Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 120 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 9 The Honorable James L. Robart 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 JOHN DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, 11 12 13 v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants. 14 15 16 JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF SEATTLE, et al., Plaintiffs, 17 18 19 20 21 22 Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-00178JLR v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-01707JLR DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING DISPOSITION OF CROSS-APPEALS (RELATING TO JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE, NO. 17-1707) Noted for Consideration: February 2, 2018 23 24 25 26 DEFS.’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOT. TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 120 Filed 02/02/18 Page 2 of 9 1 Defendants explained in their opening brief how a stay is most “efficient for [the Court’s] 2 own docket and the fairest course for the parties.” Levya v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 3 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). Plaintiffs’ opposition brief (ECF No. 115, “Opp’n”) fails to disturb 4 this conclusion. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, a stay furthers the orderly course of justice and 5 inflicts no harm on any party: Plaintiffs have already received an injunction against the provisions 6 of the October 23, 2017, Memorandum to the President (“Agency Memo”) that they challenge, 7 and in any event those provisions have expired. Plaintiffs are not entitled to the administrative 8 record unless and until the Government answers Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Further, Plaintiffs’ request 9 for discovery to “ensure Defendants’ compliance with this Court’s preliminary injunction,” Opp’n 10 at 5, is entirely unsupported: Defendants have fully complied with the Court’s injunction, and 11 have even taken steps to explain and demonstrate their compliance to the Court. Plaintiffs’ 12 arguments supply no reason to deny a stay. 13 I. A Stay Would Promote Judicial Economy and Would Not Harm Any Party 14 The Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the cross-appeals of this Court’s December 23, 2017, 15 preliminary injunction would “likely help the court in resolving” the forthcoming issues in this 16 case, whether on mootness grounds or otherwise. See Washington v. Trump, No. 17-0141JLR, 17 2017 WL 2172020, at *3 (W.D. Wash. May 17, 2017) (“Washington II”). Since Defendants filed 18 their stay motion, the 90-day Security Advisory Opinion (“SAO”) review period expired by its 19 own terms, and the implementation of additional procedures for following-to-join refugees has 20 been completed. Plaintiffs’ challenges to the enjoined provisions of the Agency Memo are thus 21 moot, and Defendants plan to file a motion with the Ninth Circuit next week seeking a remand 22 with instructions to dismiss this case as moot, as well as vacatur of the injunction. See No. 18- 23 35015, ECF No. 21 (9th Cir. January 30, 2018). The Ninth Circuit has set a schedule that will see 24 briefing on that motion completed by February 28, 2018. See id. Plaintiffs apparently question 25 whether the case is moot, see Opp’n at 11-12, but the parties’ disagreement only underscores the 26 need for a stay here. The Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the mootness issue will provide guidance DEFS.’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOT. TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS - 1 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 120 Filed 02/02/18 Page 3 of 9 1 for this Court. Moreover, absent a stay, Defendants would move this Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ 2 case as moot, and this Court’s resolution of that issue could result in “inconsistent rulings” if the 3 Ninth Circuit reaches a different conclusion on the question. Washington v. Trump, No. C17- 4 0141JLR, 2017 WL 1050354, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2017) (“Washington I”); see also 5 Washington II, 2017 WL 2172020, at *2. Plaintiffs’ request for an administrative record further 6 shows that proceeding here would waste resources, as Defendants have no obligation to produce 7 such a record until this Court resolves Defendants’ motion to dismiss—on the very grounds that 8 are about to be before the Ninth Circuit.1 9 As this Court has explained, “[d]istrict courts often stay proceedings where resolution of 10 an appeal in another matter is likely to provide guidance to the court in deciding issues before it,” 11 Washington II, 2017 WL 2172020, at *2-3, and there is every reason for this Court to follow the 12 same path that it did twice in Washington v. Trump and once again in Doe v. Trump, ECF No. 34. 13 Plaintiffs fail to distinguish Washington II. As in Washington II, Defendants’ motion before the 14 Ninth Circuit “is likely to raise the same arguments” that Defendants would make before this 15 Court—concerning whether Plaintiffs’ case is moot and whether the injunction should therefore 16 be dissolved and the case dismissed—and the decision on that “legal issue . . . will impact the 17 court’s resolution of the parties’ discovery disputes.” Washington II, 2017 WL 2172020, at *2- 18 3. After all, if the case is moot and the injunction is dissolved, Plaintiffs would have no basis for 19 requesting an administrative record and/or discovery. 20 There is no reason to think the proposed stay would last longer than a “short duration.” 21 Id. at *4. Defendants request a stay pending disposition of appellate proceedings concerning the 22 preliminary injunction, which is the same, reasonable stay duration approved by this Court in 23 Washington II (and in Washington I, and by the District of Hawaii in Hawaii v. Trump, see No. 24 CV 17-00050, ECF No. 279). Nothing indicates that the Ninth Circuit would unduly delay 25 26 1 Local Civil Rule 79(h) would not require Defendants to produce the administrative record until Defendants file their answer, which would not occur (if at all) until after the Court resolves Defendants’ motion to dismiss. DEFS.’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOT. TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS - 2 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 120 Filed 02/02/18 Page 4 of 9 1 resolution of Defendants’ motion, see No. 18-35015, ECF No. 21 (9th Cir. January 30, 2018), 2 which may be ruled on without argument, see Fed. R. App. P. 27(e).2 And as explained below, 3 Plaintiffs’ unsupported request for discovery is not “typical,” and a stay is warranted “to protect 4 Defendants from the burden of resource intensive discovery while the Ninth Circuit addresses 5 issues that may inform the appropriateness, scope, and necessity of that discovery.” Washington 6 II, 2017 WL 2172020, at *4. As courts “often” do, id. at *2-3, this Court should stay proceedings. 7 II. Plaintiffs’ Unsupported Request for Discovery Is No Reason to Deny a Stay 8 Plaintiffs request that this Court deviate from this common path, alleging that “[w]ithout 9 discovery, Plaintiffs cannot ensure Defendant’s compliance with this Court’s preliminary 10 injunction.” Opp’n at 5. Notably, Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants are in fact out of 11 compliance, and for good reason: their argument is procedurally improper and baseless. 12 As a procedural matter, this Court should disregard Plaintiffs’ requests because a motion 13 is a prerequisite for a party to receive requested relief, and Plaintiffs have not filed one here. See, 14 e.g., Washington v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR, ECF No. 117 (“not[ing] that there is no 15 pending motion concerning the . . . issues before the court” and “declin[ing] to decide any of the 16 issues raised in the parties’ filings until such time as one of the parties files a motion”). 17 Further, Plaintiffs do not show that a stay harms them. Defendants do not seek to stay the 18 preliminary injunction itself, see Opening Br. at 3, ECF No. 110, and so would continue to adhere 19 to this Court’s Order regardless of whether proceedings are stayed. As Plaintiffs note, this Court 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 This scenario bears no resemblance to the cases Plaintiffs rely upon for arguing that a stay here would be too long. They point to Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Insurance Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2007), an inapposite case where the district court apparently thought that “case management standing alone” justified a stay that had lasted two years with no end in sight and that effectively forced the plaintiff into arbitration in a foreign country even though it was unclear whether the parties agreed to arbitrate. Similarly irrelevant is Young v. INS, 208 F.3d 1116, 1120 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted), where “special considerations . . . place[d] unique limits on [the] district court’s authority to stay a case” involving a writ of habeas corpus because the writ is “intended to be a swift and imperative remedy in all cases of illegal restraint or confinement.” Plaintiffs’ conjecture about a possible petition for certiorari and further speculation about when any Supreme Court review might take place, Opp’n at 3, does not justify denying a stay. If this Court is concerned about the duration of the stay, it could require a prompt status report once the Ninth Circuit has issued any dispositive ruling. DEFS.’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOT. TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS - 3 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 120 Filed 02/02/18 Page 5 of 9 1 retains authority to supervise compliance with the preliminary injunction while the appeal is 2 pending, see Opp’n at 4, and so Plaintiffs are incorrect that a stay would impact their rights. 3 Moreover, Plaintiffs’ claims for discovery to “assess[]” and “ensure” compliance lack 4 legal or factual support. Opp’n at 1, 5. “The presumption of regularity supports the official acts 5 of public officers, and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they 6 have properly discharged their official duties.” United States v. Chem. Found., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 7 (1926); see also Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 174 (2004); Angov v. 8 Lynch, 788 F.3d 893, 905 (9th Cir. 2015) (“The presumption of regularity has been applied far 9 and wide to many functions performed by government officials.”). In an effort to be transparent, 10 Defendants elected to file a notice with the Court to explain their good-faith compliance with the 11 injunction. See ECF No. 114. Plaintiffs entirely fail to acknowledge this presumption of 12 regularity, incorrectly try to shift the presumption to one against compliance, and, remarkably, 13 characterize the Government’s notice of compliance as “largely meaningless.” Opp’n at 7. 14 Yet Plaintiffs offer no legal authority entitling them to discovery to investigate the 15 Government’s compliance. They point to National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty v. 16 Department of Veterans Affairs, 842 F. Supp. 2d 127, 131 (D.D.C. 2012), but that out-of-circuit 17 case offers no such support. There, the Government moved to vacate a court order because of 18 allegedly changed circumstances, and the court, explaining that circuit law “requires courts to 19 make factual inquiries in evaluating motions to vacate or modify injunctions,” allowed “some 20 discovery” to evaluate the Government’s motion. Plaintiffs cite no authority allowing them 21 discovery when they have no evidence—or even a specific allegation—of noncompliance. Cf. 22 800 Adept, Inc. v. Murex Sec., Ltd., No. 6:02-cv-1354-ORL-19DAB, 2007 WL 2826247, at *2 23 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2007) (“[B]efore a court initiates a contempt proceeding or permits extensive 24 discovery of suspected violations of its judgment, there should be at least a prima facie showing 25 by the aggrieved party of disobedience of the order.”); John B. v. Menke, 176 F. Supp. 2d 786, 26 DEFS.’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOT. TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS - 4 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 120 Filed 02/02/18 Page 6 of 9 1 807 (M.D. Tenn. 2001) (“[T]he appointment of a special master to ensure the implementation of 2 a court order by a government entity is ‘an extraordinary remedy.’” (citation omitted)). 3 Indeed, Plaintiffs’ speculation about the Government’s compliance belies their repeated 4 representation that their request is “limited.” See Opp’n at 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12. Plaintiffs question 5 whether Defendants added enough SAO nationals to circuit rides, and whether other countries 6 may be better suited for next quarter’s circuit rides. Opp’n at 8. Plaintiffs ponder whether the 7 Government should issue guidance to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or to 8 “any of the federal and local agencies involved in security checks,” as well as whether funding 9 levels for Resettlement Support Centers and USCIS personnel should be reallocated. Opp’n at 7- 10 10. Defendants have made their commitment to compliance clear, and the preliminary injunction 11 does not empower Plaintiffs to go on a fishing expedition or micromanage the Government’s 12 administration of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).3 13 There is no reason to doubt Defendant’s compliance with the injunction. Plaintiffs 14 incorrectly argue that Defendants inadequately addressed deprioritization instructions. Opp’n at 15 7. Defendants clearly stated that they “apprised personnel of the injunction’s immediate impact,” 16 “issued guidance” so that “implementing partners could implement the injunction,” and 17 “instructed” those partners “to resume processing” of SAO nationals. ECF No. 114 at 2-3 18 (quoting Higgins Decl. ¶ 2; Gauger Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) And though Plaintiffs state that “only” one 19 client refugee has travelled, and that another has a travel date, Opp’n at 6 & n.8, that is not 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3 Plaintiffs’ request for a Rule 26(f) conference conflicts with their position that this case should move forward in a “manner consistent with an APA case.” Opp’n at 3. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(1) exempts such conferences in proceedings listed in Rule 26(a)(1)(B), including actions “for review on an administrative record.” Plaintiffs also characterize Defendants as “categorically refus[ing] to participate” in discovery planning and “unilaterally extending the Rule 26(f)” conference. Opp’n at 2. But Defendants understand that it is this Court’s practice to order such a conference when it finds one appropriate, such as it did in Doe v. Trump. See ECF No. 27 (addressing parties’ Rule 26 responsibilities). At the December 21, 2017, hearing, the Court rescinded its December 14, 2017, entry in Doe, which had directed the parties to respond to that earlier order. As Defendants explained to Plaintiffs, Defendants interpreted the Court vacating that entry as an indication that the parties in that action did not need to conduct Rule 26 activities at this time, and that there was no reason to deviate from this understanding for the consolidated Jewish Family Service case. Further confirming the reasonableness of Defendants’ position, Plaintiffs thereafter “request[ed] that the Court order the parties to confer pursuant to Rule 26(f),” ECF No. 100 at 3 n.5, but the Court did not grant that request. DEFS.’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOT. TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS - 5 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 120 Filed 02/02/18 Page 7 of 9 1 surprising given that little time has elapsed since the Court entered an injunction and the individual 2 Plaintiffs (or their family members) were generally not close to travel before the injunction was 3 issued, as Defendants emphasized in challenging Plaintiffs’ standing. 4 Moreover, comparing the quantity or percentage of SAO nationals admitted from past 5 fiscal years is not a useful metric to gauge Defendants’ current compliance. It is not surprising 6 that fewer SAO nationals were ready to travel during December and January than in years past, 7 as processing of SAO nationals and other refugees who lacked a bona fide relationship with a 8 U.S. person or entity was generally paused for 120 days pending a worldwide review of the 9 USRAP, and as processing of SAO nationals was again paused for 90 days as Defendants 10 implemented the Agency Memo (again, save those with a bona fide relationship in the United 11 States after this Court entered its preliminary injunction on December 23, 2017). 12 Additionally, Defendants have enhanced their screening processes from years past—an 13 improvement that Plaintiffs have not challenged and that the Court has not enjoined. Moreover, 14 although Defendants resumed processing applications from SAO nationals as soon as this Court 15 entered its injunction, Defendants have been unable to submit automated SAO requests because 16 the automated system has not been operational since the end of the 120-day review. Ex. A ¶¶ 4- 17 6. Defendants have used an alternative, manual approach to completing SAOs until the automated 18 exchange of data is functional, but this alternative is slow, resource intensive, and can only process 19 a limited number of people given that it is a fully manual process. Id. ¶¶ 5, 8. Defendants are 20 diligently working on the automated platform and expect it to be functional within days, but even 21 then, it will take some time to see a significant increase in admissions of SAO nationals, as the 22 SAO can take months to complete once the request is sent to the vetting partners. Id. ¶ 12. 23 In conclusion, the Ninth Circuit will decide whether Plaintiffs’ case is moot and the 24 injunction should be vacated; Plaintiffs can show no harm from a stay (indeed, Plaintiffs would 25 be in the same position as the plaintiffs in the Doe case); and denying a stay would only waste 26 resources. The Court should grant a stay. DEFS.’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOT. TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS - 6 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 120 Filed 02/02/18 Page 8 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 DATED: February 2, 2018 Respectfully submitted, CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General AUGUST E. FLENTJE Special Counsel JENNIFER D. RICKETTS Director, Federal Programs Branch JOHN R. TYLER Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch /s/ Joseph C. Dugan MICHELLE R. BENNETT DANIEL SCHWEI KEVIN SNELL JOSEPH C. DUGAN Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: joseph.dugan@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendants 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DEFS.’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOT. TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS - 7 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 120 Filed 02/02/18 Page 9 of 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I certify that on February 2, 2018, a copy of the foregoing document was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record. DATED this February 2, 2018. /s/ Joseph C. Dugan JOSEPH C. DUGAN 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DEFS.’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOT. TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS - 8 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case Document 120-1 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 7 Exhibit A Case Document 120-1 Filed 02/02/18 Page 2 of 7 The Honorable James L. Robart UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON JOHN DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants. AT SEATTLE Civil Action No. 2: 7-cv-00] 78JLR JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF SEATTLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-01707J LR DECLARATION OF HILARY E. INGRAHAM SUPPORTING REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS (RELATING TO JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE V. TRUMP) 1, Hilary E. Ingraham, for my declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, hereby state and depose as follows: 1. I am the Director of the Refugee Processing Center within the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the United States Department of State. I have served in this position since April 2014. In my current position, I am responsible for managing the DECLARATION OF HILARY E. INGRAIIAM- Doe. etal. v. Trump. er al., No, 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, at v. Trump. al., No. 2: l7-cv-OI707 (JLR) US. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington. DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case Document 120-1 Filed 02/02/18 Page 3 of 7 Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing System (WRAPS), which is the worldwide database used for processing refugees applying for resettlement to the United States. I submit this declaration in support of Defendants? reply in support of their motion to stay proceedings. The statements made herein are based on my personal knowledge and information made available to me in the course of carrying out my duties and responsibilities as Director of the Refugee Processing Center. Section 6(a) of Executive Order No. 13,780 (BO-2) directed the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to suSpend travel of refugees and decisions on refugee applications under the US. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for a period of 120 days to conduct a review of existing refugee procedures to ?determine what additional procedures should be used to ensure that individuals seeking admission as refugees do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States.? 82 Fed. Reg. 13,209 (Mar. 6, 2017). On October 23, 2017, at the conclusion of the 120-day review, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence issued a Joint Memorandum entitled ?Resuming the United States Refugee Admissions Program with Enhanced Vetting Capabilities.? The Addendum to the Joint Memorandurr provides a summary of additional security enhancements that were adopted as a result of the 120-day review that are applicable to refugee applicants seeking resettlement in the United States. As the Addendum explains, these security enhancements include, but are not limited to, the collection of additional data from all refugee applicants to enhance the effectiveness of biographic security checks; measures to ensure that new security checks are completed if new or updated information is obtained regarding an applicant; and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF HILARY li. INGRAHAM- 2 20 Massachusetts Ave, Doe. el al. v. Trump. e! at. No. 2: l7-cv-00178 (JLR) Washington, DC 20530 Jewish Family Service oj?Seattle. er al. v. Tmmp. at al.. No. 2: l7-cv-Ol707 (J LR) Te" (202) 514?3259 Case Document 120-1 Filed 02/02/18 Page 4 of 7 expanding the classes of refugee applicants who require a Security Advisory Opinion (SAO). . To implement these additional security enhancements, the Government was required to make technical changes to WRAPS to enable it to collect the additional data now required of all applicants and to transmit that additional data through an automated request in WRAPS that is sent to the relevant interagency vetting partners that conduct SAO reviews. This process requires the WRAPS system to interface through a Consular Affairs system with the systems of the two vetting partners. In other words, information ?ows from WRAPS through the CA system and to the vetting partners? systems. Immediately after October 24, 2017, the Refugee Processing Center began working with Consular Affairs and the vetting partners to make the necessary technical changes in both WRAPS and vetting partners? computer systems. The Refugee Processing Center?s target date for deployment of the updated system across all agencies was January 19, 2018, which would have permitted automated SAO requests through WRAPS at that time. . During the period when these technical changes were being made to WRAPS, the Refugee Processing Center worked with the partner vetting agencies to develop a system to request SAOs manually, as opposed to through the automated system. This alternative was developed in order to process SAOs for those refugees who were being considered by the Department of Homeland Security for case-by-case admission under the Joint Memorandum?s provisions. These cases generally involved refugees who required emergency medical treatment in the United States or who faced serious threats to their safety in the host country. After the preliminary injunction was issued on December 23, DECLARATION OF HILARY INGRAHAM- 3 DEPARTMENT OF 20 Massachusetts Ave, NW Doe. er al. v. Trump. e! (11.. No. 2: l7-cv-00178 (JIR) Washington. DC 20530 Jewrsh Family Serwce of Seattle, 2! al. v. Trump, 0! (11., N0. 2:17-cv-Ol707 (J LR) Tel: (202) 514'3259 Case Document 120-1 Filed 02/02/18 Page 5 of 7 2017, this manual system was used to process refugees who were SAO nationals with a bona ?de relationship to a US. person or entity, in compliance with the Court?s injunction, because the automated processing system was not yet deployed. This manual process is extremely time consuming and resource intensive because it relies on personnel across the State Department and from all vetting agencies to pull, post, and review information manually. The Re?lgee Processing Center could not submit automated SAO requests through WRAPS at the same time that it was performing the necessary technical changes to the WRAPS system because these requests would not include all of the relevant data needed for vetting purposes. Deployment of the new functionality, which would allow for automated SAO requests through WRAPS to resume, was complete for all agencies by January 19, 2018. Unfortunately, a technical defect was identi?ed immediately after deployment that prevented the additional data collected from refugee applicants from successfully reaching one of the vetting partners. The defect meant the vetting partner would be unable to take the additional data into account in conducting SAO reviews. The impactec agencies have been working together to understand the defect and develop solutions to ?x it. Once we have con?rmed that the technical problem is ?xed, processing SAOs will resume through the automated process, rather than the manual process. While the agencies have worked diligently to bring the automated system back online, they have also been processing cases through the manual system. Manual processing, however, requires signi?cant time and dedicated human resources because each request needs to be processed separately across multiple agencies. Manual processing also raises the risk DECLARATION or HILARY E. 4 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave, NW Doe, e! v. Trump. eraL, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Washington. DC 20530 Jewish Family Service ofSeame, el al. v. Trump, e101,, No. 2:17-cv-Ol707 (JLR) (202) 5?4'3259 10. 11. 12. Case Document 120-1 Filed 02/02/18 Page 6 of 7 of manual errors. cannot scale close to the level of automated processing and takes staff away from and further adversely impacts progress on the automated process. Therefore, all agencies are focusing primary attention on resuming automated requests. As of February 2, 2017, 37 requests impacting 128 individuals have either been processed manually or are in the process of being reviewed manually. These numbers directly relate to the resource-intensive nature of the manual requests, including the increased risk of manual errors, which results in significant time spent on each request. The technical dif?culties discussed above only impact the time in which the Refugee Processing Center sends out an SAO request. These dif?culties do not impact other aspects of processing for refugees from SAO countries, including speed of presereening of new applicants by the Resettlement Support Centers, interviews by US. Citizenship and Immigration Services personnel, other security checks, medical exams, and assurances to a resettlement agency. In addition, the delay in SAO responses will not impact refugee applicants from SAO countries that do not require an SAO. Based on the 120?day review changes that expanded the classes of refugee applicants subject to an SAO, as well as the additional data?gathering requirements, a greater proportion of refugee applicants now require an SAO. As noted, the agencies have been working diligently to resolve the technological difficulties to enable the resumption of the automated request process as soon as possible. The agencies believe they have identi?ed and repaired the problem and thus, beginning on February 3, 2018, Resettlement Support Centers will be permitted to resume requesting SAOs via WRAPS so that the agencies can test the system and con?rm that it is working properly. If the testing is successful, SAO requests can be automatically sent through WRAPS to the vetting partner agencies. The automatic system will permit more expeditious processing of SAOs than the manual system. However, on average, from the initial DECLARATION OF HILARY E. INGRAHAM- 5 DEPARTMENT 0? 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Doe. er al. v. Trump, er al., No. ULR) Washington, DC 20530 Jewish Servrce of Seattle. 6! v. Trump, er al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (ILR) Tel: (202) ?4'32? .82.Case Document 120-1 Filed 02/02/18 Page 7 of 7 automated request through WRAPS, it can regularly take multiple months to complete an SAO, depending on the number of SAD requests pending and the vetting partners? capacity. Therefore, the number of completed SAOs will not signi?cantly increase immediately upon completion and successful testing of the technical upgrades in WRAPS, 13. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on Foam?? ,2018. Hilary E. Ingraham '1 . i DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE I 1 Cl ARA 01 HILARY 1 . INGRAI 6 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Doc. 6! v. Trump. 6! (11.. No. 2: l7-cv-00178 (JLR) Washington, DC 20530 Jewish Family Sen?ice of Seattle, el al. v. Trump. e! (11.. N0. 2:17-cv-01707 (ILR) Tel: (202) 514-3259