INJUNCTION v. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-5 Filed 07/27/18 Page 8 of 12 I, , declare and state pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746: 1. I am twelve years old. My native language is Spanish. The facts in this declaration are based on my own personal knowledge. I could testify about these facts and would if asked to. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. 2. I am afraid to return to Honduras. The gang threatened to kill me to retaliate against my mom, who made a police report after they murdered my second cousin. I am also afraid of my father, who hit me, threatened to kill me, and emotionally abused me my entire life. My mom came to the United States for the same reasons – she fears being killed by my father and the gang. 3. My mom and I entered the United States on May 25, 2018, in search of protection. We were detained in Texas the same day. Immigration officials took my mom and I to a place that was very cold. We called it the hielera [translated to English as the ice box], because we freeze there. When we entered the building, an official gave us both bologna sandwiches. The official then pointed to the door, indicating he wanted me to go into a cell and my mom started to follow me. The official then told my mom, “you, no” and raised his hand to stop my mom from following me. 4. I entered the cell. It was cold. There were no blankets or beds. The cell had concrete floors, and no tables nor chairs. There was one toilet inside the cell, without a door. I was not given a change of clothes, nor a tooth brush, or anything else. I think there were approximately 40 girls inside the cell with me. There were between 8 and 17 years of age. All of the girls were crying, because, like me, they did not know where their mothers were. I was crying too. I’d never been separated from my mom before. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-5 Filed 07/27/18 Page 9 of 12 6. After one or two days, an immigration official took me out of my cell. I’m not sure how long I was in the cell before they spoke with me because they never turn the lights off in the hielera. There were no windows, and I could never tell when it was day or night. The immigration official took my mom out of her cell too. I was relieved to see her. The official took a picture of us together, and then asked us some questions. They asked me my name, and asked me if I was my mom’s daughter. They never asked me if I was afraid to return to Honduras. If they would have asked me, I would have said yes. After this conversation, which lasted five minutes or less, I returned to my cell alone. 7. I think I spent three days total in the hielera, laying on the cold floor of my cell. I got my period for the first time while I was there. I did not know what was happening or how to ask for feminine supplies. I spent three days with my pants soaked in menstrual blood. 8. I was loaded into a car with my mom, and driven to another place called the perrera [translated to English as the dog pound]. I was placed in a cage with other girls, who like me, came to the United States with their mothers. We were very afraid because we did not know what was happening and no one gave us any information. I never saw my mom again, until 52 days later. 9. Many of the guards in the perrera only speak English. I kept trying to ask where my mom was. They could not understand me. They would laugh at me, and then walk away. I think I was in the perrera for seven or eight days. One day an official called my name, and the names of other girls. He moved me to another cage. An hour later I taken out of the cage, and told to get in a car. I did not know where I was going. I did not know where my mom was. They drove me to a place that looked like an airport. I had never been on a plane before. The plane Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-5 Filed 07/27/18 Page 10 of 12 took off. Hours later, it landed. When we landed, they told us we were in Miami, Florida. I was taken to a shelter for children who do not have parents. 10. My mom and I were separated for 52 days, from approximately May 25, 2018 through July 17, 2018. I spent all of those days in Miami, alone, without a mother. Staff ran the house and rotated every eight hours. The house was filled with termites. 11. After they separated me from my mom, I did not have contact with her for over a month. I did not know where she was. I was so sad. I cried almost every day. I was scared about what would happen to me, and did not know if I would ever see my mom again. 12. Around July 15, 2018, I was told I would be reunited with my mom. I was so happy. I hugged my mom for the first time in 52 days on July 17, 2018. Now we are detained in Dilley, Texas. It is difficult to be in jail. I have gotten lice while I have been there. But at least I am with my mom. 13. I am afraid of being separated from my mom again. I have had nightmares. In my nightmare, I wake up to find my mom gone. In my dream I can’t find her, and all I do is cry. 14. I also am afraid to return to Honduras because I do not want my father to hard me any more and I do not want to be killed by the mara [translated to English as the gang]. I want to be safe and free with my mom. 15. Immigration officials never gave me any paperwork. I do not remember signing any documents with immigration. I have never been to immigration court, or had an interview with any asylum officer. I would like to explain why I am afraid to return to Honduras to an immigration official or immigration judge. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-5 Filed 07/27/18 Page 11 of 12 16. Through my attorney, I have requested the opportunity to explain my fear of returning to Honduras, but I have not received a response. My lawyer is the only person who has asked me if I am afraid to return to Honduras, and I am afraid. 17. My mother is afraid to return to Honduras too, but they have ordered that she be deported. While I was separated from my mother, I only had the chance to speak with her by phone two or three times. Every time we spoke, the case manager at my shelter was present, and listened to our conversation. They only allowed us to speak for five minutes. During our calls, we were unable to talk about our immigration cases and our fears to return to Honduras. 18. I have never been ordered deported. 19. Two days before I was reunited with mother, my case manager told me I was going to be deported with my mother. She did not tell me what date I would be deported, but told me it would be soon. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 26th day of July 2018 in Dilley, Texas. _____[signature]________________ Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-5 Filed 07/27/18 Page 12 of 12 CERTIFICATION BY TRANSLATOR I certify that I am fluent in both the English and Spanish languages and that the attached translation of the accompanying Declaration of D.B.G. is a true and correct translation of the original. _Gabriella Morello_____________________ Name of Translator __gabriella.morello@hoganlovells.com__________________ Email Address __305.459.6500__________________ Phone Number _______________________________ Signature __27 July 2018___________ Date \\DC - 046785/000001 - 12484088 v1 Case Document 6-6 Filed 07/27/18 Page 1 of 8 EXHIBIT 5 Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-6 Filed 07/27/18 Page 2 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M.M.M., on behalf of his minor child, J.M.A., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. _________ DECLARATION OF A.M.C. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMNARY INJUNCTION v. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants. Case Document 6-6 Filed 07/27/18 Page 3 of 8 Yo. declaro digo abajo de 28 U.S.C. 1746: 1. Tengo siete a?os. Hablo espa?oi. Escribo esta carta para el Juez porque que quiero que el uez sepa lo que me paso. Prometo decir la verdad. 2. Me mud? a los Estados Unidos con mi mama porque teniamos miedo de vivir en Honduras. No quiero regresar a Honduras porque personas malas balearon mi casa tiraron una bomba hacia mi casa. Esas personas malas quieren matar a mi familia. Tambi?n tengo miedo porque mi papa me pega, no me siento seguro viviendo con 3. No recuerdo cuando entr? a los Estados Unidos. Vine con mi mama. Viajamos mucho para llegar hasta aca. Cuando llegamos, nos llevaron a la hielera. Estuve alli por muchos dias. Tenia hambre frio alli. Me dieron una cobija de aluminio. Tenia sue?o, pero no habia una cama. En la hielera, mi mama estaba conmigo. Ella me abrazo para que estuviera caliente. pero todavia tenia frio. 4. Un dia un o?ciai me $2106 a mi mi mama de nuestra celda. Le pregunto cosas a mi mama. No s? qu? cosas le pregunto. No me preguntc?) nada a mi. 5. Despu?s fuimos a la perrera. Nos pusieron en unajaulajuntos. Dormimos en el piso por cuatro dias. 6. Un dia me separaron de mi mama. Era en Mayo. Un hombre una mujer me llevaron a un albergue en Texas. No me dijeron por qu? mi mama no estaba conmigo. No vi a mi mama por 50 dias. 7. No habl? con mi mama por muchos dias. Cuando ?nalmente habl? con ella por tel?fono le pregunt? por qu? ella no queria visitarme. Estuve triste porque la extra?aba. Habia personas a las que llamabamos ?se?oritas? ellas me cuidaban en lugar de mi mama. 8. El 17 de julio del 2018, vi a mi mama otra vez. Me acuerdo porque mi cumplea?os es el 18 dejulio cumpli siete a?os. Case Document 6-6 Filed 07/27/18 Page 4 of 8 9. Ahora estoy en un centro IIamado Dilley con mi mama. Quiero estar con 611a. Tengo miedo de estar sin ella porque tengo miedo de las guardias que trabajan aqui, [03 con camisas verdes. 10. Tambi?n tengo miedo de regresar a Honduras porque no quiero que mi papa que las personas malas que est?n enojados con mi familia me hagan da?o. 1 l. Quiero estar en los Estados Unidos con mi mama para que podamos estar seguros. 12. Tengo muchos papeles en el albergue donde vivia. No se donde est?n. Ellos me 105 quitaron no se como conseguirlos. 13. Nunca he hablado con un o?cial de inmigracion ni un o?cial de asilo sobre mi miedo de ser regresado a Honduras. Quiero decirles por qu? tengo miedo porque no quiero ser deportado. 14. Mi abogada me ayudo a pedir hablar con unjuez de inmigracion 0 un o?cial de asilo. Escribimos una carta, pero no han respondido. Yo declaro bajo pena de perjurio bajo [as leyes de los Estados Unidos que todo lo anterior es verdadero correcto. Ejecutado este dia 26 de julio de 2018 en Dilley, Texas. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-6 Filed 07/27/18 Page 5 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M.M.M., on behalf of his minor child, J.M.A., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. _________ DECLARATION OF A.M.C. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMNARY INJUNCTION v. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-6 Filed 07/27/18 Page 6 of 8 I, , declare and state under 28 U.S.C. § 1746: 1. I am seven years old. I speak Spanish. I write this letter for the Judge because I want the Judge to know what happened to me. I promise to tell the truth. 2. I moved to the United States with my mother because we were afraid to live in Honduras. I do not want to return to Honduras because bad people shot bullets at my house and threw a bomb at my house. These bad people want to kill my family. I am also afraid because my dad hits me, and I do not feel safe living with him. 3. I do not remember when I entered the United States. I came with my mom. We traveled a really long way to get here. When we got here, we were taken to the hielera [translated to English as the ice box]. I was there for many days. I was hungry and cold there. They gave me an aluminum blanket. I was tired, but there was no bed. In the hielara, my mom was with me. She hugged me to keep me warm, but I was still cold. 4. One day an official took me and my mom out of our cell. He asked my mom questions. I do not know what he asked her. He did not ask me anything. 5. After that we went to the perrera [translated to English as the dog pound]. They put us in a cage together. We slept on the floor for four days. 6. One day they separated me from my mom. It was in May. A man and a woman drove me to a shelter in Texas. They didn’t tell me why my mom wasn’t with me. I did not see my mom again for 50 days. 7. I did not talk to my mom for many days. When I finally talked to her on the phone I asked her why she didn’t want to visit me. I was sad because I missed her. There were ladies that we called “Miss” and they took care of me in place of my mom. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-6 Filed 07/27/18 Page 7 of 8 8. On July 17, 2018 I saw my mom again. I remember because my birthday is July 18 and I turned seven. 9. I am now in a center called Dilley with my mom. I want to be with her. I am scared to be without her because I am afraid of the guards who work here, the ones who wear green shirts. 10. I also am afraid to return to Honduras because I do not want my dad or the bad people who are mad at my family to hurt me. 11. I would like to stay in the United States with my mother so we can be safe. 12. I have lots of papers from the shelter where I lived. I do not know what they are. They took them away from me and I do not know how to get them. 13. I have never spoken with an immigration official or asylum officer about my fear of being returned to Honduras. I want to tell them why I am afraid because I do not want to be deported. 14. My lawyer helped me ask to see an immigration judge or asylum officer. We wrote a letter, but they have not responded. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 26th day of July 2018, in Dilley, Texas. ____[signature]_________________ Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-6 Filed 07/27/18 Page 8 of 8 CERTIFICATION BY TRANSLATOR I certify that I am fluent in both the English and Spanish languages and that the attached translation of the accompanying Declaration of A.M.C. is a true and correct translation of the original. _Gabriella Morello_____________________ Name of Translator __gabriella.morello@hoganlovells.com__________________ Email Address __305.459.6500__________________ Phone Number _______________________________ Signature __27 July 2018___________ Date \\DC - 046785/000001 - 12484088 v1 Case Document 6-7 Filed 07/27/18 Page 1 of 12 EXHIBIT 6 Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-7 Filed 07/27/18 Page 2 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M.M.M., on behalf of his minor child, J.M.A., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. _________ DECLARATION OF J.M.A. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMNARY INJUNCTION v. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-7 Filed 07/27/18 Page 3 of 12 Yo, , declaro y afirmo de acuerdo con 28 U.S.C. § 1746: 1. Tengo trece años. Mi lengua materna es el español. Los hechos en esta declaración jurada se basan en mi propio conocimiento personal, y podría y debería testificar de manera competente sobre los asuntos contenidos en este documento si se me solicitara hacerlo. Presento esta declaración jurada en apoyo de la Moción de los Demandantes por Orden de Restricción Temporal e Injunction Preliminar. 2. Salí de Honduras con mi padre, , porque la pandilla Calle 18 nos amenazó a mí y a mi padre. El viaje a los Estados Unidos fue muy dificil; pasamos por muchas cuidadas para tomar los trenes, recorrimos un mes y una semana. Dormiamos en los montes y tuvimos que pedir ayuda para alimentarmos. Mi padre y yo fuimos detenidos por agentes de inmigración de los Estados Unidos alrededor de Eagle Pass, Texas, alrededor del 20 de mayo de 2018. 3. Mi padre y yo fuimos llevados a la "hielera" y estuvimos juntos durante aproximadamente 8-10 horas. Tomaron las huellas y la fotografía de mi padre. Me hicieron algunas preguntas, no recuerdo mucho, pero recuerdo que me preguntaron mi nombre y mi edad. Creo que le hicieron otras preguntas a mi padre, pero sinceramente no recuerdo. No estaba poniendo atención a la mayoría de las preguntas que me hicieron por que estaba con mi padre y pensé que él las contestaría. Habíamos viajado bastante y estaba agotado; había poca comida, no tenía dónde dormir, no podía bañarme o cambiarme de ropa. 4. Fui separado de mi padre el 20 de mayo de 2018 y me llevaron a otra "hielera" a unas dos horas de distancia. Habían sacado a todos los padres del cuarto y luego, después de un tiempo, mi papá regresó. Su cara se veía muy seria. Me abrazó y me dijo que nos separariamos. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-7 Filed 07/27/18 Page 4 of 12 Ambos empezamos a llorar un poco, tambien había otros padres y sus hijos en ese cuarto, niños mucho más jóvenes que yo, que lloraban mucho. Unos minutos después me sacaron del cuarto y me llevaron con un grupo de otros niños y me dijeron que nos iban a llevar a otro lugar. Le pregunté por mi padre y todo lo que dijeron fue "te vas a ir a otro lugar". Me hicieron una revisión corporal, creo que buscaban armas, despues me subi a una camioneta con otros niños a la otra "hielera". 5. La separación fue horrible. Estaba realmente asustado porque no nos decian nada. No sabía si volvería a ver a mi papá. Le pregunté eso antes de que me llevaron, pero él no supo cómo responder. 6. En la segunda "hielera" solo eran niños. Nos dividieron por género y edad. Estuve allí un día y luego me llevaron a un refugio en San Antonio, Texas. Estuve allí por 58 días. Fue por lo menos un mes, pero creo que fue más tiempo, después de la separación que pude hablar con mi padre. Le estaba pidiendo a la gente de mi refugio que le llamaran, pero me dijeron que no podían contactarlo. Fue una llamada telefónica, y solo duro unos dos minutos. No hablamos sobre nuestro caso legal; estaba tan aliviado de escuchar su voz. Creo que los dos podríamos haber estado llorando pero sinceramente no recuerdo. 7. El tiempo entero que estuve separado no sabía si volvería a ver a mi papá. Cuando estaba en el refugio, hablé con mi madre que todavía está en Honduras. Ella tenía información sobre mi padre. No sé si ella realmente estaba hablando con él, pero ella dijo que él estaba bien. Pero no sabía si realmente lo volvería a ver. 8. Me reuní con mi padre el 17 de julio de 2018 y desde entonces hemos sido detenidos juntos en el Centro Residencial del Condado de Karnes. Ese fue un gran día. Esa mañana dijeron que iba a ver a mi papá, así que estaba muy emocionado. Hubo un par de otros Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-7 Filed 07/27/18 Page 5 of 12 niños y nos llevaron juntos al centro de detención de mi padre, pero no entré. Cuando mi padre finalmente salió y lo vi por primera vez, fue una gran sensación de alivio. Nos abrazamos por primera vez en meses y no quería dejar su lado. 9. Tengo miedo de ser separado de mi padre otra vez. 10. También tengo miedo de regresar a Honduras porque mi papá y yo podríamos ser heridos o asesinados por la pandilla Calle 18. Me amenazaron por lo menos tres veces, pero sé que amenazaron a mi padre aún más. Lastimaron a mi papá, creo que con un cuchillo, y él tiene cicatrices. Querían que mi papá y yo nos uniéramos a la pandilla. Creo que le dijeron otras cosas a mi padre cuando lo lastimaron, pero no estoy seguro. 11. Me gustaría quedarme en los Estados Unidos con mi padre para poder solicitar asilo y buscar la seguridad de las amenazas de la pandilla Calle 18. 12. El 21 de mayo de 2018 me enviaron un Aviso de Comparecencia para un proceso de deportación, pero nunca fui a una audiencia en la corte ni hablé con un juez. 13. No he tenido la oportunidad de explicar mi miedo a regresar a Honduras a ningún oficial de asilo. 14. Através de mi abogado, pedí la oportunidad de explicar mi temor de regresar a Honduras a los de inmigración o oficiales asilo. Creo que le dijeron a mi padre que no puedo buscar asilo, y luego, hace unos días, me reuní con un oficial que me dijo que iba a tener una entrevista. Pero mi abogado me dijo que cancelaron la entrevista hoy. 15. Mi papá tiene una orden de deportación expedita que recibió el 22 de mayo de 2018. Antes de que lo consiguiera, no podía hablar conmigo sobre mi temor a regresar a Honduras porque estábamos separados. Case Document 6-7 Filed 07/27/18 Page 6 of 12 16. No croo que tengo una orden do deportacion aoelerada mi nombre no ost?, en la orden de mi padre. 17. Mi abogado dijo quo debido a quo el caso do mi padre fue negado, los dos podriamos ser doportados. Poro no quioro regresar porque tango miedo do vivir on Honduras. Quioro solicitor asilo. quiero que mi papa tonga osa oportunidad tambi?n. Doolaro bajo pona do porjurio bajo las leyes de los Estados Unidos do Am?rioa que lo anterior es 1wordadoro oorrecto. Ejecutado el 26 de julio do 2018 en el Centro Residenoial do] Condado do Karnos. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-7 Filed 07/27/18 Page 7 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M.M.M., on behalf of his minor child, J.M.A., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. _________ DECLARATION OF J.M.A. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMNARY INJUNCTION v. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-7 Filed 07/27/18 Page 8 of 12 I, , declare and state pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746: 1. I am thirteen years old. My native language is Spanish. The facts in this declaration are based on my own personal knowledge, and could and should competently testify to the matters contained herein if called upon to do so. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. 2. I left Honduras with my father, , because the 18th Street gang threatened me and my father. The trip to the United States was very difficult; we passed through many cities to take trains, traveling one month and one week. We slept on mountains and we had to ask for help to eat. My dad and I were detained by United States immigration officers around Eagle Pass, Texas around May 20, 2018. 3. My father and I were taken to the “ice box” and we were together for about 8-10 hours. They took my father’s fingerprints and photograph. They asked me some questions—I don’t remember much, but I remember them asking my name and my age. I think they asked my father other questions but I honestly don’t remember. I wasn’t paying attention to most of the questions they asked because I was with my dad and thought he would answer them. We had been traveling quite a bit and I was exhausted; there was little food, I had nowhere to sleep, I couldn’t bathe or change my clothes. 4. I was separated from my father on May 20, 2018, and they took me to another “ice box” about two hours away. They had taken all of the parents out of the room and then after some time, my dad returned. His face looked very serious. He hugged me and told me we would be separated. We both started crying a bit, and there were also other dads and their kids in that room—kids much younger than me—who were crying a lot. A few minutes later they took me out of the room and put me together with a group of other children and they said we were being Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-7 Filed 07/27/18 Page 9 of 12 taken to another place. I asked about my father and all they said was “you’re going to another place.” They patted me down, I think to look for weapons, after I went into a van with other kids to the other “ice box.” 5. The separation was horrible. I was really scared because they wouldn’t tell us anything. I didn’t know if I would see my dad again. I asked him that before they took me away, but he didn’t know how to answer. 6. In the second “ice box” it was only children. They divided us by gender and age. I was there for about one day and then I was taken to a shelter in San Antonio, Texas. I was there for 58 days. It was at least one month, but I think longer than that, after I was separated before I actually spoke with my dad. I was asking the people at my shelter to call him, but they said they couldn’t contact him. It was a phone call, and we were only on for maybe two minutes. We didn’t talk about our legal case; I was just so relieved to hear his voice. I think we both might have been crying but I honestly don’t remember. 7. The whole time I was separated I didn’t know if I would ever see my dad again. When I was at the shelter I spoke to my mom who is still in Honduras. She had information about my dad. I don’t know if she was actually talking to him, but she said that he was doing ok. But I didn’t know if I would actually see him again. 8. I was reunified with my dad on July 17, 2018, and since then we’ve been detained together at the Karnes County Residential Center. That was a great day. That morning they said I was going to see my dad so I was very excited. There were a couple of other kids and they took us together to my dad’s detention center but I didn’t go inside. When my dad finally came outside and I saw him for the first time, it was a huge feeling of relief. We hugged for the first time in months and I didn’t want to leave his side. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-7 Filed 07/27/18 Page 10 of 12 9. I am afraid of being separated from my dad again. 10. I also am afraid to return to Honduras because my dad and I might be harmed or killed by the 18th street gang. They threatened me at least three times, but I know they threatened my dad even more. They hurt my dad, I think with a knife, and he has scars. They wanted me and my dad to join the gang. I think they said other things to my dad when they harmed him but I don’t know for sure. 11. I would like to stay in the United States with my dad so I can apply for asylum and seek safety from the 18th street gang’s threats. 12. On May 21, 2018, they sent me a Notice to Appear for removal proceedings. but I’ve never gone to a court hearing nor have I spoken to a judge. 13. I have not had the opportunity to explain my fear of returning to Honduras to any asylum officers. 14. Through my attorney, I asked for the chance to explain my fear of returning to Honduras to immigration or asylum officers. I think they told my dad that I can’t seek asylum, and then, a few days ago, I met with an officer who told me I was going to have an interview. But my lawyer told me that they cancelled the interview today. 15. My dad has an order for expedited removal that he got on May 22, 2018. Before he got it he could not talk to me about my fear of returning to Honduras because we were separated. 16. order. I do not think I have an expedited removal order and my name is not on my dad’s Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-7 Filed 07/27/18 Page 11 of 12 17. My lawyer said that because my dad’s case has been denied, both of us might be deported. But I don’t want to go back because I am afraid to live in Honduras. I want to apply for asylum. And I want my dad to have that chance too. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 26th day of July 2018, in Karnes. _______[signed]_______________ Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-7 Filed 07/27/18 Page 12 of 12 CERTIFICATION BY TRANSLATOR I certify that I am fluent in both the English and Spanish languages and that the attached translation of the accompanying Declaration of J.M.A. is a true and correct translation of the original. _Gabriella Morello_____________________ Name of Translator __gabriella.morello@hoganlovells.com__________________ Email Address __305.459.6500__________________ Phone Number _______________________________ Signature __27 July 2018___________ Date \\DC - 046785/000001 - 12484088 v1 Case Document 6-8 Filed 07/27/18 Page 1 of 8 EXHIBIT 7 Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-8 Filed 07/27/18 Page 2 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M.M.M., on behalf of his minor child, J.M.A., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. _________ v. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants. DECLARATION OF MANOJ GOVINDAIAH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMNARY INJUNCTION Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-8 Filed 07/27/18 Page 3 of 8 I, Manoj Govindaiah, declare and state pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the States of Illinois, Florida, and Texas. I have been licensed in these states since 2006, 2012, and 2015, respectively. I currently practice law at the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (“RAICES”) in San Antonio, Texas. I am above the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge, and could and would competently testify to the matters contained herein if called upon to do so. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. 2. Among other persons, I have provided legal services to non-citizen children who have been detained, separated from their parents, deemed unaccompanied minors, and then reunified with their parents, including two Plaintiffs in this action: J.M.A. and E.A.H. They are minors currently detained at the Karnes County Residential Center (“Karnes”) and were recently reunited with their fathers after a period of separation. I have spoken with J.M.A., E.A.H., and their fathers, and I have reviewed their available immigration files. 3. J.M.A. and E.A.H. seek asylum and fear persecution in their country of origin, but have been denied the opportunity to go through proceedings under Section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) after the government placed them in such proceedings, and they have been denied the opportunity for an interview with an asylum officer to evaluate whether the child has a “credible fear” of persecution under INA § 235. 4. After being separated from their parents, J.M.A. and E.A.H. were issued Notices to Appear for removal proceedings under INA § 240. However, I believe those notices either were never filed or have been withdrawn by the government. Therefore, J.M.A. and E.A.H. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-8 Filed 07/27/18 Page 4 of 8 were never given the opportunity to petition for asylum through Section 240 proceedings before being reunited with their parents. 5. In addition, E.A.H. has not been given a credible fear interview since being reunited with this father at Karnes. On July 19, 2018, at the request of E.A.H., lawyers from RAICES assisted him in expressing a fear of return to Honduras, which typically would result in a credible fear interview. We assisted E.A.H. by completing a “Resident Request to Staff” form, which is the ordinary process for expressing a fear of return at the Karnes County Residential Center, and instructed E.A.H. and his father that they would need to submit the form to ICE using a mailbox that is located inside the residential space in Karnes, where we, as attorneys, cannot access. The standard practice is that ICE officers issue a written response to such forms. To my knowledge, E.A.H. never received a response to that request form, though his father verbally confirmed that he submitted the form in the mailbox as instructed. The “Resident Request to Staff” form was scanned and emailed to ICE officers and USCIS Asylum Officers that work at Karnes, with proof that we are E.A.H.’s attorney of record. ICE has yet to respond to the email. The Asylum Office, however, responded the following day saying they lack jurisdiction over the request because ICE has not referred the case to the Asylum Office. At some point between July 21-23, 2018, the Asylum Office contacted Plaintiff E.A.H. and his father and provided him with an M-444 form which describes an asylum applicant’s rights in the credible fear process, and advised that he would be scheduled for a credible fear interview, but did not provide a date or time. On July 26, 2018, I contacted the Asylum Office to inquire as to the status of Plaintiff E.A.H.’s credible fear interview, however they indicated that the case had not been referred to them by ICE. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-8 Filed 07/27/18 Page 5 of 8 6. J.M.A. has not been given a credible fear interview since being reunited with this father at Karnes either. On July 19, 2018, Plaintiff J.M.A. indicated to a RAICES attorney that he had a fear of return. Later that evening, we emailed ICE officers and USCIS Asylum Officers that work at Karnes to state that J.M.A. has a fear of returning to Honduras, and attached proof that we are J.M.A.’s attorney of record. ICE has yet to respond to the email. The Asylum Office, however, responded the following day saying they lack jurisdiction over the request because ICE has not referred the case to the Asylum Office. On July 20, 2018, lawyers from RAICES assisted J.M.A. in completing a “Resident Request to Staff” form, and instructed J.M.A. and his father that they would need to submit the form to ICE using the mailbox that is located inside the residential space in Karnes. They later received a response, dated July 21, 2018, that said in Spanish “wait for your interview.” On July 23, 2018, J.M.A. was issued a “Notice of Interview for Credible/Reasonable Fear” that indicated he would receive a credible fear interview on July 26, 2018. On July 26, 2018 I emailed the Asylum Office to ask the status of the interview, and they responded that ICE had rescinded the “ER triggering docs” so the Asylum Office no longer had jurisdiction to consider J.M.A. for credible fear. 7. Prior to the implementation of the government’s family separation policy, requests of the nature described Paragraphs 6 and 7 above were honored by ICE. However, since the government has started reunifying families that were separated, ICE officials have not responded to requests we have sent to their attention regarding credible fear interviews of reunified children detained at Karnes. Thus, I do not believe ICE has any intention of honoring these requests. 8. The accompanying parents or guardians of J.M.A. and E.A.H., M.M.M. and I.A.T., respectively, have received their own expedited removal orders after receiving a negative Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-8 Filed 07/27/18 Page 6 of 8 finding from the Asylum Office on their credible fear interviews. However, these credible fear interviews were conducted after the parent or guardian had been separated from their child. Many, if not all, of the separated parents we have worked with were experiencing extreme emotional distress and trauma at the time of their credible fear interviews, making it nearly impossible for them to focus on anything other than the location and wellbeing of their children. 9. In addition, because of the separation policy, J.M.A.’s and E.A.H.’s parents or guardians were unable to consult with them prior to the parents’ or guardians’ own credible fear interviews. The ability of a parent or guardian to consult with the child prior to a credible fear interview is extremely important. Based on my experience, I am aware of cases in which the child knew of facts that the parent does not know that would strengthen the parent’s claim of asylum and increase the likelihood of a positive finding in the parent’s credible fear interview. For example, a child could be threatened that if he does not join a particular gang, the gang will harm or kill the parent. These kinds of cases are common. 10. J.M.A. and E.A.H. are not independently subject to expedited removal orders that I am aware of, and the Plaintiffs are not named on the orders issued to their parents. I am not aware of any removal order of any kind that J.M.A. and E.A.H. are currently subject to, and do not believe the United States has legal authority to remove them from the country. 11. I understand that the accompanying parents or guardians of Plaintiffs J.M.A. and E.A.H. agreed to deportation for themselves and for their children in exchange for reunification with their children. ICE secured these agreements by pressuring parents or guardians into signing various rudimentary forms that provided them two basic options: (1) be deported with your child, or (2) be deported alone. No form that I have seen provided any indication about what the child’s or parent’s rights were under the immigration laws, or what alternatives might Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-8 Filed 07/27/18 Page 7 of 8 be available to them. No form that I have seen contemplated the right of the parent to be reunified with their child while their child applies for immigration relief. Many parents were not able to consult with a lawyer before signing, and elected to be deported with the child because they were so desperate to be reunited with their child, and were led to believe it was the only way, or quickest way, to be reunited. I believe that ICE is treating such selections as a “waiver” of any rights the child and/or parent might have under the immigration laws so that ICE can deport the entire family as soon as possible following reunification. 12. Based on the foregoing, I believe that Plaintiffs and their parents or guardians are in serious danger of being deported without the Plaintiffs ever going through removal proceedings under Section 240 or receiving the required credible fear interviews under Section 235. And the Plaintiffs and their parents are not alone. They are among hundreds of children and parents in similar circumstances who have suffered the same pattern of behavior by ICE and other government officials. 13. It is my understanding that Plaintiffs J.M.A. and E.A.H. will be deported with their parents or guardians to Honduras as early as Saturday, July 28, 2018, without the opportunity for their own credible fear interview. This understanding is based on the fact that both fathers have already spoken with the Honduran Consulate, which is a required step for the preparation and issuance of travel documents before being deported. I believe they spoke with the Honduran Consulate on or about July 19, 2018. The fathers relayed to me that the consular official told them they would be deported very soon, and discouraged them from continuing to fight their cases. The consular official did not acknowledge that J. M.A. and E.A.H. have no removal orders and that the United States has no legal authority to deport the children. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-8 Filed 07/27/18 Page 8 of 8 14. In my experience, when a family speaks with their consulate for the issuance of travel documents, they will be deported shortly thereafter, usually within a few days. I believe these families have not been deported sooner because the judge in Ms. L v. ICE, et al, No. 18-cv00428-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal., Feb. 2018), has issued a stay of removal through July 27, 2018. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 27th day of July, 2018, in San Antonio, Texas. _________________________ Manoj Govindaiah Case Document 6-9 Filed 07/27/18 Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT 8 Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-9 Filed 07/27/18 Page 2 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M.M.M., on behalf of his minor child, J.M.A., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. _________ v. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants. DECLARATION OF SHALYN FLUHARTY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMNARY INJUNCTION Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-9 Filed 07/27/18 Page 3 of 6 I, Shalyn Fluharty, declare and state pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California since 2010. My practice has focused on representing detained unaccompanied immigrant children, and detained immigrant families before the Executive Office of Immigration Review and the Department of Homeland Security. I currently serve as the Managing Attorney of the Dilley Pro Bono Project in Dilley, Texas. I am above the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. I make this affidavit of my own personal knowledge, and could and would competently testify to the matters contained herein if called upon to do so. I submit this affidavit in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. 2. I currently represent many non-citizen children asylum-seekers who have been detained, separated from their parents, deems unaccompanied, and then reunified with their parents. I represent four of the Plaintiffs in this action: D.B.G., A.M.C., L.A.A., and G.M.A. They are children currently detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center (“STFRC”) with their mothers. I have spoken to all of them, and their parents, and I have reviewed their available immigration files. I have also spoken to many other families detained at STFRC as well, before and after recent reunifications. 1. D.B.G., A.M.C., L.L.A., and G.M.A. seek asylum and/or fear persecution in their country of origin, but have been denied the opportunity for an interview with an immigration judge or asylum officer to evaluate whether the meet the “refugee” definition as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1158. 2. Under information and belief, D.B.G., A.M.C., L.L.A., and G.M.A. were issued Notices to Appear for removal proceedings under Section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act after being separated from their parents. Those notices were never filed with the Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-9 Filed 07/27/18 Page 4 of 6 Executive Office of Immigration Review prior to their reunification with their parents. Therefore, D.B.G., A.M.C., L.L.A., and G.M.A. were never given the opportunity to petition for asylum through Section 240 proceedings. 3. After their reunification, on July 20, 2018, lawyers and paralegals from the Dilley Pro Bono Project assisted D.B.G., A.M.C., L.L.A., and G.M.A. in expressing their fear to return to Honduras. I helped each child complete and sign a declaration, stating their fear and desire to see an immigration judge of asylum officer. Members of the Dilley Pro Bono Project placed these in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement mailbox at 3:55 C.S.T. on July 20, 2018. This would typically result in a credible fear interview. It has now been a week and ICE and USCIS have not yet responded to these requests. 4. Prior to the implementation of the government’s family separation policy, requests of the nature described above were immediately honored by ICE. Without hesitation ICE would refer the individual’s case – regardless of if the referral was for a mother or child – contact USCIS and refer the individual for a credible fear interview. However, ICE officials have not responded to the requests of D.B.G., A.M.C., L.L.A., and G.M.A. in Dilley. Thus, I do not believe ICE has any intention of honoring these requests. 5. The accompanying parents of D.B.G., A.M.C., L.L.A., and G.M.A. have final orders of removal subsequent to their own expedited removal orders after receiving a negative finding from the Asylum Office on their credible fear interviews. All of the Plaintiffs’ parents were suffering from emotional distress so severe during their interviews they were unable to participate meaningfully in their own interview. Nothing was more pressing for each of the mothers than finding their children to ensure their safety and wellbeing. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-9 Filed 07/27/18 Page 5 of 6 6. In addition, because of the separation policy, the Plaintiffs’ parents were unable to consult with Plaintiffs prior to their own credible fear interviews. Many of the Plaintiffs, like most of my child clients, knew crucial information relevant to proper adjudication of their mother’s case. 7. D.B.G., A.M.C., L.L.A., and G.M.A. are not subject to orders of removal, that I know of. In fact, I am not aware of any removal order of any kind that the Plaintiffs are currently subject to. Furthermore, I do not believe the United States of America has legal authority to remove them. 8. I understand that the Plaintiffs’ parents agreed to deportation for themselves and for their minor children in exchange for reunification with their children. Based on my conversations with parents, I believe ICE secured these agreements by pressuring parents or guardians into signing various forms that essentially gave them two options: (1) be deported with your child, or (2) be deported alone. No form that I have seen provided any indication about what the child’s or parent’s rights were under the immigration laws, or what alternatives might be available to them. No form that I have seen contemplated the right of the parent to be reunified with their child while their child applies for immigration relief. 9. Some forms provided a third option of being able to speak to a lawyer, but many parents elected to be deported with their child because they were so desperate to be reunited and believed it was the only way to be reunited, or at least the quickest way. Based on all of the facts and circumstances of which I am aware, I believe that ICE is treating such selections as a “waiver” of any rights the child and/or parent might have under the immigration laws so that ICE can deport the entire family as soon as possible following reunification. Case 1:18-cv-01759-PLF Document 6-9 Filed 07/27/18 Page 6 of 6 10. Based on the foregoing, I believe that Plaintiffs and their parents face immediate removal from the United States, along with hundreds of my other clients. 11. Unless there is a stay of deportation, I believe Plaintiffs will be deported with their parents to Honduras as early as Saturday, July 28, 2018, without the opportunity for their own credible fear interview or a hearing before the immigration judge. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 27th day of July, 2018, in Dilley, Texas. Shalyn Fluharty Case Document 6-10 Filed 07/27/18 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M.M.M., on behalf of his minor child, J.M.A., et 01., CIVIL ACTION NO. Plaintiffs, v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, 111, Attorneyl General of the United States, et al., Efendants. Upon consideration of Plaintiffs? Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, the accompanying memorandum and other submissions ?led in support thereof, any opposition thereto, and the entire record in this case, the Court ?nds that: 1. Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims for a permanent injunction against Defendants? policy of removing children from the United States before permitting them the opportunity seek asylum pursuant to their rights under the Immigration and Nationality Act (including 8 U.S.C. 1158, 1225, or 1229a), the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, and the Mandamus Act (the ?Policy?); for a declaratory judgment that the Policy violates the INA, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution; and-"or for a Writ of Mandamus to compel Defendants to comply with the INA. Case Document 6-10 Filed 07/27/18 Page 2 of 3 2. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that immediate and irreparable injury will result to Plaintiffs in this action if a preliminary injunction is not entered against Defendants because the Policy would result in removal of Plaintiffs and other migrant children in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution under circumstances where Plaintiffs and other migrant children have a well-founded fear of persecution and life-threatening violence in their country of origin. 3. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that issuance of a preliminary injunction will not cause substantial harm to Defendants. 4. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that issuance of a preliminary injunction is in the public interest and that the balance of equities favors Plaintiffs, because it protects Plaintiffs? rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and under the WA to pursue asylum based on Plaintiffs? well-founded fear of persecution and life-threatening violence in their country of origin. For these reasons and those set forth in the accompanying opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. The Policy (as defined above) of Defendants and their of?cers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all those who are in active concert or participation with them is hereby PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED. Defendants and their of?cers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all those who are in active concert or participation with them are hereby ORDERED to provide all non- citizen children who were separated from their parents or guardians upon (or after) entry into the United States with their rights to petition for asylum under Section 240 and Section 235 of the INA following reunification with, and in consultation with, their parents or guardians, until such proceedings are terminated. Case Document 6-10 Filed 07/27/18 Page 3 of 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall immediately provide a copy of this Order to any persons or entity that may be subject to any provision of this Order, including their of?cers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all those who are in active concert or participation with them or have any involvement in the removal of individuals from the Unites States. Within two (2) business days of receipt of this Order, Defendant shall submit to counsel for Plaintiffs a truthful sworn statement identifying those persons and-?or entities to whom this Order has been distributed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall stay in effect until the Court has adjudicated this case on the merits. IT IS SO ORDERED on this day of 2018. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case Document 6-11 Filed 07/27/18 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA M.M.M., on behalf of his minor child, J.M.A., et (11., Plaintiffs, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, 111, Attorney General of the United States, at (11., Defendants. Upon consideration of Plaintiffs? Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary CIVIL ACTION NO. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Injunction, and other submissions ?led in support thereof, the Court finds that: 1. Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims for a permanent injunction against Defendants? policy of removing children from the United States before permitting them the Opportunity seek asylum pursuant to their rights under the Immigration and Nationality Act (including 8 U.S.C. 1158, 1225, or 1229a), the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, and the Mandamus Act (the ?Policy?); for a declaratory judgment that the Policy violates the INA, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution; andr?or for a Writ of Mandamus to compel Defendants to comply with the INA. Case Document 6-11 Filed 07/27/18 Page 2 of 3 2. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that immediate and irreparable injury will result to Plaintiffs in this action if a Temporary Restraining Order is not entered against Defendants because the Policy would result in removal of Plaintiffs and other migrant children in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution under circumstances where Plaintiffs and other migrant children have a well-founded fear of persecution and life-threatening violence in their country of origin. 3. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order will not cause substantial harm to Defendants, since it will only maintain the status quo pending resolution of the merits of this case. 4. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order is in the public interest and that the balance of equities favors Plaintiffs, because it protects Plaintiffs? rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and under the INA to pursue asylum based on Plaintiffs? well-founded fear of persecution and life-threatening violence in their country of origin. For these reasons and those set forth in the accompanying opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED. Defendants and their of?cers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all those who are in active concert or participation with them are hereby TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED from removing from the United States all non-citizen children, and the parents or guardians of such children, who were separated upon entry into the United States, including but not limited to Plaintiffs and their parents or guardians, until the merits of Plaintiffs? motion for a preliminary injunction is resolved. id Case Document 6?11 Filed 07/27/18 Page 3 of 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall immediately provide a copy of this Order to any persons or entity that may be subject to any provision of this Order, including their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all those who are in active concert or participation with them or have any involvement in the removal of individuals from the Unites States. Within two (2) business days of receipt of this Order, Defendant shall submit to counsel for Plaintiffs a truthful sworn statement identifying those persons and-?or entities to whom this Order has been distributed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) and Local Rule 65.1(0) that Defendants are required to respond to Plaintiffs? pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction within seven (7) days of this Order. Plaintiffs reply shall be due three (3) days after any opposition is ?led. This Order shall stay in effect until such time as the Court rules on Plaintiffs? pending motion for a preliminary injunction. IT IS SO ORDERED, at am/pm on this day of 2018. BNITED STATES DISTRICT