Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 1 of 55

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
______________________________________________
)
K.O. and E.O., Jr., by and through their parents and next )
friends, E.O. and L.J.; and C.J, by and through his father )
and next friend F.C.; each individually and on behalf of )
all others similarly situated,
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.________
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III,
)
Attorney General of the United States; KIRSTJEN
)
NIELSEN, Secretary of the United States Department
)
of Homeland Security (DHS); JOHN F. KELLY, White )
House Chief of Staff; STEPHEN MILLER, Senior
)
Advisor to the President; GENE HAMILTON,
)
Counselor to the Attorney General Sessions; THOMAS )
HOMAN, former Director of United States
)
Immigration and Customers Enforcement (ICE);
)
RONALD D. VITIELLO, Acting Director of ICE; L.
)
FRANCIS CISSNA, Director of United States
)
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS);
)
KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Commissioner of United
)
States Customs and Border Protection (CBP); ALEX
)
AZAR, Secretary of the United States Department of
)
Health and Human Services (HHS); SCOTT LLOYD,
)
Director of the United States Office of Refugee
)
Resettlement (ORR); JOHN DOE ICE AGENTS;
)
JOHN DOE CBP AGENTS; and JOHN DOE ORR
)
PERSONNEL,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________________)
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Introduction
1.

The United States of America was founded on the bedrock principle that our

nation is a beacon of hope to people everywhere seeking refuge from poverty, persecution, and
violence. Emma Lazarus's sonnet on the Statue of Liberty famously rings out: "Give me your
1

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 2 of 55

tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free." Defendants have betrayed this
fundamental principle. In doing so, they have betrayed the United States Constitution and
harmed those most vulnerable: children. Through this lawsuit, Plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of
similarly situated children, seek to hold Defendants accountable for their actions in accordance
with the rule of law.
2.

Plaintiffs seek damages and the establishment of a fund for the mental health

treatment of all class members to remedy the harm caused by the Defendants' forcible separation
of well over 2,500 children from their parents with no legal justification and for the express
purpose of inflicting emotional and psychological harm to deter immigration, particularly from
Central and South American countries. Many of these children and their parents, including the
Plaintiffs in this case, fled their native countries to lawfully seek asylum upon arriving in the
United States.
3.

Defendants forcibly separated these young children from their parents without any

allegations of abuse, neglect, or parental unfitness, and without legal proceedings or hearings of
any kind. Defendants then detained these young, terrified children in facilities often thousands
of miles from their parents.
4.

Defendants forcibly separated these families even though there were ways for

Defendants to keep immigrant children together with their parents, including shelters that house
families together and immigration family detention centers where families can be detained
together while they await the adjudication of their immigration cases, as well as electronic ankle
monitoring programs assuring appearances of adults at immigration hearings.

2

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 3 of 55

5.

Forced separation of children from their parents causes severe and often

permanent emotional and psychological harm to young children, particularly when those children
are already traumatized from fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries.
6.

The Defendants have violated the fundamental right to family integrity protected

by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution by forcibly
taking young children from their parents with no legal justification and without a hearing and
later coercing parents into waiving their children's rights to pursue asylum, withholding of
removal, and other statutory claims available to migrant children and their families. Defendants
have also violated the Due Process Clause by subjecting children to punitive conditions while
they were being held in civil immigration detention and failing to provide them adequate and
necessary mental health treatment. In addition, Defendants have violated the Equal Protection
guarantee of the Fifth Amendment by discriminating against immigrant children, particularly
those from Central and South American countries, on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national
origin.
7.

Moreover, based on Defendants' conduct, the United States government is liable

for the torts of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment,
false arrest, assault and battery, and for the loss of consortium that the minor Plaintiffs have
suffered as a result of the harm caused to their parents by Defendants' conduct. Plaintiffs intend
to present tort claims to the appropriate federal agencies under the Federal Tort Claims Act based
on the allegations in this Complaint. Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek leave to amend this
Complaint in due course should Plaintiffs' claims be finally denied by any of those agencies. See
28 U.S.C. § 2675.

3

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 4 of 55

Parties
8.

Plaintiff K.O. brings this lawsuit through her parents and next friends, E.O. and

L.J., as a result of her incapacity due to her minor status.
9.

Plaintiff E.O., Jr. is K.O.'s brother and he brings this lawsuit through his parents

and next friends, E.O. and L.J., as a result of his incapacity due to his minor status.
10.

K.O., E.O., Jr., and their parents all reside in Westborough, Worcester County,

Massachusetts. They are all seeking asylum in the United States and fleeing violence and
persecution in Guatemala.
11.

Plaintiff C.J. brings this lawsuit through his father and next friend, F.C., as a

result of his incapacity due to his minor status.
12.

C.J. and F.C. reside in Westborough, Worcester County, Massachusetts. They are

seeking asylum in the United States and fleeing violence and persecution in Guatemala.
13.

Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly

situated nationwide.
14.

Defendant Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is the Attorney General of the

United States and is sued in his individual capacity. General Sessions has responsibility for the
administration of the immigration laws under 8 U.S.C. § 1103, oversees the Executive Office of
Immigration Review, is empowered to grant asylum or other relief, and was a legal custodian of
Plaintiffs when they were held in detention. Defendant Sessions has responsibility for
implementing United States immigration laws, policies, and practices, including practices related
to family separation and family detention at the United States Southwestern border.
15.

Defendant Kirstjen Nielsen is the Secretary of DHS and is sued in her individual

capacity. Secretary Nielsen directs each of the component agencies within DHS, including ICE,

4

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 5 of 55

CBP, and USCIS. Defendant Nielsen has responsibility for the administration of the
immigration laws under 8U.S.C. § 1103, is empowered to grant asylum or other relief, and was a
legal custodian of Plaintiffs when they were held in detention. Defendant Nielsen is responsible
for implementing United States immigration laws, policies, and practices, including practices
related to family separation and family detention at the United States Southwestern border.
16.

Defendant John F. Kelly is currently the White House Chief of Staff and he is

sued in his individual capacity. Kelly served as the Secretary of DHS from January 20, 2017
through July 31, 2017. In that role, Secretary Kelly directed each of the component agencies of
DHS, including ICE, CBP, and USCIS, had responsibility for the administration of the
immigration laws under 8 U.S.C. § 1103, and was empowered to grant asylum or other relief.
Defendant Kelly was responsible for implementing United States immigration laws, policies, and
practices, including practices related to family separation and family detention at the United
States Southwestern border. Kelly continued to have an important role in the development,
adoption, and implementation of the family separation practice in his role as White House Chief
of Staff.
17.

Defendant Stephen Miller is a Senior Advisor to the President of the United States

and is sued in his individual capacity. Mr. Miller is widely reported to have been the architect of
the Defendants' practice of forcibly separating migrant families at the Southwestern border.
18.

Defendant Gene Hamilton is a Counselor to the Attorney General and is sued in

his individual capacity. Mr. Hamilton is widely reported to have been closely involved in the
development of the Defendants' practice of forcibly separating migrant families at the
Southwestern border.

5

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 6 of 55

19.

Defendant Thomas Homan served as the Director of ICE from January 30, 2017

through his retirement on June 29, 2018 and he is sued in his individual capacity. In his role as
Director of ICE, Mr. Homan had responsibility for enforcing federal immigration law including
along the Southwestern border.
20.

Defendant Ronald D. Vitiello is currently the Acting Director of ICE, which

office he assumed on June 30, 2018, and is sued in his individual capacity. Before serving as
Acting Director of ICE, Vitiello was the Acting Deputy Commissioner of CBP from April 25,
2017 through June 29, 2018. In his role as Acting Director of ICE, Mr. Homan has
responsibility for enforcing federal immigration law including along the Southwestern border. In
his role as Acting Deputy Commissioner of CBP, Mr. Vitiello had responsibility for processing
and detaining noncitizens apprehended near the United States border.
21.

Defendant L. Francis Cissna is the Director of USCIS and is sued in his individual

capacity. In his role as Director of USCIS, Cissna is responsible for processing immigration and
naturalization applications and, through its Asylum Officers, conducts interviews of certain
individuals apprehended at the border to determine whether they have a credible fear of
persecution and should be permitted to apply for asylum.
22.

Defendant Kevin K. McAleenan is the Commissioner of CBP and is sued in his

individual capacity. Commissioner McAleenan is responsible for the initial processing and
detention of noncitizens who are apprehended near the United States border.
23.

Defendant Alex Azar is the Secretary of HHS and is sued in his individual

capacity. Secretary Azar is responsible for "unaccompanied" noncitizen children in his role as
Secretary of HHS.

6

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 7 of 55

24.

Defendant Scott Lloyd is the Director of ORR and is sued in his individual

capacity. Director Lloyd is responsible for providing care and placement for "unaccompanied"
noncitizen children in his role as Director of ORR, which is a component of HHS.
25.

Defendants John Doe ICE Agents are sued in their individual capacities.

Defendants were federal law enforcement agents employed by ICE and DHS whose identities are
at this time unknown to Plaintiffs. The ICE Agents were empowered by law and practice to
execute searches, make arrests for violations of federal law, and make or enforce custodial
determinations with regard to the Plaintiffs which resulted in a prolonged separation from their
parents. When and if the identities of Defendants John Doe ICE Agents become known to
Plaintiff, Plaintiff may amend this Complaint to add said ICE Agents as named Defendants.
26.

Defendants John Doe CBP Agents are sued in their individual capacities.

Defendants were federal law enforcement agents employed by CBP and DHS whose identities
are at this time unknown to Plaintiffs. The CBP Agents were empowered by law and practice to
execute searches, make arrests for violations of federal law, and make or enforce custodial
determinations with regard to the Plaintiffs which resulted in a prolonged separation from their
parents. When and if the identities of Defendants John Doe CBP Agents become known to
Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs may amend this Complaint to add said CBP Agents as named Defendants.
27.

Defendants John Doe ORR Personnel are sued in their individual capacities.

Defendants were either federal employees employed by ORR and HHS or employees of entities
with which ORR and HHS contracted to provide services and whose identities are at this time
unknown to Plaintiffs. The ORR Personnel were empowered by law and practice to make or
enforce custodial determinations with regard to Plaintiffs which resulted in a prolonged
separation from their parents. When and if the identities of Defendants John Doe ORR

7

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 8 of 55

Personnel become known to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs may amend this Complaint to add said ORR
Personnel as named Defendants.
28.

At all relevant times, the Defendants have acted under color of federal law in the

course and scope of their duties and functions as agents, employees, and officers of the United
States in engaging in the conduct described in this Complaint.
29.

At all relevant times, the Defendants each violated clearly established law of

which a reasonable person would have known, including the class members' statutory rights,
procedural and substantive due process rights, and their right to equal protection of the laws.
Jurisdiction and Venue
30.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal

question).
31.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over all Defendants under M.G.L. c. 223A, §

3(d), because Plaintiffs' claims arise from Defendants' having caused tortious injury in
Massachusetts by an act or omission outside Massachusetts and each Defendant regularly does or
solicits business or engages in a persistent course of conduct in Massachusetts.
32.

Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3), because the

Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)
because the Plaintiffs reside in this district and no real property is involved in the action.
Facts
Legal Framework Under Federal Immigration Law
33.

Pursuant to Section 208(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"),

"[a]ny alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States
(whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United
States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters)," may generally
8

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 9 of 55

apply for asylum "irrespective of such alien's status." See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1). 1 The INA and
its accompanying regulations establish procedures for the adjudication of asylum claims. Id; see
also INA § 235(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b); 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.1-208.31.
34.

Even individuals who initially fall within the INA's "expedited removal"

procedures, meaning they would bypass formal removal proceedings, are entitled to pursue
asylum once the person indicates an intention to apply for asylum and demonstrates a credible
fear of persecution at an interview before an asylum officer. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(1)(A)(i),
1225(b)(1)(B); 8 C.F.R. §§ 235.1-235.13.
35.

The January 1997 settlement agreement in Flores v. Reno, 85-cv-4544 (C.D. Cal.)

governs the detention and release of "alien" children. The Flores settlement remains binding on
federal agencies, including DHS, HHS, and all respective agency components such as ICE, CBP,
USCIS, and ORR.2 In 2008, Congress enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act (the "TVPRA"), Pub. L. 110-457, 110 Stat. 5044 (2008), which paralleled
certain aspects of the Flores settlement and affirmed ORR's responsibility for the care and
custody of unaccompanied minors.
36.

The Flores settlement and its progeny, including the statutory rights and

obligation within the TVPRA, provide a "nationwide policy for the detention, release, and
treatment of minors in the custody of INS [which is the predecessor to ICE, CBP, and USCIS],"
which requires the government to treat "all minors in its custody with dignity, respect and special
concern for their particular vulnerability as minors." Exhibit 1, Flores Settlement ¶¶ 9-11; see 8

1

The INA defines the term "alien" as "any person not a citizen or national of the United States."
INA § 101(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3).
2

In 2002, Congress enacted the Homeland Security Act, Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002),
and transferred authority over the care and placement of unaccompanied minors to ORR.
9

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 10 of 55

U.S.C. § 1232. A "minor" is "any person under the age of eighteen (18) years who is detained in
the legal custody of the INS." See id. ¶ 4; 8 U.S.C. § 1232(g)(2); Flores v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 898,
905-06 (9th Cir. 2016).
37.

Paragraph 14 of the Flores settlement requires that "[w]here the INS determines

that the detention of the minor is not required either to secure his or her timely appearance before
the INS or the immigration court, or to ensure the minor's safety or that of others, the INS shall
release a minor from its custody without unnecessary delay." Exhibit 1, Flores Settlement ¶ 14.
Paragraph 14 also sets forth the "order of preference" for the release of a child and release to a
parent is preferred. Id.
38.

Critically, the Flores settlement requires the federal government to "place each

detained minor in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor's age and special needs,
provided that such setting is consistent with its interests to ensure the minor's timely appearance
before the INS and the immigration courts and to protect the minor's well-being and that of
others." Exhibit 1, Flores Settlement ¶ 11 (emphasis added); 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(A).
39.

Under the Flores Settlement, children must be released from detention within five

days, or within twenty days in certain emergency circumstances, to a parent, legal guardian, adult
relative, adult designated by a legal guardian, or (if none of these are available) a licensed
program willing to accept legal custody. Id. ¶¶ 12, 14.
40.

Ordinarily when DHS, usually through ICE or CBP, detains an undocumented

child who is traveling alone and unaccompanied by a parent, the relevant federal agencies follow
an established process. ICE or CBP may detain an unaccompanied child for up to 72 hours as
other federal agencies locate an appropriate facility for that child. ICE or CBP then must turn the
child over to HHS. 8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(3).

10

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 11 of 55

41.

Once the unaccompanied children are in ORR custody, they are typically

supervised and placed in ORR-funded and supervised facilities, where staff must attempt to
locate a parent and determine if family reunification is possible. See generally 8 U.S.C. §§
1232(c)(2)-(c)(3). If not, ORR staff will try to locate another family member, relative, family
friend, or caretaker in the United States to serve as a sponsor who can care for the child during
the pendency of the child's immigration proceedings. Id.
42.

When ORR cannot find a sponsor, the unaccompanied children are moved to

secondary ORR-contracted and state-licensed facilities throughout the country. Id. If DHS
places the child in removal proceedings or the child has an affirmative pathway to legal
immigration status, ORR will place the child in an ORR-contracted and state-licensed long-term
foster care program while the immigration process continues. See 8 U.S.C. § 1232(a)(5)(D).
Defendants' Practice of Forcibly Separating Children from their Parents
43.

For over a year, the United States government has forcibly separated thousands of

migrant children from their families for no legitimate purpose. These children have been held as
civil immigration detainees, and not for any criminal charge or conviction. Yet these children
were separated from their parents indefinitely and without providing information to family
members about one another. Defendants have adopted and implemented this practice for the
express purposes of demonstrating to immigrants the agony that parents should expect if they
dare to enter the United States with their children.
44.

Families presenting at Southwestern ports of entry to seek asylum were refused

entry into the United States. Border officials turned these families away unlawfully on the false
claim that the United States is "full" or no longer accepting asylum seekers. This unlawful

11

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 12 of 55

practice artificially created illegal entry violations along the Southwestern border at places other
than official ports of entry that would not have occurred otherwise.
45.

Children forcibly separated from their parents were transferred to the custody of

ORR and sent to makeshift detention facilities and temporary housing. ORR deemed these
children "unaccompanied minors." Under ORR policies, an unaccompanied minor can be
released from ORR custody only after ORR completes an onerous and lengthy procedure to
determine that a potential custodian, or "sponsor," is suitable for providing for the child's
physical and mental well-being. As a result of ORR's deeming the children "unaccompanied
minors," their parents were wrongfully treated as "sponsors" (instead of parents) of their own
children.
46.

As early as March 2017, a senior DHS official acknowledged that Defendants

were considering a proposal to separate children from their parents at the Southwestern border.
M. Mallonee, DHS Considering Proposal to Separate Children from Adults at Border, March 4,
2017, available at https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/03/politics/dhs-children-adultsborder/index.html.
47.

On March 7, 2017, then-Secretary of DHS John Kelly confirmed that DHS was

considering a practice of separating children from their parents "to deter more movement." D.
Diaz, Kelly: DHS Considering Separating Undocumented Children from their Parents at the
Border, March 7, 2017, available at https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/john-kellyseparating-children-from-parents-immigration-border/index.html . While Kelly later
backtracked after harsh criticism, an inside source reported to the press that the family separation
proposal was still under consideration at DHS as of August 2017. J. Blitzer, How the Trump
Administration Got Comfortable Separating Immigrant Kids from their Parents, The New

12

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 13 of 55

Yorker, May 30, 2018, available at https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-thetrump-administration-got-comfortable-separating-immigrant-kids-from-their-parents.
48.

In fact, Defendants at DHS began implementing the practice in secret in the El

Paso section of the border in western Texas from July to November 2017. D. Lind, Trump's
DHS is Using an Extremely Dubious Statistic to Justify Splitting Up Families at the Border, Vox,
May 8, 2018, available at https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/8/17327512/sessionsillegal-immigration-border-asylum-families.
49.

The forced separation of families continued well into 2018 and took place without

a hearing or any process whatsoever regardless of the family's circumstances or the needs of the
children. It also occurred regardless of where or how the family entered, whether they sought
asylum, whether they were charged with unlawful entry or whether a family member had passed
a credible fear interview under federal asylum law.
50.

Defendants have taken children as young as infants from their parents, often with

no warning or opportunity to say goodbye, and with little to no information provided about
where the Defendants were taking the children or when they would next see their parents.
51.

Most of these migrant families fled their home countries to lawfully seek asylum

once physically present in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1).
52.

Nevertheless, without any allegations that the parents are unfit or abusive, the

Defendants forcibly separated these asylee-seeking parents from their young children, who are
automatically considered derivative asylee applicants on their parents' claim, and detained the
children in facilities for "unaccompanied" minors, often thousands of miles away from their
parents who accompanied them in the United States before the government forcibly separated

13

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 14 of 55

them. The government separated families without providing notice to the parents or children of
each other's whereabouts or well-being.
53.

Government officials have torn some children from the arms of their parents

while crying and pleading not to be taken away.
54.

In other cases, government officials have told children they were going to play

with other children, but after separating the children from their parents they were not returned.
55.

In some cases, the parents were falsely told that they would be going to court only

to be taken to a different detention cell, separated from their children. They were then
transported to a different detention center without the opportunity to say goodbye to their
children or to explain that they would not see each other for some time.
56.

Many parents were told the children would be "adopted" and they would not see

their children again.
57.

Many parents were deported without their children.

58.

During the separation, parents and children were often prevented from

communicating for weeks or longer, and even when allowed to communicate typically children
could only communicate with a parent by telephone for a few short minutes and not permitted to
talk about where they were being held. These phone calls were closely monitored. In the
detention facilities where they were kept, children were not allowed to touch each other. While
staff at many detention facilities were permitted to hold the youngest children, they were
instructed not to hold or touch older children.
59.

Additionally, in some of the makeshift detention centers children were held in

areas with no beds or mattresses. Some of the children were subjected to abuse by those working
at the detention centers.

14

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 15 of 55

60.

And the medical care at the detention centers was often grossly inadequate, even

leading to the death of a one-year old child who developed a respiratory infection at an
immigration jail in Texas. The child was turned away twice by the facility's health clinic, the
treatment she received may have exacerbated the condition given her age, and she was cleared
for release without a medical examination. The child then spent six weeks in two hospitals
before dying from bronchiectasis, pulmonitis, pneumothorax, or collapsed lung. M. Sacchetti,
Mother blames toddler's death on poor medical care in U.S. immigration jail, Washington Post,
August 28, 2018, available at https://wapo.st/2PJRMv5?tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.3dddd9b5a241.
61.

These conditions of confinement further traumatized the children separated from

their parents and traumatized the parents who were separated from their children.
62.

Under HHS Secretary Azar's direction, HHS would not allow media cameras into

facilities housing immigrant children separated from their parents. Yet Azar claimed, incredibly,
that "[w]e have nothing to hide about how we operate these facilities" and that "[i]t is one of the
great acts of American generosity and charity, what we are doing for these unaccompanied kids
who are smuggled into our country or come across illegally." M. Rod, HHS Secretary: We're
Performing Great Act of "Generosity and Charity" for Immigrant Children, July 10, 2018,
available at https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/10/politics/azar-hhs-child-separation-immigrationcharity-cnntv/index.html.
63.

Ripping children away from their parents when they attempt to cross the

Southwestern border, many of them seeking asylum, is the polar opposite of generosity. It is
conduct that shocks the conscience, bespeaks a callous disregard for the human beings in HHS's
care, and demonstrates the discriminatory animus behind these practices. M. Rod, HHS
Secretary: We're Performing Great Act of "Generosity and Charity" for Immigrant Children,

15

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 16 of 55

July 10, 2018, available at https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/10/politics/azar-hhs-child-separationimmigration-charity-cnntv/index.html.
64.

Attempts by parents to be reunited with their children were unlawfully delayed

and made unnecessarily cumbersome as a result of the Defendants' deliberate decision to classify
the children as "unaccompanied minors" even though they entered the United States with their
parents. This classification meant that parents had to go through a lengthy and complex process
to apply to be a "sponsor" of their own children in order to be reunited. This exacerbated the
harm done by the separation by prolonging it and transforming reunification into an
unnecessarily arduous journey through a labyrinth of government bureaucracy.
65.

At least one HHS official has stated that "[w]hat went wrong is the children

separated from their parents were referred as unaccompanied alien children when in fact they
were accompanied." N. Miroff & K. Memirjian, Senate Panel Skewers Trump Officials Over
Migrant Family Separations, Wash. Post, July 31, 2018, available at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/lawmakers-to-question-trumpofficials-on-migrant-family-separations-struggle-to-reunite-them/2018/07/31/ddb61390-946711e8-8ffb-5de6d5e49ada_story.html?utm_term=.27575f06d9ea.
66.

During his tenure, Director Lloyd has effectively transformed ORR from an

agency designed to care for the health and well-being of migrant children into what former ORR
Director Robert Carey has called "a juvenile detention agency." R. Planas, A Single Trump
Appointee Was Responsible for Keeping Hundreds of Kids Locked Up Longer, HuffPost, July 26,
2018, available at https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scott-lloyd-refugeeresettlement_us_5b58cd0fe4b0fd5c73cb3c1a. This was due in part to Director Lloyd's insistence
in June 2017, at a time when the forced separation of families was under consideration, that he

16

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 17 of 55

personally review and approve release decisions involving unaccompanied minors housed in
staff-secure facilities. This led to extensive delays in the release of certain minors in ORR
custody. Id. A federal judge enjoined that practice in June, ruling that the plaintiffs
demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims that the practice violated the
Administrative Procedure Act and TVPRA. L.V.M. v. Lloyd, 2018 WL 3133965 (S.D.N.Y. June
27, 2018).
67.

Director Lloyd's intentional delays exacerbated ORR's ability to process the

thousands of children separated from their parents under Defendants' family separation practice.
Under Director Lloyd's leadership, ORR was unequipped to handle the influx of
"unaccompanied" minors, and Director Lloyd deliberately failed to improve the situation until
ordered to do so by a federal judge in California earlier this summer.
Defendants' "Zero Tolerance Policy" Served as a Pretext to Continue Separating Families
68.

On April 6, 2018, General Sessions announced the Trump Administration's so-

called "zero-tolerance policy" for illegal entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. §
1325(a) as a pretext for these family separations. In reality, Defendants had been forcibly
separating children from their parents long before the "zero-tolerance policy" was announced.
The express purpose of the family separation was to deter immigration to the United States by
instilling fear in migrants, particularly those from South and Central American countries. That
practice violates the United States Constitution and state tort law.
69.

After General Sessions' announcement, ICE Director Homan, USCIS Director

Cissna, and CBP Commissioner McAleenan signed onto a letter to DHS Secretary Nielsen
urging her to detain and refer for prosecution all parents caught crossing the Mexican border
illegally with their children. In other words, Homan, Cissna, and McAleenan pushed for the

17

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 18 of 55

across-the-board implementation of the Justice Department's "zero-tolerance policy" at DHS to
serve as a pretext for continuing the Defendants' existing practice of forcibly separating
immigrant children from their parents at the Southwestern border. M. Sacchetti, Top Homeland
Security Officials Urge Criminal Prosecution of Parents Crossing Border with Children,
Washington Post, April 26, 2018, available at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/top-homeland-security-officials-urgecriminal-prosecution-of-parents-who-cross-border-with-children/2018/04/26/a0bdcee0-496411e8-8b5a-3b1697adcc2a_story.html?utm_term=.655fc386e41a.
70.

According to a letter authored by 17 United States Senators in April 2018, under

Director Homan's leadership, ICE "sharply increased arrests and detentions of immigrants with
no criminal background" and "[r]eportedly separated hundreds of children of asylum-seekers
from their parents," among other things. April 27, 2018 Letter from Sens. to Sec. K. Nielsen,
available at https://www.murray.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2018/4/immigration-senatormurray-raises-questions-about-nomination-of-tom-homan-to-head-immigration-and-customsenforcement
71.

On June 20, 2018, President Trump issued an Executive Order purporting to end

family separation, but the Executive Order said nothing about reuniting the families who had
already been separated or compensating them for the trauma that the Defendants put these
families through. Moreover, it took weeks to reunite most of the parents and children and even
today not all of these families have been reunited, in some cases because the parents were
deported while their children remained detained in the United States.
72.

After issuing the Executive Order, President Trump repeatedly emphasized the

lawless nature of the government's approach. President Trump proposed that DHS simply deport

18

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 19 of 55

immigrants without a hearing or any legal process whatsoever. On June 21, 2018, President
Trump stated: "We shouldn't be hiring judges by the thousands, as our ridiculous immigration
laws demand, we should be changing our laws, building the Wall, hire Border Agents and Ice
and not let people come into our country based on the legal phrase they are told to say as their
password." See https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1009770941604298753?lang=en.
73.

President Trump again proposed a lawless approach on June 24, 2018: "We

cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country. When somebody comes in, we must
immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came. Our
system is a mockery to good immigration policy and Law and Order. Most children come
without parents…" K. Rogers & S. Gay Stolberg, Trump Calls for Depriving Immigrants Who
Illegally Cross Border of Due Process Rights, N.Y. Times, June 24, 2018, available at
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/us/politics/trump-immigration-judges-due-process.html.
74.

These are but a few examples of the torrent of such statements that came from the

President and other officials in the Trump Administration.
Defendants' Practice of Forcibly Separating Children from their Parents was Motivated by
Discriminatory Animus and an Express Intent to Deter Immigration to the United States
by Instilling Fear in Would-be Migrants
75.

Defendants and others in the Trump Administration have openly admitted that the

practice of forcibly separating families at the Southwestern border, among other enforcement
practices, was intended to target immigrants by their race, ethnicity, or national origin. The
forcible separation of these families is also consistent with the racist and xenophobic hostility
shown toward Latino immigrants, repeatedly voiced and demonstrated by President Trump and
carried out by his Administration, including the Defendants in this case.
76.

For example, in June 2015, when then-candidate Trump announced his campaign

at Trump Tower, he declared: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. . . .
19

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 20 of 55

They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists." Z. Byron Wolf, Trump
Basically Called Mexicans Rapists Again, available at
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/06/politics/trump-mexico-rapists/index.html. In that speech, Mr.
Trump proposed building a wall along the Southwestern border and making Mexico pay for it.
President Trump has repeatedly referred to Mexicans as "criminals" and "thugs."
77.

In January of this year, President Trump referred to El Salvador, Haiti, and

African countries generally as "shithole countries" and said that the United States should be
allowing immigration from countries like Norway instead. E. O'Keefe & A. Gearan, Trump,
Condemned for "Shithole" Countries Remark, Denies Comment But Acknowledges "Tough"
Language, Washington Post, Jan. 13, 2018, available at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-acknowledges-tough-language-but-appears-todeny-shithole-remark/2018/01/12/c7131dae-f796-11e7-beb6c8d48830c54d_story.html?utm_term=.4e58b8638236. The racism behind that statement is selfevident.
78.

President Trump has impugned the integrity and independence of federal District

Judge Gonzalo Curiel because, Trump said, Judge Curiel was of Mexican descent and "very
hostile" to Trump because Trump was "very, very strong on the border."
79.

United States House Speaker Paul Ryan appropriately rebuked these outrageous

statements, describing them as "the textbook definition of a racist comment." D. Walsh & M.
Raju, CNN, June 7, 2016, available at https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/07/politics/paul-ryandonald-trump-racist-comment/index.html.
80.

President Trump's clear animus based on race, ethnicity, and national origin

provides the context for understanding the unlawful and irrational actions of the Defendants in

20

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 21 of 55

this case. The driving force behind the practice of forcibly separating immigrant families along
the Southwestern border was this very animus based on race, ethnicity, and national original,
which led to a failure to adhere to the well-established constitutional and statutory rights of
Plaintiffs and the class. Each of the Defendants adopted, implemented, enforced, condoned,
sanctioned, acquiesced to, and encouraged that practice of forced family separations with the
purpose of discriminating against immigrants based on their race, ethnicity, or national origin.
Such intentional discrimination on these bases is unconstitutional.
81.

What is more, Defendants and others in the Trump Administration have made

clear that the express purpose of the forced separation of children from their parents was to deter
immigrants, particularly from Central and South American countries, from coming to the United
States. The vast majority of immigrants at the Southwestern border are from Central and South
American countries and are Latino.
82.

During a press interview in May of 2018, Secretary Kelly said that "a big name of

the game is deterrence" when asked whether he was in favor of forced family separation. He
said family separation "would be a tough deterrent. A much faster turnaround on asylum
seekers." Kelly dismissively stated that the traumatized children "will be taken care of—put into
foster care or whatever." Transcript: White House Chief of Staff John Kelly's Interview with
NPR, National Public Radio, May 11, 2018, available at
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/11/610116389/transcript-white-house-chief-of-staff-john-kellysinterview-with-npr.
83.

On June 6, 2018, former ICE Director Homan made the deterrence goal plain

when he stated: "One thing you got to remember, for that parent who was arrested and his child
crying and feeling bad about it, I get it, but what responsibility does he have in this? He chose to

21

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 22 of 55

enter the country illegally in violation of federal law. He chose to do that intentionally. . . . He
put himself in the position." C. Da Silva, ICE Chief Defends Separating Families at Border
After U.N. Condemns Practice as Rights Violation, Newsweek, June 6, 2018, available at
https://www.newsweek.com/ice-chief-defends-separating-families-border-after-un-condemnspractice-rights-960825.
84.

Defendant Stephen Miller was a driving force in the adoption and implementation

of the forcible family separation practice. Mr. Miller has embraced family separation and
described it as "a simple decision by the administration . . . . The message is that no one is
exempt from immigration law." C. Danner, Separating Families at the Border Was Always Part
of the Plan, June 17, 2018, N.Y. Magazine, available at
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/separating-families-at-border-was-always-part-ofthe-plan.html.
85.

Mr. Miller's anti-Latino animus is well-known and long-standing. Even in high

school he wrote an opinion piece for the Santa Monica Lookout which argued that "very few, if
any, Hispanic students" make it to honors classes because the school gives them a "crutch" by
ensuring that "all announcements are written in both Spanish and English." S. Tatum, How
Stephen Miller, the Architect Behind Trump's Immigration Policies, Rose to Power, June 23,
2018, available at https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/23/politics/stephen-miller-immigration-familyseparation/index.html.
86.

Mr. Miller's anti-immigrant and anti-Latino animus has only hardened over the

years. In fact an outside White House adviser recently stated that "Stephen actually enjoys
seeing those pictures at the border" of Central and South American children being separated
from their parents. G. Sherman, "Stephen Actually Enjoys Seeing Those Pictures at the Border":

22

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 23 of 55

The West Wing is Fracturing Over Trump's Callous Migrant-Family Policy, Vanity Fair, June
20, 2018, available at https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/stephen-miller-familyseparation-white-house.
87.

Defendant Gene Hamilton, who has been described as "a close ally of Stephen

Miller," was reported to be "[a]mong those leading the discussion" about implementing the
practice of forcible family separation at the Southwestern border. J. Blitzer, How the Trump
Administration Got Comfortable Separating Immigrant Kids from their Parents, The New
Yorker, May 30, 2018, available at https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-thetrump-administration-got-comfortable-separating-immigrant-kids-from-their-parents.
88.

A former government official has reported to the press that Miller and Hamilton,

among others, "want to have a different American, and they're succeeding." Moreover, "Miller
has only seemed to gain allies in the government" as a result of his role in pushing for the
forcible separation of immigrant children from their parents. J. Blitzer, Will Anyone in the
Trump Administration Ever Be Held Accountable for the Zero-Tolerance Policy?, The New
Yorker, August 22, 2018, available at https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/willanyone-in-the-trump-administration-ever-be-held-accountable-for-the-zero-tolerance-policy.
89.

In public remarks on the "zero tolerance policy" on May 7, 2018, General

Sessions emphasized that "[i]f you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that
child will be separated from you as required by law." Exhibit 2, DOJ Press Release (May 7,
2018).
90.

Later, General Sessions stated: "We cannot and will not encourage people to

bring their children or other children to the country unlawfully by giving them immunity in the
process." L. Sanchez, Sessions On Separating Families: If We Build A Wall and Pass

23

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 24 of 55

Legislation, We Won't Have These "Terrible Choices", The Hill, June 18, 2018, available at
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/392785-sessions-on-separating-families-if-we-builda-wall-and-pass.
91.

When asked if forced family separation was "absolutely necessary," General

Sessions responded: "Yes. . . . We believe every person that enters the country illegally like that
should be prosecuted. And you can't be giving immunity to people who bring children with them
recklessly and improperly and illegally." H. Hewitt, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions on
Children Separated from Parents at Broder, F-1 Visas for PRC Students, and Masterpiece
Cakeshop Decision, June 5, 2018, available at http://www.hughhewitt.com/attorney-general-jeffsessions-on-the-immigration-policies-concerning-children-apprehended-at-he-border-and-f-1visas/.
92.

Likewise, Secretary Nielsen has said that "[i]llegal actions have and must have

consequences. No more free passes, no more get out of jail free cards." T. Kopan, "We Will Not
Apologize": Trump DHS Chief Defends Immigration Policy, June 18, 2018, available at
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/18/politics/kirstjen-nielsen-immigration-policy/index.html.
93.

At an August 2017 DHS meeting, Mr. Hamilton explained to participants that

they would "need to generate paperwork laying out everything we could do to deter immigrants
from coming to the U.S. illegally, which included "separating parents from their kids at the
border." J. Blitzer, How the Trump Administration Got Comfortable Separating Immigrant Kids
from their Parents, The New Yorker, May 30, 2018, available at
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-trump-administration-got-comfortableseparating-immigrant-kids-from-their-parents.

24

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 25 of 55

94.

Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway also made clear the purpose of

Defendants' practice of forcibly separating families: "Nobody likes seeing babies ripped from
their mothers' arms . . . but we have to make sure that DHS' laws are understood through the
soundbite culture that we live in." Kellyanne Conway: 'Nobody Likes' Policy Separating
Migrant Kids at the Border (June 17, 2018), available at https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/firstread/conway-nobody-likes-policy-separating-migrant-kids-border-n884016.
95.

General Sessions, Secretary Nielsen, Secretary Kelly, Mr. Miller, Mr. Hamilton,

Director Homan and others in the Trump Administration, including the President himself, have
also made clear that the forced separation and traumatization of families is being used as a
negotiating ploy for political gain.
96.

Mr. Miller has stated: "If we were to have those [Republican sponsored] fixes in

federal law, the migrant crisis emanating from Central America would largely be solved in a very
short period of time," and "[f]amilies would then therefore be able to be kept together and could
be sent home expeditiously and safely." T. Hesson, White House's Miller Blames Democrats for
Border Crisis, Politico, May 29, 2018, available at
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/29/stephen-miller-democrats-border-574537 ; see also
P. Kasperowicz, ICE Director: Democrats Should "Get Their Facts Straight" Before Protesting
Family Separation, Washington Examiner, June 29, 2018, available at
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ice-tom-homan-democrats-get-facts-straightprotesting-family-separation.
Defendants Were Aware of the Traumatic Harm that Children Would Suffer from Being
Forcibly Separated from their Parents, but Defendants Did It Anyway, and Failed to
Provide the Children with Adequate Mental Health Care
97.

Separation of a young child from his or her parent is a traumatic event that has a

devastating impact on the child's psychological well-being. Children are likely to experience
25

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 26 of 55

post-traumatic symptoms such as nightmares and other manifestations of anxiety and depression.
This damage can be permanent, especially where, as here, the child has already experienced
other trauma in their home country, on their journey to the United States, or both.
98.

On January 23, 2018, a group of experts in child welfare, juvenile justice, and

child development, including the American Association of Pediatrics, criticized the government's
practice of separating migrant children from their parents, pointing out that: "[T]he psychological
distress, anxiety, and depression associated with separation from a parent would follow the
children well after the immediate period of separation—even after the eventual reunification with
a parent or other family." Exhibit 3, Jan. 23, 2018 Letter to K. Nielsen.
99.

The American Academy of Pediatrics put out another statement opposing the

cruel family separation practice on May 8, 2018, in which its President, Colleen Kraft, M.D.,
wrote: "Separating children from their parents contradicts everything we stand for as
pediatricians – protecting and promoting children's health. In fact, highly stressful experiences,
like family separation, can cause irreparable harm, disrupting a child's brain architecture and
affecting his or her short- and long-term health. This type of prolonged exposure to serious stress
- known as toxic stress - can carry lifelong consequences for children." C. Kraft, AAP Statement
Opposing Separation of Children and Parents at the Border, available at
https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-pressroom/Pages/StatementOpposingSeparationofChildrenandParents.aspx.
100.

Media reports have explained that "many of the children released to their parents

are exhibiting signs of anxiety, introversion, regression and other mental health issues." M.
Jordan, A Migrant Boy Rejoins His Mother, But He's Not the Same, N.Y. Times, July 31, 2018,
available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/31/us/migrant-children-separation-anxiety.html.

26

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 27 of 55

This includes "acute anxiety around routines that separate [the children] from their parents, such
as when the adult bathes or goes into another room." Id.
101.

One of the reasons for this is that the children may understand the separation as a

punishment. Id. "Decades of research have concluded that children traumatically separated from
their parents have a high likelihood of developing emotional problems, cognitive delays and
long-term trauma." Id. "More recent studies have found that separation can impair memory and
normal production of cortisol, a hormone produced in response to stress." Id.
102.

This psychological harm continues after reunification.

103.

One 5-year old migrant boy loved playing with the yellow Minion characters from

the "Despicable Me" movies before being forcibly separated from his mother. "Now his favorite
game is patting down and shackling 'migrants' with plastic cuffs." Id. The boy, who had not
nursed in years, pleaded with his mother to be breast-fed after he was finally reunited with his
mother. He hid behind a sofa when guests, including undersigned counsel Jesse M. Bless, Esq.,
visited the family's new home in Philadelphia. Id.
104.

"A 3-year old boy who was separated from his mother has been pretending to

handcuff and vaccinate people around him, behavior he almost certainly witnessed in [ICE]
custody." Id.
105.

"A pair of young siblings burst into tears when they spotted police officers on the

street." Id.
106.

One three-year-old boy refused to look at his mother and pulled away from her

embrace when they were initially reunified. See A. Valdes & I. Mejia, 'My Son Is Traumatized':
One Separated Family's Reunion, ACLU Press Release, August 24, 2018, available at

27

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 28 of 55

https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/my-sontraumatized-one-separated-familys.
107.

Similarly, parents who arrived with their children at the United States border and

were forcibly separated from their children by the Defendants are likely to experience immediate
and acute psychological injury as well as lasting and permanent emotional and psychological
harm. This includes anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other trauma-related
disorders. The trauma that the children face is compounded by watching their parents suffer and
the emotional toll that the parents' own trauma takes on the parent-child relationship. Making
matters worse, the Defendants then failed to adequately provide the children with necessary
mental health care while the children were in Defendants' custody.
108.

Indeed, one parent is reported to have committed suicide after his 3-year-old son

was taken from his arms. N. Miroff, A Family Separated at the Border, and this Distraught
Father Took His Own Life, Washington Post, June 9, 2018, available at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/a-family-was-separated-at-the-borderand-this-distraught-father-took-his-own-life/2018/06/08/24e40b70-6b5d-11e8-9e3824e693b38637_story.html?utm_term=.dca844c151d9. This harm to the parents, of course, will
impact the quality of their relationship with their children for years to come.
109.

There is no doubt that Defendants were aware of the severe psychological and

emotional trauma that forcibly separating children from their parents would cause. Not only is
the likelihood of severe harm self-evident, but Defendants were informed of and warned about
the likelihood of such harm directly and through many authoritative public statements by other
government officials and experts in the field.

28

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 29 of 55

110.

For example, on February 12, 2018, 33 United States Senators signed a letter to

Secretary Nielsen to express their "deep concern" about "systematically separat[ing] immigrant
children from their parents upon arrival in the United States." Exhibit 4, Feb. 12, 2018 Letter
from U.S. Sens. to Sec. Nielsen. The Senators wrote to "condemn" this practice and to urge
Secretary Nielsen to reject this "cruel" and "grotesquely inhumane" practice that they recognized
would "inflict significant trauma on small children." Id.
111.

Moreover, Commander Jonathan White of the United States Public Health

Service Commissioned Corps (who organized the government's reunification effort at DHS after
a federal court in California ordered reunification earlier this year) testified before the Senate
Judiciary Committee on July 31, 2018. Commander White told the Judiciary Committee "that
he had warned his superiors that separating children from their parents carries a 'significant risk
of harm' and could inflict 'psychological injury.'" N. Miroff & K. Memirjian, Senate Panel
Skewers Trump Officials Over Migrant Family Separations, Wash. Post, July 31, 2018, available
at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/lawmakers-to-question-trumpofficials-on-migrant-family-separations-struggle-to-reunite-them/2018/07/31/ddb61390-946711e8-8ffb-5de6d5e49ada_story.html?utm_term=.27575f06d9ea. Commander White told the
Senate panel that his superiors assured him that the government was not planning to separate
families. Id.
112.

Even in the face of these clear and direct warnings the Defendants proceeded to

traumatized the class members and then exacerbated the trauma by failing to provide the children
with adequate and necessary mental health services, even though the Defendants knew that the
class members needed mental health care to address the trauma that Defendants themselves
inflicted on the class members.

29

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 30 of 55

113.

In the words of a current Trump Administration official: "The expectation was

that the kids would go to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, that the parents would get
deported, and that no one would care." J. Blitzer, Will Anyone in the Trump Administration
Ever Be Held Accountable for the Zero-Tolerance Policy?, The New Yorker, August 22, 2018
(emphasis added), available at https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/will-anyone-inthe-trump-administration-ever-be-held-accountable-for-the-zero-tolerance-policy.
After Traumatizing Children and Parents, Defendants Coerced Parents into Waiving Their
Children's and Their Own Rights to Asylum and Other Relief
114.

After subjecting parents and children to some of the most severe trauma of their

lives, Defendants proceeded to coerce many parents into signing forms that waived their own
and their children's rights to pursue asylum claims in the hope of being reunited with their
children more quickly.
115.

A senior official speaking on condition of anonymity confirmed early this

summer that Defendants did not plan to reunite families until after a parent had lost his or her
deportation case, effectively punishing parents who may otherwise pursue an asylum claim or
other relief and creating tremendous pressure to abandon such claims so that parents may be
reunited with their children. M. Saccheri, M. Miller & R. Moore, Sen. Warren Visits Detention
Center, Says No Children Being Returned to Parents There, Washington Post, June 24, 2018,
available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/desperate-to-get-children-backmigrants-are-willing-to-give-up-asylum-claims-lawyers-say/2018/06/24/c7fab87c-77e2-11e880be-6d32e182a3bc_story.html?utm_term=.3118c8f35345.
116.

Parents have been presented with the option to be deported with their children and

waive the children's right to asylum or to be deported alone and leave the child in the United
States to pursue an asylum claim. Some who have chosen to be deported alone to let their
30

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 31 of 55

children pursue asylum were not even allowed by ICE to say goodbye to their children but had to
wave to their children who sat on a bus. M. Jordan, Migrant Families Have Been Reunited. Now
a Scramble to Prevent Deportations, N.Y. Times, July 30, 2018, available at
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/us/migrant-familiesdeportations.html?action=click&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=Article&region=Footer&cont
entCollection=U.S.
117.

In the past, the government often placed families apprehended at the border in

regular removal proceedings without detaining them at all. For other families, the government
used expedited removal procedures and detained members of the families together during these
expedited proceedings. If the government found these family members to have a credible fear of
persecution, they would release the family from detention because it often takes years before
immigration courts can offer asylee applicants a full and fair hearing on the merits of their
claims.
118.

Defendants in the Trump Administration are the first to have a uniform practice of

forcibly separating all fit parents from their young children, refusing to reunify them thereafter
until ordered by a federal court to do so, and then doubling down by coercing parents to waive
their own and their children's rights to asylum and other relief.

DHS Advisory Council Members Resign in Protest of the Practice of Forced Separation
119.

As a result of Defendants' unconstitutional actions, four members of the

Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council resigned on July 16, 2018 in protest of the
forced separation of children from their parents, writing that "routinely taking children from
migrant parents [i]s morally repugnant, counter-productive and ill-considered," and therefore

31

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 32 of 55

"[w]e cannot tolerate association with the immigration policies of this administration, nor the
illusion that we are consulted on these matters." Exhibit 5, July 16, 2018 Letter from R. Danzig,
E. Holtzman, D. Martin, and M. Olsen to Sec. K. Nielsen.
120.

Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman wrote to Secretary Nielsen in her

separate individual resignation letter:
Under your administration and that of Donald Trump's, DHS has been
transformed into an agency that is making war on immigrants and refugees. . . .
The final straw has been the separation of children from their parents at the
Southwest border. This is child kidnapping, plain and simple. Seizing children
from their parents in violation of the constitutional rights of both is bad enough
(mentally harmful to the children and infinitely painful to both the parents and
children), but doing so without creating proper records to enable family
reunification shows utter depravity on the part of the government officials
involved.
Exhibit 6, July 16, 2018 Letter from Hon. E. Holtzman to Sec. K. Nielsen.
121.

Professor David A. Martin wrote to Secretary Nielsen in his own resignation letter

about the "unjust policy of separating families at the border":
Now it has become clear that the policy was also executed with astounding
casualness about precise tracking of family relationships – as though eventual
reunification was deemed unlikely or at least unimportant, even for toddlers and
preschoolers. . . . From the beginning, however, the administration has opted
instead for gratuitously severe actions in the immigration arena . . . . Further, the
family separation policy crystallized for many HSAC members profound doubts
about the administration's commitment to the rule of law.
122.

Exhibit 7, July 16, 2018 Letter from Prof. D. Martin to Sec. K. Nielsen.

Individual Plaintiffs' Allegations – K.O. and E.O., Jr.
123.

On May 19, 2018, K.O., E.O., Jr., and their mother L.J. arrived in Texas on foot

after fleeing from their home country of Guatemala. The family fled the violence they had
experienced in Guatemala and were seeking asylum in the United States.

32

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 33 of 55

124.

At the time of their crossing, K.O. was nine years old and E.O., Jr. was seventeen

years old.
125.

The family walked alone for about five hours along the Rio Grande, without food

or water and in fear of being robbed or attacked by a poisonous snake or other animal. They
hoped that a CBP Agent would find them to allow them to apply for asylum.
126.

Eventually a single CBP Agent stopped the family and told them to remove their

jewelry, belts, and shoes. The CBP Agent made K.O. remove a small ring that she had received
upon her Kindergarten graduation. The CBP Agent asked them if they had any money,
telephones, or identification. L.J. explained that they only had identification.
127.

The CBP Agent then drove the family in a truck for about thirty minutes.

Immediately, K.O. and E.O., Jr. felt relieved, believing that help had arrived and they could
finally rest. K.O. fell asleep.
128.

The family was taken to a detention facility in McAllen, Texas. They were seated

on a cement bench.
129.

After a few minutes, CBP Agents called E.O., Jr. into an extremely small room

with about fifty other children ranging in age from about fourteen to seventeen. When E.O., Jr.
was taken from L.J., she had no idea that the Defendants intended to keep them separated.
130.

There was not enough space in the room for E.O., Jr. to sit so he had to stand for

almost seven hours. The air became so thick and heavy that some of the children kept calling for
the CBP Agents to help by banging on the door. Every once in a while, the CBP Agents opened
the door, which let some air in, and everyone felt momentary relief. More than once, the CBP
Agents opened the door and screamed at the group of children in Spanish: "Shut up, you
donkeys!"

33

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 34 of 55

131.

L.J. saw her son E.O., Jr. come out of the room once to be fingerprinted. The

CBP Agents would not let E.O., Jr. talk to L.J. They were terrified. They did not know why the
CBP Agents had separated them. They feared they would never see each other again.
132.

About two minutes after taking E.O., Jr., CBP Agents took nine-year-old K.O.

and her mother to another holding cell. About thirty other mothers were in that cell with their
children. One mother had an infant that looked to be only two months old. The room was
freezing cold, the only food was sandwiches for the children, and many of the children were
crying the entire time. Mothers walked with their children on their shoulders and sang songs to
them, hoping to help the children fall asleep.
133.

K.O. felt hungry, cold, and afraid in that cell. L.J. could not do anything to help

134.

About twelve to fourteen hours later, CBP Agents brought L.J. into a room with

her.

about ten other mothers. Their children were left alone in a cell. K.O. grabbed L.J. from behind
and said, "Mommy, don't go!"
135.

The CBP Agent had to pry K.O.'s hands off of L.J. and when he did that he yelled

at K.O. in Spanish: "Dejala!" That means : "Let her go!" L.J. asked the agent why he was
attacking K.O.
136.

As the CBP Agent pulled K.O.'s hands off of L.J., he said to her in Spanish:

"You're going to be deported to Guatemala and we're going to adopt your daughter."
137.

K.O. was screaming. L.J. desperately called out to K.O., telling her: "I love you

with all my heart! We are going to see each other again soon. Remember your father's phone
number."

34

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 35 of 55

138.

E.O., Jr. could see this happening through the window of the room where he was

being held. E.O., Jr. banged on the window to try to stop them from taking his sister, to no avail.
139.

K.O.'s father, E.O., was living in Westborough, Massachusetts and L.J. thought he

would be able to help K.O. even if L.J. could not. When he found out where they were, E.O.
began trying to get his children released to him in Massachusetts.
140.

On the day the children were taken from L.J. a CBP Agent or ICE Agent told E.O.

that they intended to separate the children from L.J. Defendants had no legitimate interest in
separating K.O. and E.O., Jr. from L.J. There was no evidence or even allegation of abuse,
neglect, or unfitness or that L.J. was not acting in the best interests of her children. Defendants
did not provide K.O., E.O., Jr., or L.J. with any notice or opportunity to be heard before forcibly
separating them.
141.

K.O. and E.O., Jr. were placed on a bus with no shoes. E.O., Jr. tried to hug his

sister, but the CBP Agents or ICE Agents separated them immediately. The bus ride was about
ten minutes long. The CBP Agents or ICE Agents then placed the children in a new detention
facility with cells facing across from each other.
142.

E.O., Jr. tried to talk to K.O. to tell her not worry and that she would be out of the

cells soon. K.O. asked her brother: "What happened to Mommy?"
143.

When E.O., Jr. tried to answer, a CBP Agent or ICE Agent yelled at him and

instructed him not to talk to his own sister. Her question went unanswered.
144.

K.O. and E.O., Jr. stayed at that facility for two days and two nights. The rooms

were freezing. The only blankets they had were silver thermal blankets.

35

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 36 of 55

145.

Small children who appeared to be as young as one or two years old cried on the

floor. The older children tried to take care of the young, crying children. Boys and girls were
separated by something like a metal fence.
146.

At one point, E.O., Jr. looked over at his sister K.O. and she was crying. E.O., Jr.

put his hands together and put his head on his hands, pretending to sleep, to try to help soothe
K.O. and stop her from crying. But E.O., Jr. felt so helpless that he too started crying.
147.

When the children cried, some CBP Agents or ICE Agents insulted them in

Spanish, including by shouting at them: "Shut up, you trash!"
148.

Once, a CBP Agent or ICE Agent came up to E.O., Jr. and asked how old he was.

When he replied that he was seventeen years old, the CBP Agent or ICE Agent said "you are
lying" and kicked E.O., Jr. about ten times in the back.
149.

The CBP Agents or ICE Agents woke K.O. up to take a shower by pulling her

ponytail.
150.

E.O., Jr. was removed from this detention facility first. He told the CBP Agents

or ICE Agents that he had to wait for his sister. The CBP Agents or ICE Agents said that if he
stayed he would "lose his opportunity." E.O., Jr. thought they meant that he would lose his
opportunity to be reunited with his father, E.O. E.O., Jr. still refused to leave, unwilling to leave
his sister alone. The next night, the CBP Agents or ICE Agents made E.O., Jr. bathe in cold
water, change his clothes, and prepare to leave.
151.

The CBP Agents or ICE Agents took both E.O., Jr. and K.O. to another facility.

When E.O., Jr. asked where his mother was, the CBP Agents or ICE Agents told him they had
deported his mother.

36

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 37 of 55

152.

E.O., Jr. and K.O. were placed on an airplane to Michigan, seated separately.

They arrived at about 1:00 a.m. and they were told they were going to separate locations. E.O.,
Jr. asked them to allow him to stay with his sister, but CBP Agents, ICE Agents, or ORR
Personnel told E.O., Jr. not to worry and assured him that they would bring K.O. back in the
morning.
153.

As soon as the siblings were separated, K.O. started to cry. She was taken to a

foster family with three other children who had been forcibly separated from their parents at the
border. There were two six-year-olds and an eight-year-old.
154.

E.O., Jr. stayed in a facility with about eighteen other boys. He attended school in

the morning and K.O. was able to see her brother at school. E.O., Jr. was told by ORR Personnel
that getting out of the facility would be a terrible, long process.
155.

K.O. and E.O., Jr. did not know where their mother was. It bothered E.O., Jr. so

terribly that he could not sleep or eat.
156.

About five days later, E.O., Jr. was able to call his father, E.O., and tell him where

he was being held.
157.

E.O., Jr. was told that he had to be vaccinated again, even though he had already

been vaccinated, and he was given ten shots by a medical professional and ORR Personnel. K.O.
was also vaccinated and was given nine shots. L.J. was not there to comfort her daughter during
this process.
158.

K.O. and E.O., Jr. were finally released and reunited with their father in

Massachusetts on June 19, 2018.

37

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 38 of 55

159.

L.J. spent about eight days in the facility where her children were taken from her.

She was not allowed to call her husband, E.O., for about nine days. Then she was taken to the T.
Don Hutto Residential Center in Taylor, Texas, where she was detained for several weeks.
160.

L.J. finally met with an asylum officer in mid-June 2018 who found that L.J. had

a credible fear of persecution if she were forced to return to Guatemala.
161.

L.J. was finally released on June 26, 2018 and reunited with her family in

Massachusetts after that. They had been separated for about five weeks at that point. Needless
to say, the family was relieved and joyful.
162.

But the trauma caused by this forcible separation endures. The horrible, painful

memories still torment K.O., E.O., Jr., L.J. and E.O. K.O. wakes up in the middle of the night,
crying, wondering if that mean person would pull her hair again. Whenever L.J. leaves a room,
K.O. follows her mother and fears that she will abandon her again.
163.

The guilt that L.J. feels as a mother is overwhelming. She feels as if she was

unable to protect her children. The trauma that K.O., E.O., Jr., L.J., and E.O. experienced was
life altering and it will continue to affect their mental and emotional well-being for years to
come.
164.

The ordeal that K.O. and E.O., Jr. endured is typical of the experiences suffered

by the putative class members.
Individual Plaintiff's Allegations – C.J.
165.

F.C. and his eleven-year-old son, C.J. entered the United States in El Paso, Texas

on June 17, 2018 seeking asylum in this country. They came to the United States for asylum
because organized crime members, who worked in concert with the police in Guatemala,

38

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 39 of 55

extorted F.C. for money, threatened to kill F.C. and his family, and left them fearing for their
lives.
166.

When they crossed the United States border, F.C. saw a CBP vehicle and walked

towards it. F.C. was holding C.J.'s hand. The CBP Agents handcuffed F.C. and both he and C.J.
were driven to a detention center.
167.

When F.C. and C.J. arrived at the detention center, CBP Agents told F.C. that he

would be separated from C.J. F.C. felt "devastated" and "destroyed" upon hearing that CBP
Agents planned to separate his son from him. F.C. spent two days with C.J. trying to be brave
for his son. Internally, F.C. kept thinking that despite his efforts, his son was going to be
kidnapped. C.J. cried a lot. F.C. tried to calm him down and told him that F.C. would ask the
CBP Agents to let them stay together.
168.

The detention facility was very cold. The air conditioner was on the highest

setting at all times. F.C. and his son slept on the floor and were given one aluminum blanket to
share. F.C. stayed up trying to cover C.J. with his arms. C.J. shivered and constantly
complained about the cold.
169.

C.J. also complained of hunger. Both days F.C. and C.J. were given one burrito

to share, twice a day. F.C. asked for more food to share with C.J. The CBP Agents denied them
additional food, saying: "You're not here to get fat." When F.C. asked for water they told him to
use the sink. This was difficult because there were approximately fifteen people, including six
children, and one bathroom.
170.

On June 20, 2018, the CBP Agents woke up F.C. and C.J. in the middle of the

night and took them to a processing area. They told F.C. that C.J. would stay there while F.C.
went to court. The CBP Agents told F.C. that he would be back after court. They told C.J. they

39

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 40 of 55

would be putting him in another room until F.C. returned. F.C. assumed this would take a very
short period of time, and F.C. would soon see C.J.
171.

Instead, F.C. did not see his son again until July 26, 2018—36 days later.

172.

The CBP Agents handcuffed F.C., took him away, and never returned him to the

detention facility where he was held with C.J. F.C. was very worried about C.J.
173.

F.C. asked anyone who would listen: "Where is C.J.?" "Where has he been

taken?" "How do I get in touch with him?"
174.

F.C. knew how scared C.J. must be and F.C. felt heartbroken that he had not

protected his son, especially because that was all F.C. had wanted to do by coming to the United
States.
175.

When F.C. went to court he was told that he was there because he had committed

the federal crime of coming into the country illegally. The judge asked F.C. if he wanted to
leave C.J. in the United States or take C.J. with him if deported. F.C. felt sheer terror at being
deported without C.J. F.C. told the judge that no matter what they decided to do, F.C. wanted
C.J. to be with him.
176.

F.C. was moved to multiple detention facilities. At every detention center F.C.

asked about C.J. F.C. persisted until an employee from one of the detention centers finally
arranged for him to speak to C.J.
177.

When F.C. finally spoke to C.J. it was only for five minutes and C.J. cried very

hard the entire time. F.C. told C.J. not to think about the situation and to play and make new
friends. The phone call was heartbreaking because C.J. wanted to know when he would see his
father again, but F.C. did not have an answer.

40

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 41 of 55

178.

On that same day, an employee at the facility asked again if F.C. would authorize

C.J. to stay behind if F.C. were to be deported. F.C. said no.
179.

At some point the CBP Agents turned F.C. over to ICE Agents. F.C. was very

afraid that the ICE Agents would deport C.J. without F.C. F.C. was worried that C.J. would
grow up alone with no family. F.C. constantly worried about how C.J. was being treated and
whether he was safe.
180.

C.J. was held at a facility with many other children similarly separated from their

parents. This separation deeply affected C.J.
181.

While at the facility, another child hit C.J. in the eye. After C.J. told staff about

the assault, he noticed that the child who assaulted him went to see a psychologist or mental
health doctor and then C.J. never saw the child again. That incident made C.J. feel deep fear,
because he thought that if he made a mistake, he might disappear too.
182.

At the facility, C.J. was sad and cried a lot because he missed his father. C.J.

kept asking the staff when he would see his father again. Although C.J. was told that it would be
"soon," the days went by without any change. Eventually, C.J. came to believe he would never
see his father again and would be at the facility for many years.
183.

C.J. and F.C. were finally reunited on July 26, 2018. While the relief and joy they

both felt at seeing each other again was overwhelming, the harm that Defendants caused to C.J.
during the time that he was separated from his father and in Defendants' custody can never truly
be remedied.
184.

F.C. tries to assure C.J. that he will be OK, that he is safe, and that F.C. will never

leave him again.

41

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 42 of 55

185.

But C.J. now wakes up with nightmares, something that never happened before

Defendants forcibly separated him from his father. Sometimes, C.J.'s nightmares are so bad that
he falls out of bed.
186.

Defendants' forcible separation of C.J. from his father has caused extreme

emotional and psychological harm. The trauma that both C.J. and F.C. experienced was life
altering and it will continue to affect their mental and emotional well-being for years to come.
187.

The ordeal that C.J. endured is typical of the experiences suffered by the putative

class members.
Class Allegations
188.

This action is properly maintained as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)

and 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(3).
189.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class consisting of all minor children

nationwide who enter or have entered the United States at or between designated ports of entry
and who have been or will be separated from a parent or parents by DHS or its sub-agencies
(CBP, ICE, or USCIS) and detained in ORR custody, ORR foster care, or CBP or ICE custody
without a demonstration in a hearing that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child.
190.

The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. While the

exact number of class members is unknown at this time and can only be ascertained through
appropriate discovery, based on information disclosed in another pending case, the class consists
of well over 2,500 children. See Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-CV -0428-DMS-MDD, Joint Status
Report (July 26, 2018) (Doc. No. 159).
191.

The members of the class are readily ascertainable through Defendants' and

government records.

42

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 43 of 55

192.

There are questions of law or fact common to the class. The class members have

all been subjected to the Defendants' practice of forcibly separating migrant children from their
parents for no legitimate reason. All class members have been subjected to that practice without
an adequate hearing regarding separation. The common questions of law include whether
Defendants' forcible family separation violates the class members' procedural and substantive
due process rights and the equal protection guarantee under the Due Process Clause.
193.

Plaintiffs' claims or defenses are typical of the claims or defenses of the Class.

194.

Plaintiffs have no interests that are adverse to or which irreconcilably conflict

with the other members of the class.
195.

Plaintiffs are represented by counsel experienced in class action litigation and, in

particular, in litigating civil rights claims involving constitutional and statutory violations, tort
claims, and immigration matters. Plaintiffs' counsel has adequate resources to commit to
representing the class.
196.

Plaintiffs will therefore fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

197.

This action is properly maintained as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)

because prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk
of: (a) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would
establish incompatible standard of conduct for the party opposing the class; or (b) adjudications
with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the
interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially
impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.
198.

This action is also properly maintained as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P.

23(b)(3) because the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate

43

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 44 of 55

over any questions affecting only individual members and a class action is superior to other
available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.
COUNT I
Violation of Substantive Due Process – Right to Family Integrity
199.

Plaintiffs incorporate all of the preceding allegations in this Complaint as if fully

set forth here.
200.

At all relevant times, all Defendants were acting under color of federal law.

201.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to all "persons" on

United States soil and therefore applies to Plaintiffs and to all proposed class members.
202.

Plaintiffs and all class members have a liberty interest under the Due Process

Clause in remaining together as a family and in their parents' care and comfort.
203.

The forcible separation of the class members from their parents violates

substantive due process because it furthers no legitimate purpose, much less a compelling
governmental interest.
204.

The Defendants in this action have adopted, implemented, enforced, condoned,

sanctioned, acquiesced to, and encouraged a pattern, practice, or custom of violating the clearly
established due process rights of the class members by forcibly separating young children from
their parents without justification.
205.

Defendants' conduct shocks the conscience and demonstrates their deliberate

indifference to the violation of the class members' constitutional right to due process.
206.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' Due Process violations, the

class members have suffered harm.
207.

Defendants' conduct was intentional, wanton, malicious, reckless, callously

indifferent, and oppressive, thus entitling the class members to punitive damages.
44

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 45 of 55

COUNT II
Violation of Procedural Due Process
208.

Plaintiffs incorporate all of the preceding allegations in this Complaint as if fully

set forth here.
209.

At all relevant times, all Defendants were acting under color of federal law.

210.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to all "persons" on

United States soil and therefore applies to Plaintiffs and to all proposed class members.
211.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits deprivations of life,

liberty, or property without constitutionally adequate procedural safeguards and protects the right
to a fair hearing.
212.

The forcible separation of the class members from their parents violates a

fundamental liberty interest with no notice or opportunity to be heard.
213.

The Defendants in this action have adopted, implemented, enforced, condoned,

sanctioned, acquiesced to, and encouraged a pattern, practice, or custom of violating the clearly
established due process rights of the class members by forcibly separating young children from
their parents without due process of law.
214.

Defendants' conduct shocks the conscience and demonstrates their deliberate

indifference to the violation of the class members' constitutional right to due process.
215.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' Due Process violations, the

class members have suffered harm.
216.

Defendants' conduct was intentional, wanton, malicious, reckless, callously

indifferent, and oppressive, thus entitling the class members to punitive damages.

45

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 46 of 55

COUNT III
Violation of the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Guarantee
217.

Plaintiffs incorporate all of the preceding allegations in this Complaint as if fully

set forth here.
218.

At all relevant times, all Defendants were acting under color of federal law.

219.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to all "persons" on

United States soil and therefore applies to Plaintiffs and to all proposed class members.
220.

The Fifth Amendment contains an implicit guarantee of equal protection that

forbids any official action that intentionally discriminates on the basis of race, ethnicity, or
national origin.
221.

Defendants' forcible separation of immigrant children and parents, particularly

from Central and South America, arriving at the Southwestern border is unconstitutional because
it burdens a fundamental right and was motivated, at least in part, by the Defendants' intentional
discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. This intentional discrimination
includes bias against immigrants perceived to come from Central or South America.
222.

Defendants' forcible separation of children and parents, particularly from Central

and South America, arriving at the Southwestern border is unconstitutional because it disparately
impacts immigrants from Latin America arriving at the border and is motivated by animus and a
desire to harm this particular group.
223.

The forcible separation of children from their parents is not narrowly tailored to

achieve a compelling governmental interest.
224.

Alternatively, the discriminatory terms and application of the family separation

practice are arbitrary and bear no rational relationship to a legitimate federal interest.

46

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 47 of 55

225.

Defendants' conduct shocks the conscience and demonstrates their deliberate

indifference to the violation of the class members' constitutional right to equal protection of the
laws.
226.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' Equal Protection violations,

the class members have suffered harm.
227.

Defendants' conduct was intentional, wanton, malicious, reckless, callously

indifferent, and oppressive, thus entitling the class members to punitive damages.
COUNT IV
Violation of Substantive Due Process – Punishment of Civil Detainees
228.

Plaintiffs incorporate all of the preceding allegations in this Complaint as if fully

set forth here.
229.

At all relevant times, all Defendants were acting under color of federal law.

230.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to all "persons" on

United States soil and therefore applies to Plaintiffs and to all proposed class members.
231.

Plaintiffs and all class members have a liberty interest under the Due Process

Clause in remaining free from punitive conditions during their civil immigration detention.
232.

The Defendants intended to punish the class members during their detention by

forcibly separating the children from their parents, purporting to maintain the separation
indefinitely, failing to provide meaningful information to parents or children about one another's
location and well-being, subjecting the children to appalling and abusive conditions, and
preventing them from reliable and ready access to means of communicating with one another.
233.

Regardless of Defendants' intent, the conduct described above is patently

excessive in relation to any legitimate objective.

47

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 48 of 55

234.

Defendants' conduct violates substantive due process because it furthers no

legitimate purpose, much less a compelling governmental interest.
235.

The Defendants in this action have adopted, implemented, enforced, condoned,

sanctioned, acquiesced to, and encouraged a pattern, practice, or custom of violating the clearly
established due process rights of the class members through the unlawful conduct described
above.
236.

Defendants' conduct shocks the conscience and demonstrates their deliberate

indifference to the violation of the class members' constitutional right to due process.
237.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' Due Process violations, the

class members have suffered harm.
238.

Defendants' conduct was intentional, wanton, malicious, reckless, callously

indifferent, and oppressive, thus entitling the class members to punitive damages.
COUNT V
Violation Due Process – Coerced Waiver of Asylum and Other Immigration Claims
239.

Plaintiffs incorporate all of the preceding allegations in this Complaint as if fully

set forth here.
240.

At all relevant times, all Defendants were acting under color of federal law.

241.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to all "persons" on

United States soil and therefore applies to Plaintiffs and to all proposed class members.
242.

Plaintiffs and all class members have an interest under the Due Process Clause in

pursuing asylum and other potential immigration claims without being coerced to waive them.
243.

Defendants' coercive practice of conditioning reunification of children with their

parents upon the parents' waiver of their own and their children's right to asylum and other

48

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 49 of 55

immigration relief violates the Due Process Clause because these waivers were not knowing,
intelligent, or voluntary.
244.

Defendants' conduct violates due process because it furthers no legitimate

purpose, much less a compelling governmental interest.
245.

The Defendants in this action have adopted, implemented, enforced, condoned,

sanctioned, acquiesced to, and encouraged a pattern, practice, or custom of violating the clearly
established due process rights of the class members through the unlawful conduct described
above.
246.

Defendants' conduct shocks the conscience and demonstrates their deliberate

indifference to the violation of the class members' constitutional right to due process.
247.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' Due Process violations, the

class members have suffered harm.
248.

Defendants' conduct was intentional, wanton, malicious, reckless, callously

indifferent, and oppressive, thus entitling the class members to punitive damages.
COUNT VI
Violation of Substantive Due Process
Failure to Provide Adequate Mental Health Services
249.

Plaintiffs incorporate all of the preceding allegations in this Complaint as if fully

set forth here.
250.

At all relevant times, all Defendants were acting under color of federal law.

251.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to all "persons" on

United States soil and therefore applies to Plaintiffs and to all proposed class members.

49

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 50 of 55

252.

Plaintiffs and all class members have a liberty interest under the Due Process

Clause in receiving adequate medical care, including mental health care, while in the custody of
the Defendants.
253.

The Defendants' failure to provide adequate and necessary mental health care to

the class members after forcibly separating them from their parents violates substantive due
process because it furthers no legitimate purpose, much less a compelling governmental interest.
254.

Moreover Defendants were aware of the severe harm that their conduct caused to

the mental health of the class members, yet they failed to provide adequate and necessary
treatment to them.
255.

Defendants' conduct shocks the conscience and demonstrates their deliberate

indifference to the violation of the class members' constitutional right to due process.
256.

The Defendants in this action have adopted, implemented, enforced, condoned,

sanctioned, acquiesced to, and encouraged a pattern, practice, or custom of violating the clearly
established due process rights of the class members by failing to provide adequate mental health
care to the class members after forcible separation from their parents.
257.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' Due Process violations, the

class members have suffered harm.
258.

Defendants' conduct was intentional, wanton, malicious, reckless, callously

indifferent, and oppressive, thus entitling the class members to punitive damages.
COUNT VII
Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)
259.

Plaintiffs incorporate all of the preceding allegations in this Complaint as if fully

set forth here.
260.

The Defendants are located in States or Territories of the United States.
50

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 51 of 55

261.

The Defendants are "persons" for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).

262.

Two or more of the Defendants conspired or furthered a conspiracy to deprive

Plaintiffs and class members of equal protection of the laws.
263.

The Defendants furthered their conspiracy by, at various times, creating, adopting,

implementing, enforcing, condoning, sanctioning, acquiescing to, and encouraging a pattern,
practice, or custom of taking children and parents, particularly those from Central and South
America, arriving at or between designated ports of entry to the United States into custody and
forcibly separating them.
264.

The Plaintiffs and the class members include Central and South American

children, sharing characteristics of race, ethnicity, and/or national origin, who arrived at the
United States border with their parents and were forcibly separated from them by Defendants.
265.

The Defendants were motivated to discriminate against the Plaintiffs and other

class members due to their race, ethnicity, and/or national origin.
266.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' unlawful conspiracy, the

Plaintiffs and other class members have suffered pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering,
inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses and
have been deprived of their constitutionally protected rights to substantive and procedural due
process and equal protection.
267.

Defendants' conduct was intentional, wanton, malicious, reckless, callously

indifferent, and oppressive, thus entitling the Plaintiffs and class members to punitive damages.
268.

The Plaintiffs and class members are entitled to recover costs, reasonable

attorney's fees, and expert fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

51

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 52 of 55

COUNT VIII
Refusal or Neglect to Prevent or Aid in Preventing
Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986
269.

The Plaintiffs incorporate all of the preceding allegations in this Complaint as if

fully set forth here.
270.

The Defendants are "persons" for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1986.

271.

The Defendants possessed knowledge of a conspiracy to injure and interfere with

the constitutionally-protected rights of the Plaintiffs and class members in violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1985.
272.

The Defendants had power to prevent or aid in the prevention of such a

conspiracy and neglected or refused to do so.
273.

As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conspiracy which the Defendants

knew of but neglected or refused to prevent, the Plaintiffs and class members have suffered
pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of
life, and other nonpecuniary losses.
274.

The nature of the relief sought and the harm suffered by the Plaintiffs meets the

jurisdictional requirements and thresholds of this Court.
275.

Defendants' conduct was intentional, wanton, malicious, reckless, callously

indifferent, and oppressive, thus entitling the Plaintiffs and class members to punitive damages.
276.

The Plaintiffs and class members are entitled to recover costs, reasonable

attorney's fees, and expert fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs K.O. and E.O., Jr., by and through their parents and next
friends, E.O. and L.J, and C.J, by and through his father and next friend F.C., on behalf of

52

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 53 of 55

themselves and all others similarly situated, respectfully request that the Court grant the
following relief:
A. Enter judgment declaring this action to be a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
and certifying Plaintiffs K.O. and E.O., Jr., by and through their parents and next
friends, E.O. and L.J, and C.J, by and through his father and next friend F.C., as
the class representatives and Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel;
B. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the class, and against Defendants, on all
counts of the Complaint;
C. Enter an order requiring the Defendants to establish a fund in an amount to be
determined at trial for the mental health treatment and ongoing mental health
monitoring of the class members;
D. Award to Plaintiffs and the class all damages in an amount to be determined at
trial sufficient to compensate the class for their injuries, including, but not limited
to, emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, embarrassment, and
humiliation;
E. Award to Plaintiffs and the class punitive or exemplary damages as permitted by
law;
F. Award to Plaintiffs and the class their attorneys' fees, costs, and interest as
permitted by law; and
G. Grant such further and other relief as may be just and proper.
PLAINTIFFS ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL CLAIMS AND ISSUES SO TRIABLE

53

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 54 of 55

Respectfully submitted,
K.O. and E.O., Jr., by and through their parents and
next friends, E.O. and L.J.; and C.J, by and through
his father and next friend F.C.; each individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,

By their attorneys,

Howard M. Cooper
Howard M. Cooper (BBO # 543842)
Joseph M. Cacace (BBO # 672298)
TODD & WELD LLP
One Federal Street, 27th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 720-2626
hcooper@toddweld.com
jcacace@toddweld.com
Susan B. Church (BBO # 639306)
Derege Demissie (BBO # 637544)
Heather Yountz (BBO # 669770)
Brittanie Allen (BBO # 697561)
DEMISSIE & CHURCH
929 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 01
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 319-2399
sbc@demissiechurch.com
dd@demissiechurch.com
Jeff Goldman (BBO # 548056)
Jesse M. Bless (BBO # 660713)
THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFF GOLDMAN LLP
125 Washington Street, Ste. 204
Salem, MA 01970
(781) 704-3897
Jeff@@jeffgoldmanimmigration.com
Jesse@jeffgoldmanimmigration.com

54

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1 Filed 09/05/18 Page 55 of 55

David A. Vicinanzo (pro hac vice to be requested)
Nathan P. Warecki (BBO# 687547)
Lauren Maynard (BBO# 698742)
NIXON PEABODY LLP
100 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 345-1000
dvicinanzo@nixonpeabody.com
nwarecki@nixonpeabody.com
lmaynard@nixonpeabody.com
Iván Espinoza-Madrigal (pro hac vice to be
requested)
Oren N. Nimni (BBO # 691821)
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Economic
Justice
61 Batterymarch Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 988-0624
iespinoza@lawyerscom.org
onimni@lawyerscom.org

Dated: September 5, 2018
4845-1239-5886, v. 14

55

 CaseCase
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page1153
of 51
of 275

8/12/96

CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Carlos Holguin
Peter A. Schey
256 South Occidental Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90057
(213) 388-8693
NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
Alice Bussiere
James Morales
114 Sansome Street, Suite 905
San Francisco, CA 94104
( 415) 453-3307

D
CO JRT
U.S.flo~T1'1~

J~~ \ 1 \991

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Michael Johnson
Assistant United States Attorney
300 N. Los Angeles St., Rm. 7516
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Allen Hausman
Office of Immigration Litigation
Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Attorneys for Defendants
Additional counsel listed next page

UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JENNY LISETTE FLORES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-vsJANET RENO, Attorney General
of the United States, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 85-4544-RJK(Px)
Stipulated Settlement
Agreement

\

 CaseCase
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page2154
of 51
of 275

Plaintiffs' Additional Counsel

\
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTIIERN CALIFORNIA
Mark Rosenbaum
Sylvia Argueta
1616 Beverly Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Telephone: (213) 977-9500
STREICH LANG
Susan G. Boswell
Jeffrey Willis
1500 Bank of America Plaza
33 North Stone Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85701
Telephone: (602) 770-8700
Defendants' Additional Counsel:

Arthur Strathem

Mary Jane Candaux
Office of the General Counsel
U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service

425 I St. N. W.
Washington, DC 20536

I I I

2

 CaseCase
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page3155
of 51
of 275

STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have filed this action against Defendants, challenging, inter alia, the
constitutionality of Defendants' policies, practices and regulations regarding the detention and release of
unaccompanied minors taken into the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in
the Western Region; and
WHEREAS, the district court has certified this case as a class action on behalf of all minors
apprehended by the INS in the Western Region of the United States; and
WHEREAS, this litigation has been pending for nine (9) years, all parties have conducted
extensive discovery, and the United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the
challenged INS regulations on their face and has remanded for further proceedings consistent with its
opinion; and
WHEREAS, on November 30, 1987, the parties reached a settlement agreement requiring that
minors in INS custody in the Western Region be housed in facilities meeting certain standards,
including state standards for the housing and care of dependent children, and Plaintiffs' motion to
enforce compliance with that settlement is currently pending before the court; and
WHEREAS, a trial in this case would be complex, lengthy and costly to all parties concerned,
and the decision of the district court would be subject to appeal by the losing parties with the final
outcome uncertain; and
WHEREAS, the parties believe that settlement of this action is in their best interests and best
serves the interests of justice by avoiding a complex, lengthy and costly trial, and subsequent appeals
which could last several more years;
NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendants enter into this Stipulated Settlement Agreement

3

 CaseCase
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page4156
of 51
of 275

(the Agreement), stipulate that it constitutes a full and complete resolution of the issues raised in this
action, and agree to the following:

I

DEFINITIONS
As used throughout this Agreement the following definitions shall apply:
1. The tenn "party" or "parties" shall apply to Defendants and Plaintiffs. As the term applies to

Defendants, it shall include their agents, employees, contractors and/or successors in office. As the
term applies to Plaintiffs, it shall include all class members.
2. The term "Plaintiff' or "Plaintiffs" shall apply to the named plaintiffs and all class members.
3. The term "class member" or "class members" shall apply to the persons defined in Paragraph
10 below.
4. The term "minor" shall apply to any person under the age of eighteen (18) years who is
detained in the legal custody of the INS. This Agreement shall cease to apply to any person who has
reached the age of eighteen years. The term "minor" shall not include an emancipated minor or an
individual who has been incarcerated due to a conviction for a criminal offense as an adult. The INS
shall treat all persons who are under the age of eighteen but not included within the definition of
"minor" as adults for all purposes, including release on bond or recognizance.
5. The term "emancipated minor" shall refer to any minor who has been determined to be
emancipated in an appropriate state judicial proceeding.
6. The term "licensed program" shall refer to any program, agency or organization that is
licensed by an appropriate State agency to provide residential, group, or foster care services for
dependent children, including a program operating group homes, foster homes, or facilities for special
needs minors. A licensed program must also meet those standards for licensed programs set forth in

4

 CaseCase
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page5157
of 51
of 275

Exhibit 1 attached hereto. All homes and facilities operated by licensed programs, including facilities
for special needs minors, shall be non-secure as required under state law; provided, however, that a
facility for special needs minors may maintain that level of security permitted under state law which is
necessary for the protection of a minor or others in appropriate circumstances, e.g., cases in which a
minor has drug or alcohol problems or is mentally ill. The INS shall make reasonable efforts to provide
licensed placements in those geographical areas where the majority of minors are apprehended, such as
southern California, southeast Texas, southern Florida and the northeast corridor.
7. The term "special needs minor" shall refer to a minor whose mental and/or physical
condition requires special services and treatment by staff. A minor may have special needs due to drug
or alcohol abuse, serious emotional disturbance, mental illness or retardation, or a physical condition or
chronic illness that requires special services or treatment. A minor who has suffered serious neglect or
abuse may be considered a minor with special needs if the minor requires special services or treatment
as a result of the neglect or abuse. The INS shall assess minors to detennine if they have special needs
and, if so, shall place such minors, whenever possible, in licensed programs in which the INS places
children without special needs, but which provide services and treatment for such special needs.
8. The tenn "medium security facility" shall refer to a facility that is operated by a program,
agency or organization licensed by an appropriate State agency and that meets those standards set forth
in Exhibit I attached hereto. A medium security facility is designed for minors who require close
supervision but do not need placement in juvenile correctional facilities. It provides 24-hour awake
supervision, custody, care, and treatment. It maintains stricter security measures, such as intensive staff
supervision, than a facility operated by a licensed program in order to control problem behavior and to
prevent escape. Such a facility may have a secure perimeter but shall not be equipped internally with

5

 CaseCase
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page6158
of 51
of 275

major restraining construction or procedures typically associated with correctional facilities.

II

SCOPE OF SETTLEMENT, EFFECTIVE DATE, AND PUBLICATION
9. This Agreement sets out nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of minors

in the custody of the INS and shall supersede all previous INS policies that are inconsistent with the
terms of this Agreement. This Agreement shall become effective upon final court approval, except that
those terms of this Agreement regarding placement pursuant to Paragraph 19 shall not become effective
until all contracts under the Program Announcement referenced in Paragraph 20 below are negotiated
and implemented. The INS shall make its best efforts to execute these contracts within 120 days after
the court1s final approval of this Agreement. However, the INS will make reasonable efforts to comply
with Paragraph 19 prior to full implementation of all such contracts. Once all contracts under the
Program Announcement referenced in Paragraph 20 ·have been implemented, this Agreement shall
supersede the agreement entitled Memorandum of Understanding Re Compromise of Class Action:
Conditions of Detention (hereinafter "MOU"), entered into by and between the Plaintiffs and
Defendants and filed with the United States District Court for the Central District of California on
November 30, 1987, and the MOU shall thereafter be null and void. However, Plaintiffs shall not
institute any legal action for enforcement of the MOU for a six (6) month period commencing with the
final district court approval of this Agreement, except that Plaintiffs may institute enforcement
proceedings if the Defendants have engaged in serious violations of the MOU that have caused
irreparable harm to a class member for which injunctive relief would be appropriate. Within 120 days
of the final district court approval of this Agreement, the INS shall initiate action to publish the relevant
and substantive terms of this Agreement as a Service regulation. The final regulations shall not be
inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement. Within 30 days of final court approval of this

6

 CaseCase
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page7159
of 51
of 275

Agreement, the INS shall distribute to all INS field offices and sub-offices instructions regarding the
processing, treatment, and placement of juveniles. Those instructions shall include, but may not be
limited to, the provisions summarizing the terms of this Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
III

CLASS DEFINITION
I 0. The certified class in this action shall be defined as follows: "All minors who are detained

in the legal custody of the INS."
IV

STATEMENTS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
11. The INS treats, and shall continue to treat, all minors in its custody with dignity, respect

and special concern for their particular vulnerability as minors. The INS shall place each detained
minor in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor's age and special needs, provided that such
setting is consistent with its interests to ensure the minor's timely appearance before the INS and the
immigration courts and to protect the minor's well-being and that of others. Nothing herein shall
require the INS to release a minor to any person or agency whom the INS has reason to believe may
harm or neglect the minor or fail to present him or her before the INS or the immigration courts when
requested to do so.
V

PROCEDURES AND TEMPORARY PLACEMENT FOLLOWING ARREST
12.A. Whenever the INS takes a minor into custody, it shall expeditiously process the minor

and shall provide the minor with a notice of rights, including the right to a bond redetermination hearing
if applicable. Following arrest, the INS shall hold minors in facilities that are safe and sanitary and that
are consistent with the INS's concern for the particular vulnerability of minors. Facilities will provide
access to toilets and sinks, drinking water and food as appropriate, medical assistance if the minor is in
need of emergency services, adequate temperature control and ventilation, adequate supervision to

7

 CaseCase
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page8160
of 51
of 275

protect minors from others, and contact with family members who were arrested with the minor. The
INS will segregate unaccompanied minors from unrelated adults. Where such segregation is not
immediately possible, an unaccompanied minor will not be detained with an unrelated adult for more
than 24 hours. If there is no one to whom the INS may release the minor pursuant to Paragraph 14, and
no appropriate licensed program is immediately available for placement pursuant to Paragraph 19, the
minor may be placed in an INS detention facility, or other INS-contracted facility, having separate
accommodations for minors, or a State or county juvenile detention facility. However, minors shall be
separated from delinquent offenders. Every effort must be taken to ensure that the safety and
well-being of the minors detained in these facilities are satisfactorily provided for by the staff. The INS
will transfer a minor from a placement under this paragraph to a placement under Paragraph 19, (i)

within three (3) days, if the minor was apprehended in an INS district in which a licensed program is
located and has space available; or (ii) within five (5) days in all other cases; except:
1.

as otherwise provided under Paragraph 13 or Paragraph 21;

2.

as otherwise required by any court decree or court-approved settlement;

3.

in the event of an emergency or influx of minors into the United States, in which case
the INS shall place all minors pursuant to Paragraph 19 as expeditiously as possible; or

4.

where individuals must be transported from remote areas for processing or speak
unusual languages such that the INS must locate interpreters in order to complete
processing, in which case the INS shall place all such minors pursuant to Paragraph 19
within five (5) business days.

B. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "emergency" shall be defined as any act or event
that prevents the placement of minors pursuant to Paragraph 19 within the time frame provided. Such

8

 CaseCase
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page9161
of 51
of 275

emergencies include natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.), facility fires, civil
disturbances, and medical emergencies (e.g., a chicken pox epidemic among a group of minors). The
term "influx of minors into the United States" shall be defined as those circumstances where the INS
has, at any given time, more than l 30 minors eligible for placement in a licensed program under
Paragraph I9, including those who have been so placed or are awaiting such placement.

C. In preparation for an "emergency" or "influx," as described in Subparagraph B, the INS shall
have a written plan that describes the reasonable efforts that it will take to place all minors as
expeditiously as possible. This plan shall include the identification of 80 beds that are potentially
available for INS placements and that are licensed by an appropriate State agency to provide residential,
group, or foster care services for dependent children. The plan, without identification of the additional
beds available, is attached as Exhibit 3. The [NS shall not be obligated to fund these additional beds on
an ongoing basis. The INS shall update this listing of additional beds on a quarterly basis and provide
Plaintiffs' counsel with a copy of this listing.

13. If a reasonable person would conclude that an alien detained by the fNS is an adult despite
his claims to be a minor, the INS shall treat the person as an adult for all purposes, including
confinement and release on bond or recognizance. The INS may require the alien to submit to a
medical or dental examination conducted by a medical professional or to submit to other appropriate
procedures to verify his or her age. If the INS subsequently determines that such an individual is a
minor, he or she will be treated as a minor in accordance with this Agreement for all purposes.
VI

GENERAL POLICY FAVO RING RELEASE
14. Where the lNS determines that the detention of the minor is not required either to secure his

or her timely appearance before the INS or the immigration court, or to ensure the minor's safety or that

9

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page10
162
of 51
of 275

of others, the INS shall release a minor from its custody without unnecessary delay, in the following
order of preference, to:
A.

a parent;

B.

a legal guardian;

C.

an adult relative (brother, sister, aunt, uncle, or grandparent);

D.

an adult individual or entity designated by the parent or legal guardian as capable and
willing to care for the minor's well-being in (i) a declaration signed under penalty of
perjury before an immigration or consular officer or (ii) such other document(s) that
establish(es) to the satisfaction of the INS, in its discretion, the affiant's paternity or
guardianship;

E.

a licensed program willing to accept legal custody; or

F.

an adult individual or entity seeking custody, in the discretion of the INS, when it
appears that there is no other likely alternative to long term detention and family
reunification does not appear to be a reasonable possibility.

15. Before a minor is released from INS custody pursuant to Paragraph 14 above, the custodian
must execute an Affidavit of Support (Form I-134) and an agreement to:
A.

provide for the minor's physical, mental, and financial well-being;

B.

ensure the minor's presence at all future proceedings before the INS and the immigration
court;

C.

notify the INS of any change of address within five (5) days following a move;

D.

in the case of custodians other than parents or legal guardians, not transfer custody of the
minor to another party without the prior written permission of the District Director;

10

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page11
163
of 51
of 275

E.

notify the INS at least five days prior to the custodian's departing the United States of
such departure, whether the departure is voluntary or pursuant to a grant of voluntary
departure or order of deportation; and

F.

if dependency proceedings involving the minor are initiated, notify the INS of the
initiation of such proceedings and the dependency court of any immigration proceedings
pending against the minor.

In the event of an emergency, a custodian may transfer temporary physical custody of a minor prior to
securing permission from the INS but shall notify the INS of the transfer as soon as is practicable
thereafter, but in all cases within 72 hours. For purposes of this paragraph, examples of an
"emergency" shall include the serious illness of the custodian, destruction of the home, etc. In all cases
where the custodian, in writing, seeks written permission for a transfer, the District Director shall
promptly respond to the request.
16. The INS may terminate the custody arrangements and assume legal custody of any minor
whose custodian fails to comply with the agreement required under Paragraph 15. The INS, however,
shall not terminate the custody arrangements for minor violations of that part of the custodial agreement
outlined at Subparagraph 15.C above.
17. A positive suitability assessment may be required prior to release to any individual or
program pursuant to Paragraph 14. A suitability assessment may include such components as an
investigation of the living conditions in which the minor would be placed and the standard of care he
would receive, verification of identity and employment of the individuals offering support, interviews
of members of the household, and a home visit. Any such assessment should also take into
consideration the wishes and concerns of the minor.

11

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page12
164
of 51
of 275

18. Upon taking a minor into custody, the INS, or the licensed program in which the minor is
placed, shall make and record the prompt and continuous efforts on its part toward family reunification
and the release of the minor pursuant to Paragraph 14 above. Such efforts at family reunification shall
continue so long as the minor is in INS custody.
VII

INS CUSTODY
19. In any case in which the CNS does not release a minor pursuant to Paragraph 14, the minor

shall remain in INS legal custody. Except as provided in Paragraphs 12 or 21, such minor shall be
placed temporarily in a licensed program until such time as release can be effected in accordance with
Paragraph 14 above or until the minor's immigration proceedings are concluded, whichever occurs
earlier. All minors placed in such a licensed program remain in the legal custody of the INS and may
only be transferred or released under the authority of the INS; provided, however, that in the event of an
emergency a licensed program may transfer temporary physical custody of a minor prior to securing
permission from the INS but shall notify the INS of the transfer as soon as is practicable thereafter, but
in all cases within 8 hours.
20. Within 60 days of final court approval of this Agreement, the INS shall authorize the
United States Department of Justice Community Relations Service to publish in the Commerce
Business Daily and/or the Federal Register a Program Announcement to solicit proposals for the care of
100 minors in licensed programs.
21. A minor may be held in or transferred to a suitable State or county juvenile detention
faciJity or a secure INS detention facility, or INS-contracted facility, having separate accommodations
for minors whenever the District Director or Chief Patrol Agent determines that the minor:
A.

has been charged with, is chargeable, or has been convicted of a crime, or is the subject

12

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page13
165
of 51
of 275

of delinquency proceedings, has been adjudicated delinquent, or is chargeable with a
delinquent act; provided, however, that this provision shall not apply to any minor
whose offense(s) fall(s) within either of the following categories:
1.

lsolated offenses that ( 1) were not within a pattern or practice of criminal activity
and (2) did not involve violence against a person or the use or carrying of a weapon
(Examples: breaking and entering, vandalism, DUI, etc. This list is not
exhaustive.);

ii.

Petty offenses, which are not considered grounds for stricter means of detention in
any case (Examples: shoplifting, joy riding, disturbing the peace, etc. This list is
not exhaustive.);

As used in this paragraph, 11 chargeable 11 means that the INS has probable cause to
believe that the individual has committed a specified offense;

B.

has committed, or has made credible threats to commit, a violent or malicious act
(whether directed at himself or others) while in INS legal custody or while in the
presence of an INS officer;

C.

has engaged, while in a licensed program, in conduct that has proven to be unacceptably
disruptive of the normal functioning of the licensed program in which he or she has been
placed and removal is necessary to ensure the welfare of the minor or others, as
determined by the staff of the licensed program (Examples: drug or alcohol abuse,
stealing, fighting, intimidation of others, etc. This list is not exhaustive.);

D.

is an escape~risk; or

E.

must be held in a secure facility for his or her own safety, such as when the INS has

13

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page14
166
of 51
of 275

reason to believe that a smuggler would abduct or coerce a particular minor to secure
payment of smuggling fees.
22. The term "escape-risk" means that there is a serious risk that the minor will attempt to
escape from custody. Factors to consider when determining whether a minor is an escape-risk or not
include, but are not limited to, whether:
A.

the minor is currently under a final order of deportation or exclusion;

B.

the minor's immigration history includes: a prior breach of a bond; a failure to appear
before the INS or the immigration court; evidence that the minor is indebted to
organized smugglers for his transport; or a voluntary departure or a previous removal
from the United States pursuant to a final order of deportation or exclusion;

C.

the minor has previously absconded or attempted to abscond from INS custody.

23. The INS will not place a minor in a secure facility pursuant to Paragraph 21 ifthere are less
restrictive alternatives that are available and appropriate in the circumstances, such as transfer to (a) a
medium security facility which would provide intensive staff supervision and counseling services or (b)
another licensed program. All determinations to place a minor in a secure facility will be reviewed and
approved by the regional juvenile coordinator.
24.A. A minor in deportation proceedings shall be afforded a bond redetermination hearing
before an immigration judge in every case, unless the minor indicates on the Notice of Custody
Determination form that he or she refuses such a hearing.
B. Any minor who disagrees with the INS's determination to place that minor in a particular
type of facility, or who asserts that the licensed program in which he or she has been placed does not
comply with the standards set forth in Exhibit I attached hereto, may seek judicial review in any

14

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page15
167
of 51
of 275

United States District Court with jurisdiction and venue over the matter to challenge that placement
determination or to allege noncompliance with the standards set forth in Exhibit 1. In such an action,
the United States District Court shall be limited to entering an order solely affecting the individual
claims of the minor bringing the action.

C. In order to permit judicial review of Defendants' placement decisions as provided in this
Agreement, Defendants shall provide minors not placed in licensed programs with a notice of the
reasons for housing the minor in a detention or medium security facility. With respect to placement
decisions reviewed under this paragraph, the standard of review for the INS' s exercise of its discretion
shall be the abuse of discretion standard of review. With respect to all other matters for which this
paragraph provides judicial review, the standard of review shall be de novo review.

D. The INS shall promptly provide each minor not released with (a) INS Form 1-770, (b) an
explanation of the right of judicial review as set out in Exhibit 6, and (c) the list of free legal services
available in the district pursuant to INS regulations (unless previously given to the minor).
E. Exhausting the procedures established in Paragraph 37 of this Agreement shall not be a
precondition to the bringing of an action under this paragraph in any United District Court. Prior to
initiating any such action, however, the minor and/or the minors' attorney shall confer telephonically or
in person with the United States Attorney's office in the judicial district where the action is to be filed,
··:.

in an effort to informally resolve the minor's complaints without the need of federal court intervention.

VIII

TRANSPORTATION OF MINORS
25. Unaccompanied minors arrested or taken into custody by the INS should not be transported

by the INS in vehicles with detained adults except:
A. when being transported from the place of arrest or apprehension to an INS office, or

15

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page16
168
of 51
of 275

8. where separate transportation would be otherwise impractical.
When transported together pursuant to Clause B, minors shall be separated from adults. The INS shall
take necessary precautions for the protection of the well-being of such minors when transported with
adults.
26. The INS shall assist without undue delay in making transportation arrangements to the INS
office nearest the location of the person or facility to whom a minor is to be released pursuant to
Paragraph 14. The INS may, in its discretion, provide transportation to minors.

IX

TRANSFER OF MINORS
27. Whenever a minor is transferred from one placement to another, the minor shall be

transferred with all of his or her possessions and legal papers; provided, however, that if the minor's
possessions exceed the amount permitted normally by the carrier in use, the possessions will be shipped
to the minor in a timely manner. No minor who is represented by counsel shall be transferred without
advance notice to such counsel, except in unusual and compelling circumstances such as where the
safety of the minor or others is threatened or the minor has been determined to be an escape-risk, or
where counsel has waived such notice, in which cases notice shall be provided to counsel within 24
hours following transfer.

X MONITORING AND REPORTS
28A. An INS Juvenile Coordinator in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner for Detention
and Deportation shall monitor compliance with the terms of this Agreement and shall maintain an
up-to-date record of all minors who are placed in proceedings and remain in INS custody for longer
than 72 hours. Statistical information on such minors shall be collected weekly from all INS district
offices and Border Patrol stations. Statistical information will include at least the following: (1)

16

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page17
169
of 51
of 275

biographical information such as each minor's name, date of birth, and country of birth, (2) date placed
in INS custody, (3) each date placed, removed or released, (4) to whom and where placed, transferred,
removed or released, (5) immigration status, and (6) hearing dates. The INS, through the Juvenile
Coordinator, shall also collect information regarding the reasons for every placement of a minor in a
detention facility or medium security facility.
B. Should Plaintiffs' counsel have reasonable cause to believe that a minor in INS legal custody
should have been released pursuant to Paragraph 14, Plaintiffs' counsel may contact the Juvenile
Coordinator to request that the Coordinator investigate the case and inform Plaintiffs' counsel of the
reasons why the minor has not been released.
29. On a semi-annual basis, until two years after the court determines, pursuant to Paragraph
31, that the INS has achieved substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement, the INS shall
provide to Plaintiffs' counsel the information collected pursuant to Paragraph 28, as permitted by law,
and each INS policy or instruction issued to INS employees regarding the implementation of this
Agreement. In addition, Plaintiffs' counsel shall have the opportunity to submit questions, on a
semi-annual basis, to the Juvenile Coordinator in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner for
Detention and Deportation with regard to the implementation of this Agreement and the information
provided to Plaintiffs' counsel during the preceding six-month period pursuant to Paragraph 28.
Plaintiffs' counsel shall present such questions either orally or in writing, at the option of the Juvenile
Coordinator. The Juvenile Coordinator shall furnish responses, either orally or in writing at the option
of Plaintiffs' counsel, within 30 days of receipt.
30. On an annual basis, commencing one year after final court approval of this Agreement, the
INS Juvenile Coordinator shall review, assess, and report to the court regarding compliance with the

17

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page18
170
of 51
of 275

terms of this Agreement. The Coordinator shall file these reports with the court and provide copies to
the parties, including the final report referenced in Paragraph 35, so that they can submit comments on
the report to the court. In each report, the Coordinator shall state to the court whether or not the INS is

in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement, and, if the INS is not in substantial
compliance, explain the reasons for the lack of compliance. The Coordinator shall continue to report on
an annual basis until three years after the court determines that the INS has achieved substantial
compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
31. One year after the court's approval of this Agreement, the Defendants may ask the court to
determine whether the INS has achieved substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement.

XI

ATTORNEY-CLIENT VISITS
32.A. Plaintiffs' counsel are entitled to attorney-client visits with class members even though

they may not have the names of class members who are housed at a particular location. All visits shall
occur in accordance with generally applicable policies and procedures relating to attorney-client visits at
the facility in question. Upon Plaintiffs' counsel's arrival at a facility for attorney-client visits, the
facility staff shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a list of names and alien registration numbers for the
minors housed at that facility. In all instances, in order to memorialize any visit to a minor by
Plaintiffs' counsel, Plaintiffs' counsel must file a notice of appearance with the INS prior to any
attorney-client meeting. Plaintiffs' counsel may limit any such notice of appearance to representation
of the minor in connection with this Agreement. Plaintiffs' counsel must submit a copy of the notice of
appearance by hand or by mail to the local INS juvenile coordinator and a copy by hand to the staff of
the facility.
B. Every six months, Plaintiffs' counsel shall provide the INS with a list of those attorneys who

18

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page19
171
of 51
of 275

may make such attorney-client visits, as Plaintiffs' counsel, to minors during the following six month
period. Attorney-client visits may also be conducted by any staff attorney employed by the Center for

Human Rights & Constitutional Law in Los Angeles, California or the National Center for Youth Law
in San Francisco, California, provided that such attorney presents credentials establishing his or her
employment prior to any visit.
C. Agreements for the placement of minors in non-INS facilities shall permit attorney-client
visits, including by class counsel in this case.
D. Nothing in Paragraph 32 shall affect a minor's right to refuse to meet with Plaintiffs'
counsel. Further, the minor's parent or legal guardian may deny Plaintiffs' counsel permission to meet
with the minor.

XII

FACILITY VISITS
33. In addition to the attorney-client visits permitted pursuant to Paragraph 32, Plaintiffs'

cowisel may request access to any licensed program's facility in which a minor has been placed
pursuant to Paragraph 19 or to any medium security facility or detention facility in which a minor has
been placed pursuant to Paragraphs 21 or 23. Plaintiffs' cowisel shall submit a request to visit a facility
under this paragraph to the INS district juvenile coordinator who will provide reasonable assistance to
Plaintiffs' counsel by conveying the request to the facility's staff and coordinating the visit. The rules

and procedures to be followed in connection with any visit approved by a facility under this paragraph
are set forth in Exhibit 4 attached, except as may be otherwise agreed by Plaintiffs' counsel and the
facility's staff. In all visits to any facility pursuant to this Agreement, Plaintiffs' counsel and their
associated experts shall treat minors and staff with courtesy and dignity and shall not disrupt the normal
functioning of the facility.

19

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page20
172
of 51
of 275

XIII TRAINING
34. Within 120 days of final court approval of this Agreement, the INS shall provide
appropriate guidance and training for designated INS employees regarding the terms of this Agreement.
The lNS shall develop written and/or audio or video materials for such training. Copies of such written
and/or audio or video training materials shall be made available to Plaintiffs' counsel when such training
materials are sent to the field, or to the extent practicable, prior to that time.
XIV

DISMISSAL
35. After the court has determined that the INS is in substantial compliance with this

Agreement and the Coordinator has filed a final report, the court, without further notice, shall dismiss
this action. Until such dismissal, the court shall retain jurisdiction over this action.
XV

RESERVATIONOFRIGHTS

36. Nothing in this Agreement shall limit the rights, if any, of individual class members to
preserve issues for judicial review in the appeal of an individual case or for class members to exercise
any independent rights they may otherwise have.
XVI

NOTICE AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
3 7. This paragraph provides for the enforcement, in this District Court, of the provisions 0f this

Agreement except for claims brought under Paragraph 24. The parties shall meet telephonically or in
person to discuss a complete or partial repudiation of this Agreement or any alleged non-compliance
with the terms of the Agreement, prior to bringing any individual or class action to enforce this
Agreement. Notice of a claim that a party has violated the terms of this Agreement shall be served on
plaintiffs addressed to:

I I I

20

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page21
173
of 51
of 275

CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Carlos Holguin
Peter A. Schey
256 South Occidental Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90057
NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
Alice Bussiere
James Morales
114 Sansome Street, Suite 905
San Francisco, CA 94104

and on Defendants addressed to:
Michael Johnson
Assistant United States Attorney
300 N. Los Angeles St., Rm. 7516
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Allen Hausman
Office of Immigration Litigation
Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044

XVII PUBLICITY
38. Plaintiffs and Defendants shall hold a joint press conference to announce this Agreement.
The INS shall send copies of this Agreement to social service and voluntary agencies agreed upon by

the parties, as set forth in Exhibit 5 attached. The parties shall pursue such other public dissemination

of information regarding this Agreement as the parties shall agree.
XVIII ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS
39. Within 60 days of final court approval of this Agreement, Defendants shall pay to Plaintiffs
the total sum of $374, I 10.09, in full settlement of all attorneys' fees and costs in this case.

I I I

21

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page22
174
of 51
of 275

XIX

TERMINATION
40. All terms of this Agreement shall terminate the earlier of five years after the date of final

court approval of this Agreement or three years after the court determines that the INS is in substantial
compliance with this Agreement, except that the INS shall continue to house the general population of
minors in INS custody in facilities that are licensed for the care of dependent minors.

XX

REPRESENTA TIONS AND WARRANTY
41. Counsel for the respective parties, on behalf of themselves and their clients, represent that

they know of nothing in this Agreement that exceeds the legal authority of the parties or is in violation
of any law. Defendants' counsel represent and warrant that they are fully authorized and empowered to
enter into this Agreement on behalf of the Attorney General, the United States Department of Justice,
and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and acknowledge that Plaintiffs enter into this
Agreement in reliance on such representation. Plaintiffs' counsel represent and warrant that they are
fully authorized and empowered to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and
acknowledge that Defendants enter into this Agreement in reliance on such representation. The
undersigned, by their signatures on behalf of the Plaintiffs and Defendants, warrant that upon execution
of this Agreement in their representative capacities, their principals, agents, and successors of such
principals and agents shall be fully and unequivocally bound hereunder to the full extent authorized by

/7

law.

.

~

For Defendants: Signed: __~--"'.._(1-<..AA'--_
;_
'./J
__
~- - - -·--~------'_Title: Commissioner, I NS

1_,,/_(_C,--+(_:,_ ~- -

Dated:_ _

For Plaintiffs:

Signed: per next page

Title:- - - - - - - - -

Dated:

- - -- -- - - - 22

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page23
175
of 51
of 275

The foregoing stipulated settlement is approved as to form and content:
CENTER FOR HUMAN
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Carlos Holguin
Peter Schey

RIGHTS

AND

NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
Alice Bussiere
James Morales
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Mark Rosenbaum
Sylvia Argueta
STEICH LAN~
Susan G. B
ell

Date:

1. . . .9-..6
. . . __

Date: ---'-11-+-/......
J.......,?

23

--

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page24
176
of 51
of 275

Exhibit 1
.

""

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page25
177
of 51
of 275

EXHIBIT 1
MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LICENSED PROGRAMS

A. Licensed programs shall comply with all applicable state child welfare laws and regulations
and all state and local building, fire, health and safety codes and shall provide or arrange for the
following services for each minor in its care:
1.

Proper physical care and maintenance, including suitable living accommodations, food,
appropriate clothing, and personal grooming items.

2.

Appropriate routine medical and dental care, family planning services, and emergency
health care services, including a complete medical examination (including screening for
infectious disease) within 48 hours of admission, excluding weekends and holidays,
unless the minor was recently examined at another facility; appropriate immunizations in
accordance with the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), Center for Disease Control;
administration of prescribed medication. and special diets; appropriate mental health
interventions when necessary.

3.

An individualized needs assessment which shall include: (a) various initial intake forms;
(b) essential data relating to the identification and history of the minor and family; (c)
identification of the minors' special needs including any specific problem(s) which
appear to require immediate intervention; (d) an educational assessment and plan; (e) an
assessment of family relationships and interaction with adults, peers and authority
figures; (f) a statement of religious preference and practice; (g) an assessment of the
minor's personal goals, strengths and weaknesses; and (h) identifying information
regarding immediate family members, other relatives, godparents or friends who may be

1

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page26
178
of 51
of 275

residing in the United States and may be able to assist in family reunification.
4.

Educational services appropriate to the minor's level of development, and
communication skills in a structured classroom setting, Monday through Friday, which
concentrates primarily on the development of basic academic competencies and
secondarily on English Language Training (ELT). The educational program shall
include instruction and educational and other reading materials in such languages as
needed. Basic academic areas should include Science, Social Studies, Math, Reading,
Writing and Physical Education. The program shall provide minors with appropriate
reading materials in languages other than English for use during the minor's leisure time.

5.

Activities according to a recreation and leisure time plan which shall include daily
outdoor activity, weather permitting, at least one hour per day of large muscle activity
and one hour per day of structured leisure time activities (this should not include time
spent watching television). Activities should be increased to a total of three hours on
days when school is not in session.

6.

At least one (l) individual counseling session per week conducted by trained social
work staff with the specific objectives of reviewing the minor's progress, establishing
new short term objectives, and addressing both the developmental and crisis-related
needs of each minor.

7.

Group counseling sessions at least twice a week. This is usually an informal process and
takes place with all the minors present. It is a time when new minors are given the
opportunity to get acquainted with the staff, other children, and the rules of the program.
It is an open forum where everyone gets a chance to speak. Daily program management

2

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page27
179
of 51
of 275

is discussed and decisions are made about recreational activities, etc. It is a time for
staff and minors to discuss whatever is on their minds and to resolve problems.
8.

Acculturation and adaptation services which include information regarding the
development of social and inter·personal skills which contribute to those abilities
necessary to live independently and responsibly.

9.

Upon admission, a comprehensive orientation regarding program intent, services, rules
(written and verbal), expectations and the availability oflegal assistance.

10.

Whenever possible, access to religious services of the minor's choice.

11.

Visitation and contact with family members (regardless of their immigration status)
which is structured to encourage such visitation. The staff shall respect the minor's
privacy while reasonably preventing the unauthorized release of the minor.

12.

A reasonable right to privacy, which shall include the right to: (a) wear his or her own
clothes, when available; (b) retain a private space in the residential facility, group or
foster home for the storage of personal belongings; (c) talk privately on the phone, as
permitted by the house rules and regulations; (d) visit privately with guests, as permitted
by the house rules and regulations; and (e) receive and send uncensored mail unless
there is a reasonable belief that the mail contains contraband.

13.

Family reunification services designed to identify relatives in the United States as well
as in foreign countries and assistance in obtaining legal guardianship when necessary for
the release of the minor.

14.

Legal services information regarding the availability of free legal assistance, the right to
be represented by counsel at no expense to the government, the right to a deportation or

3

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page28
180
of 51
of 275

exclusion hearing before an immigration judge, the right to apply for political asylum or
to request voluntary departure in lieu of deportation.
B. Service delivery is to be accomplished in a manner which is sensitive to the age, culture,
native language and the complex needs of each minor.
C. Program rules and discipline standards shall be formulated with consideration for the range

of ages and maturity in the program and shall be culturally sensitive to the needs of alien minors.
Minors shall not be subjected to corporal punishment, humiliation, mental abuse, or punitive
interference with the daily functions of living, such as eating or sleeping. Any sanctions employed shall
not: (1) adversely affect either a minor's health, or physical or psychological well-being; or (2) deny
minors regular meals, sufficient sleep, exercise, medical care, correspondence privileges, or legal
assistance.
D. A comprehensive and realistic individual plan for the care of each minor must be developed
in accordance with the minor's needs as determined by-the individualized need assessment. Individual
plans shall be implemented and closely coordinated through an operative case management system.
E. Programs shall develop, maintain and safeguard individual client case records. Agencies and
· organizations are required to develop a system of accountability which preserves the confidentiality of
client information and protects the records from unauthorized use or disclosure.
F. Programs shall maintain adequate records and make regular reports as required by the INS
that permit the INS to monitor and enforce this order and other requirements and standards as the INS
may determine are in the best interests of the minors.

4

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page29
181
of 51
of 275

Exhibit 2

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page30
182
of 51
of 275

EXHIBIT2

INSTRUCTIONS TO SERVICE OFFICERS RE:

PROCESSING, TREATMENT, AND PLACEMENT OF MINORS

These instructions are to advise Service officers of [NS policy regarding the way in which minors in
INS custody are processed, housed and released. These instructions are applicable nationwide and
supersede all prior inconsistent instructions regarding minors.
(a) Minors. A minor is a person under the age of eighteen years. However, individuals who have
been "emancipated" by a state court or convicted and incarcerated for a criminal offense as an adult are
not considered minors. Such individuals must be treated as adults for all purposes, including
confinement and release on bond.
Similarly, if a reasonable person would conclude that an individual is an adult despite his claims to be a
minor, the INS shall treat such person as an adult for all purposes, including confinement and release
on bond or recognizance. The INS may require such an individual to submit to a medical or dental
examination conducted by a medical professional or to submit to other appropriate procedures to verify
his or her age. If the INS subsequently determines that such an individual is a minor, he or she will be
treated as a minor for all purposes.

(b) General policy. The INS treats, and will continue to treat minors with dignity, respect and special
concern for their particular vulnerability. INS policy is to place each detained minor in the least
restrictive setting appropriate to the minor's age and special needs, provided that such setting is
consistent with the need to ensure the minor's timely appearance and to protect the minor's well-being
and that of others. INS officers are not required to release a minor to any person or agency whom they
have reason to believe may harm or neglect the minor or fail to present him or her before the INS or the
immigration courts when requested to do so.
(c) Processing. The INS will expeditiously process minors and will provide a Form I-770 notice of
rights, including the right to a bond redetermination hearing, if applicable.
Following arrest, the INS wil1 hold minors in a facility that is safe and sanitary and that is consistent
with the INS's concern for the particular vulnerability of minors. Such facilities will have access to
toilets and sinks, drinking water and food as appropriate, medical assistance if the minor is in need of
emergency services, adequate temperature control and ventilation, adequate supervision to protect
minors from others, and contact with family members who were arrested with the minor. The INS will
separate unaccompanied minors from unrelated adults whenever possible. Where such segregation is
not immediately possible, an unaccompanied minor will not be detained with an unrelated adult for
more than 24 hours.

If the juvenile cannot be immediately released, and no licensed program (described below) is available
to care for him, he should be placed in an INS or INS-contract facility that has separate
accommodations for minors, or in a State or county juvenile detention facility that separates minors in

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page31
183
of 51
of 275

INS custody from delinquent offenders. The INS will make every effort to ensure the safety and
well-being of juveniles placed in these facilities.

(d) Release. The INS will release minors from its custody without unnecessary delay, unless detention
of a juvenile is required to secure her timely appearance or to ensure the minor's safety or that of others.
Minors shall be released, in the following order of preference, to:
(i) a parent;
(ii) a legal guardian;
(iii) an adult relative (brother, sister, aunt, uncle, or grandparent);
(iv) an adult individual or entity designated by the parent or legal guardian as capable and
willing to care for the minor's well-being in (i) a declaration signed under penalty of perjury
before an immigration or consular officer, or (ii) such other documentation that establishes to
the satisfaction of the INS, in its discretion, that the individual designating the individual or
entity as the minor's custodian is in fact the minor's parent or guardian;
(v) a state-licensed juvenile shelter, group home, or foster home willing to accept legal custody;
or
(vi) an adult individual or entity seeking custody, in the discretion of the INS, when it appears
that there is no other likely alternative to long term detention and family reunification does not
appear to be a reasonable possibility.

(e) Certification of custodian. Before a minor is released, the custodian must execute an Affidavit of
Support (Form I~ 134) and an agreement to:
(i) provide for the minor's physical, mental, and financial wellMbeing;

(ii) ensure the minor's presence at all future proceedings before the INS and the immigration
court;
(iii) notify the INS of any change of address within five (5) days following a move;
(iv) if the custodian is not a parent or legal guardian, not transfer custody of the minor to
another party without the prior written permission of the District Director, except in the event of
an emergency;
(v) notify the INS at least five days prior to the custodian's departing the United States of such
departure, whether the departure is voluntary or pursuant to a grant of voluntary departure or
order of deportation; and

2

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page32
184
of 51
of 275

(vi) if dependency proceedings involving the minor are initiated, notify the INS of the initiation
of ft such proceedings and the dependency court of any deportation proceedings pending against
the minor.
In an emergency, a custodian may transfer temporary physical custody of a minor prior to securing
permission from the INS, but must notify the INS of the transfer as soon as is practicable, and in all
cases within 72 hours. Examples of an "emergency" include the serious illness of the custodian,
destruction of the home, etc. In all cases where the custodian seeks written permission for a transfer,
the District Director shall promptly respond to the request.
The INS may terminate the custody arrangements and assume legal custody of any minor whose
custodian fails to comply with the agreement. However, custody arrangements will not be terminated
for minor violations of the custodian's obligation to notify the INS of any change of address within five
days following a move.

(f) Suitability assessment. An INS officer may require a positive suitability assessment prior to
releasing a minor to any individual or program. A suitability assessment may include an investigation
of the living conditions in which the minor is to be placed and the standard of care he would receive,
verification of identity and employment of the individuals offering support, interviews of members of
the household, and a home visit. The assessment will also take into consideration the wishes and
concerns of the minor.

(g) Family reunification. Upon taking a minor into custody, the INS, or the licensed program in
which the minor is placed, will promptly attempt to reunite the minor with his or her family to pennit
the release of the minor under Paragraph (d) above. Such efforts at family reunification will continue as
long as the minor is in INS or licensed program custody and will be recorded by the INS or the licensed
program in which the minor is placed.
(h) Placement in licensed programs. A "licensed program" is any program, agency or organization
licensed by an appropriate state agency to provide residential, group, or foster care services for
dependent children, including a program operating group homes, foster homes, or facilities for special
needs minors. Exhibit 1 of the Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement describes the standards required
of licensed programs. Juveniles who remain in INS custody must be placed in a licensed program
within three days if the minor was apprehended in an INS district in which a licensed program is
located and has space available, or within five days in all other cases, except when:
(i) the minor is an escape risk or delinquent, as defined in Paragraph (i) below;

(ii) a court decree or court~approved settlement requires otherwise;
(iii) an emergency or influx of minors into the United States prevents compliance, in which case
all minors should be placed in licensed programs as expeditiously as possible; or
(iv) the minor must be transported from remote areas for processing or speaks an unusual
3

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page33
185
of 51
of 275

language such that a special interpreter is required to process the minor, in which case the minor
must be placed in a licensed program within five business days.

(i) Secure and supervised detention. A minor may be held in or transferred to a State or county
juvenile detention facility or in a secure INS facility or INS-contracted facility having separate
accommodations for minors, whenever the District Director or Chief Patrol Agent determines that the
mmor(i) has been charged with, is chargeable, or has been convicted of a crime, or is the subject of
delinquency proceedings, has been adjudicated delinquent, or is chargeable with a delinquent
act, unless the minor's offense is
(a) an isolated offense not within a pattern of criminal activity which did not involve
violence against a person or the use or carrying of a weapon (Examples: breaking and
entering, vandalism, DUI, etc.); or
(b) a petty offense, which is not considered grounds for stricter means of detention in
any case (Examples: shoplifting, joy riding, disturbing the peace, etc.);
(ii) has committed, or has made credible threats to commit, a violent or malicious act (whether
directed at himself or others) while in INS legal custody or while in the presence of an INS
officer;

(iii) has engaged, while in a licensed program, in conduct that has proven to be unacceptably
disruptive of the nonnal functioning of the licensed program in which he or she has been placed
and removal is necessary to ensure the welfare of the minor or others, as determined by the staff
of the licensed program (Examples: drug or alcohol abuse, stealing, fighting, intimidation of
others, etc.);
(iv) is an escape.risk; or
(v) must be held in a secure facility for his or her own safety, such as when the INS has reason
to believe that a smuggler would abduct or coerce a particular minor to secure payment of
smuggling fees.
"Chargeable" means that the INS has probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a
specified offense.
The term 11 escape-risk" means that there is a serious risk that the minor will attempt to escape from
custody. Factors to consider when determining whether a minor is an escape·risk or not include, but are
not limited to, whether:
.,,
(a) the minor is currently under a final order of deportation or exclusion;

4

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page34
186
of 51
of 275

(b) the minor's immigration history includes: a prior breach of a bond; a failure to appear before
the INS or the immigration court; evidence that the minor is indebted to organized smugglers
for his transport; or a voluntary departure or a previous removal from the United States pursuant
to a final order of deportation or exclusion;
(c) the minor has previously absconded or attempted to abscond from INS custody.
The INS will not place a minor in a State or county juvenile detention facility, secure INS detention
facility, or secure INS-contracted facility if less restrictive alternatives are available and appropriate in
the circumstances, such as transfer to a medium security facility that provides intensive staff
supervision and counseling services or transfer to another licensed program. All determinations to
place a minor in a secure facility will be reviewed and approved by the regional Juvenile Coordinator.
(j) Notice of right to bond redetermination and judicial review of placement. A minor in
deportation proceedings shall be afforded a bond redetermination hearing before an immigration judge
in every case, unless the minor indicates on the Notice of Custody Determination form that he or she
refuses such a hearing. A juvenile who is not released or placed in a licensed placement shall be
provided (1) a written explanation of the right of judicial review as set out in Exhibit 6 of the Flores v.
Reno Settlement Agreement, and (2) the list of free legal services providers compi)ed pursuant to INS
regulations (unless previously given to the minor.
(k) Transportation and transfer. Unaccompanied minors should not be transported in vehicles with
detained adults except when being transported from the place of arrest or apprehension to an INS office
or where separate transportation would be otherwise impractical, in which case minors shall be
separated from adults. INS officers shall take all necessary precautions for the protection of minors
during transportation with adults.

When a minor is to be released, the INS will assist him or her in making transportation arrangements to
the INS office nearest the location of the person or facility to whom a minor is to be released. The INS
may, in its discretion, provide transportation to such minors.
t

,;_

,-

Whenever a minor is transferred from one placement to another, she shall be transferred with all of her
possessions and legal papers; provided, however, that if the minor1s possessions exceed the amount
permitted normally by the carrier in use, the possessions must be shipped to the minor in a timely
manner. No minor who is represented by counsel should be transferred without advance notice to
counsel, except in unusual and compeUing circumstances such as where the safety of the minor or
others is threatened or the minor has been determined to be an escape-risk, or where counsel has waived
notice, in which cases notice must be provided to counsel within 24 hours following transfer.
(I) Periodic reporting. Statistical information on minors placed in proceedings who remain in INS
custody for longer than 72 hours must be reported to the Juvenile Coordinator by all INS district offices
and Border Patrol stations. Information will include: (a) biographical information, including the
minor's name, date of birth, and country of birth, (b) date placed in INS custody, (c) each date placed,
removed or released, (d) to whom and where placed, transferred, removed or released, (e) immigration

5

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page35
187
of 51
of 275

status, and (f) hearing dates. INS officers should also inform the Juvenile Coordinator of the reasons
for placing a minor in a medium-security facility or detention facility as described in paragraph (i).

(m) Attorney-client visits by Plaintiffs' counsel. The INS will permit the lawyers for the Flores v.
Reno plaintiff class to visit minors, even though they may not have the names of minors who are housed
at a particular location. A list of Plaintiffs' counsel entitled to make attorney-client visits with minors is
available from the district Juvenile Coordinator. Attorney-client visits may also be conducted by any
staff attorney employed by the Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law of Los Angeles,
California, or the National Center for Youth Law of San Francisco, California, provided that such
attorney presents credentials establishing his or her employment prior to any visit.
Visits must occur in accordance with generally applicable policies and procedures relating to
attorney-client visits at the facility in question. Upon Plaintiffs' counsel's arrival at a facility for
attorney-client visits, the facility staff must provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a list of names and alien
registration numbers for the minors housed at that facility. In all instances, in order to memorialize any
visit to a minor by Plaintiffs' counsel, Plaintiffs' counsel must file a notice of appearance with the INS
prior to any attorney-client meeting. Plaintiffs' counsel may limit the notice of appearance to
representation of the minor in connection with his placement or treatment during INS custody.
Plaintiffs' counsel must submit a copy of the notice of appearance by hand or by mail to the local INS
juvenile coordinator and a copy by hand to the staff of the facility.
A minor may refuse to meet with Plaintiffs' counsel. Further, the minor's parent or legal guardian may
deny Plaintiffs' counsel permission to meet with the minor.

(n) Visits to licensed facilities. In addition to the attorney-client visits, Plaintiffs' counsel may request
access to a licensed program's facility (described in paragraph (h)) or to a medium-security facility or
detention facility (described in paragraph (i)) in which a minor has been placed. The district juvenile
coordinator wil1 convey the request to the facility's staff and coordinate the visit. The rules and
procedures to be followed in connection with such visits are set out in Exhibit 4 of the Flores v. Reno
Settlement Agreement, unless Plaintiffs' counsel and the facility's staff agree otherwise. In all visits to
any facility, Plaintiffs' counsel and their associated experts must treat minors and staff with courtesy
and dignity and must not disrupt the normal functioning of the facility.

6

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page36
188
of 51
of 275

Exhibit 3

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page37
189
of 51
of 275

EXHIBIT 3
CONTINGENCY PLAN

In the event of an emergency or influx that prevents the prompt placement of minors in licensed
programs with which the Community Relations Service has contracted, INS policy is to make all
reasonable efforts to place minors in programs licensed by an appropriate state agency as expeditiously
as possible. An "emergency" is an act or event, such as a natural disaster (e.g. earthquake, fire,
hurricane), facility fire, civil disturbance, or medical emergency (e.g. a chicken pox epidemic among a
group of minors) that prevents the prompt placement of minors in licensed facilities. An "influx" is
defined as any situation in which there are more than 130 minors in the custody of the INS who are
eligible for placement in licensed programs.
1. The Juvenile Coordinator will establish and maintain an Emergency Placement List of at
least 80 beds at programs licensed by an appropriate state agency that are potentially available to accept
emergency placements. These 80 placements would supplement the 130 placements that the INS
normally has available, and whenever possible, would meet all standards applicable to juvenile
placements the INS normally uses. The Juvenile Coordinator may consult with child welfare
specialists, group home operators, and others in developing the List. The Emergency Placement List

will include the facility name; the number of beds potentially available at the facility; the name and
telephone number of contact persons; the name and telephone number of contact persons for nights,
holidays, and weekends if different; any restrictions on minors accepted (e.g. age); and any special
services that are available.
2. The Juvenile Coordinator will maintain a list of minors affected by the emergency or influx,
including (1) the minor's name, (2) date and country of birth, (3) date placed in INS custody, and (4)

1

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page38
190
of 51
of 275

place and date of current placement.
3. Within one business day of the emergency or influx the Juvenile Coordinator or his or her
designee will contact the programs on the Emergency Placement List to determine available
placements. As soon as available placements are identified, the Juvenile Coordinator will advise
appropriate INS staff of their availability. To the extent practicable, the INS will attempt to locate
emergency placements in geographic areas where culturally and linguistically appropriate community
services are available.
4. In the event that the number of minors needing emergency placement exceeds the available
appropriate placements on the Emergency Placement List, the Juvenile Coordinator will work with the
Community Relations Service to locate additional placements through licensed programs, county social
services departments, and foster family agencies.
5. Each year the INS will reevaluate the number of regular placements needed for detained
minors to determine whether the number of regular placements should be adjusted to accommodate an
increased or decreased number of minors eligible for placement in licensed programs. However, any
decision to increase the number of placements available shall be subject to the availability of INS
resources. The Juvenile Coordinator shall promptly provide Plaintiffs' counsel with any reevaluation
made by INS pursuant to this paragraph.
6. The Juvenile Coordinator shall provide to Plaintiffs' counsel copies of the Emergency
Placement List within six months after the court's final approval of the Settlement Agreement.

2

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page39
191
of 51
of 275

Exhibit 4

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page40
192
of 51
of 275

EXHIBIT 4
AGREEMENT CONCERNING F AC!LITY VISITS UNDER PARAGRAPH

33

The purpose of facility visits under paragraph 33 is to interview class members and staff and to
observe conditions at the facility. Visits under paragraph 33 shall be conducted in accordance with the
generally applicable policies and procedures of the facility to the extent that those policies and
procedures are consistent with this Exhibit.
Visits authorized under paragraph 33 shall be scheduled no less than seven (7) business days in
advance. The names, positions, credentials, and professional association (e.g., Center for Human
Rights and Constitutional Law) of the visitors will be provided at that time.
All visits with class members shall take place during normal business hours.
No video recording equipment or cameras of any type shall be permitted. Audio recording
equipment shall be limited to hand-held tape recorders.
The number of visitors will not exceed six (6) or, in the case of a family foster home, four (4),
including interpreters, in any instance. Up to two (2) of the visitors may be non-attorney experts in
juvenile justice and/or child welfare.
No visit will extend beyond three (3) hours per day in length. Visits shall minimize disruption
to the routine that minors and staff follow.

l

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page41
193
of 51
of 275

..

Exhibit 5

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page42
194
of 51
of 275

EXHIBIT 5
LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS TO RECEIVE INFORMATION RE: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Eric Cohen, Immig. Legal Resource Center, 1663 Mission St. Suite 602, San Francisco, CA 94103
Cecilia Munoz, Nat'! Council Of La Raza, 810 1st St. NE Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20002
Susan Alva, lmmig. & Citiz. Proj Director, Coalition For Humane Immig Rights of LA, 1521 Wilshire
Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90017
Angela Cornell, Albuquerque Border Cities Proj., Box 35895, Albuquerque, NM 87176-5895
Beth Persky, Executive Director, Centro De Asuntos Migratorios, 1446 Front Street, Suite 305, San
Diego, CA 92101
Dan, Kesselbrenner,, National Lawyers Guild, National Immigration Project, 14 Beacon St.,#503,
Boston, MA 02108
Lynn Marcus, SWRRP, 64 E. Broadway, Tucson, AZ 85701-1720
Maria Jimenez,, American Friends Service Cmte., !LEMP, 3522 Polk Street, Houston, TX 77003-4844
Wendy Young,, U.S. Cath. Conf., 3211 4th St. NE,, Washington, DC, 20017-1194
Miriam Hayward , International Institute Of The East Bay, 297 Lee Street , Oakland, CA 946 I 0
Emily Goldfarb,, Coalition For Immigrant & Refugee Rights, 995 Market Street, Suite l 108, San
Francisco, CA 94103
Jose De La Paz, Director, California Immigrant Workers Association, 515 S. Shatto Place , Los
Angeles, CA, 90020
Annie Wilson, LIRS, 390 Park Avenue South, First Asylum Concerns, New York, NY 10016
Stewart K woh, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, l 0 10 S. Flower St., Suite 302, Los Angeles, CA
90015
Warren Leiden, Executive Director, AILA, 1400 Eye St., N.W., Ste. 1200, Washington, DC, 20005
Frank Sharry, Nat'! Immig Ref & Citiz Forum, 220 I Street N.E., Ste. 220, Washington, D.C. 20002
Reynaldo Guerrero, Executive Director, Center For Immigrant's Rights, 48 St. Marks Place, New
York, NY 10003

1

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page43
195
of 51
of 275

Charles Wheeler, National Immigration Law Center, 1102 S. Crenshaw Blvd., Suite 101 , Los
Angeles, CA 90019
Deborah A. Sanders, Asylum & Ref. Rts Law Project, Washington Lawyers Comm., 1300 19th Street,
N. W., Suite 500 , Washington, D.C. 20036
Stanley Mark, Asian American Legal Def.& Ed.Fund, 99 Hudson St, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10013
Sid Mohn, Executive Director, Travelers & Immigrants Aid, 327 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1500,
Chicago, IL, 60604
Bruce Goldstein, Attornet At Law, Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc., 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 210,
Washington, DC 20009
Ninfa Krueger, Director, BARCA, 1701 N. 8th Street, Suite B-28, McAllen, TX 78501
John Goldstein, , Proyecto San Pablo, PO Box 4596,, Yuma, AZ 85364
Valerie Hink, Attorney At Law, Tucson Ecumenical Legal Assistance, P.O. Box 3007, Tucson, AZ
85702
Pamela Mohr, Executive Director, Alliance For Children's Rights, 3708 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 720, Los
Angeles, CA 90010
Pamela Day, Child Welfare League Of America, 440 1st St. N.W.,, Washington, DC 20001
Susan Lydon, Esq., Immigrant Legal Resource Center, 1663 Mission St. Ste 602, San Francisco, CA
94103
Patrick Maher, Juvenile Project, Centro De Asuntos Migratorios, 1446 Front Street,# 305, San Diego,
CA 92101
Lorena Munoz, Staff Attorney, Legal Aid Foundation of LA-IRO, 1102 Crenshaw Blvd., Los Angeles,
CA 90019
Christina Zawisza, Staff Attorney, Legal Services of Greater Miami, 225 N.E. 34th Street, Suite 300,
Miami, FL 33137
Miriam Wright Edelman, Executive Director, Children's Defense Fund, 122 C Street N. W. 4th Floor,
Washington, DC 20001
Rogelio Nunez, Executive Director, Proyecto Libertad, 113 N. First St., Harlingen, TX 78550

2

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page44
196
of 51
of 275

Exhibit 6

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page45
197
of 51
of 275

EXHIBIT6

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

"The INS usually houses persons under the age of 18 in an open setting, such as a foster or
group home, and not in detention facilities. If you believe that you have not been properly
placed or that you have been treated improperly, you may ask a federal judge to review your
case. You may call a lawyer to help you do this. If you cannot afford a lawyer, you may call
one from the list of free legal services given to you with this form."

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page46
198
of 51
of 275

1

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

2

I, Sonia Fuentes, declare and say as follows:

3

1. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to this action. I am

4

employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 256

5

South Occidental Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90057, in said county and state.

6

2. On January - - - 1 1997, I served the attached STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

7

on defendants in this proceeding by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope

8

addressed to their attorneys of record as follows:

9

Mr. Michael Johnson
Assistant U.S. Attorney
300 N. Los Angeles St. #7516
Los Angeles, CA 90012

10
11

12

and by then sealing said envelope and depositing the same, with postage thereon fully

13

prepaid, in the mail at Los Angeles, California; that there is regular delivery of mail between

14

the place of mailing and the place so addressed.

15

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

16

Executed this _th day of January, 1997, at Los Angeles, California.

17

18
19

20

I I I

21
22

23
24
25

26
27
28

-3-

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page47
199
of 51
of 275

CENTER FOR HUivlAN RIGHTS & CONSTITUflON '\L LAW

2

3
4
5
6

7

Carlos Holguin
Peter A Schey
Charles Song
256 South Occidental Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90057
Telephone: (213) 388-8693; Fax: (213) 386-9484

Ii

i '

lO
_,

,c..l

LATHAM & WATKINS

Steven Schulman
555 Eleventh St, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-2184

8

Of counsel
9
'YOUTH L -\\\ CENTER

10
11
12

13

\lice Bussiere
417 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 91104
Telephone: (415) SB-3379 x 3903
0

4110111n1s for pl111nt1ffs

l4

15

UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT

16

CE!-<TR-\L DISTRICT OF C -\LIFOKNI \

17

!ENNY LISETTE FLORES,

18

l'laintiffs,

19

SLIILL\ff,.I \CRIT\iE\I \,DJ(1i'.
OTHER PURPOSES; AND ORDER
!! 1 :"l\!-~C)'\.
'\<..

I, \llO!Ill'\ (__,L'IH.:'!'tll

of the l 11itccl Stales, cl ,11

) )
- -----------

-) ')

-··JC

Case No C\' S'i-,:JSH-RJK(rx)
Si ll'l L \JIU\ E\TE\DI\C

-vs] \'\l i ];i

21

et al,

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page48
200
of 51
of 275

2

[TIS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties as follows:

3

l. Paragraph 40 of the Stipulation filed herein on January 17, 1997, is modified to read

4

as follows:

5

"All terms of this !\greement shall terminate tl~e earlier of five years after tl~e date of

6

final court approval of tl:is Agreement or three years after the court determines that

7

the !NS is in substantial compliance with this Agreemect, 45 dm;s following dcfmdrmfs'

8

p11bl1ca/1011 of/mnl 1eg11l!lt1011s 111Zplc111rntlllg tlm Ag1eenienl

9

eHept that Notunt/ista11dwg the f01 ego111g, the INS shall continue to house the general

JO

population of minors in lf'\S custod 1 in facilities that are state-licensed for the care of

11

dependent minors "

I I I

12

n
I+

15

16
17

[8

l9
)li

21
)

.

''

i'
I

.2 ;
2-i
F:;

2l,
! -:

b

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page49
201
of 51
of 275

2 !'or a period of six months from the date this Stipulation is tiled, plaintiffs shall not
2

initiate legal proceedings to compel publication of final regulations implementing this

3

Agreement Plaintiffs agree to work with defendants cooperatively to,,vard resolving

4

disputes regarding compliance with the Settlement The parties agree to confer regularly no

5

less frequently than once monthly for the purpose of discussing the implementation of and

6

compliance with the settlement agreement However, nothing herein shall require plaintiffs

7

to forebear legal action to compel compliance with this Agreement where plaintiff class

8

members are suffering irreparable injury

9

Dated: December 7, 200L

JO

CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSTJTUTIOi\ \L L Wv

&

Carlos Holguin
Peter -'\ Schey

11

L >\THA\ l & \V \ T KINS
Steven Schulman

12

,/-'
1',

ir:/"
_7?;

YOUTH L.O.W CE'}{ER

l+
15

16

Car os

17
Dated: Dcccrnbe, :- 2lllll
IS

\1lhu1St1alhe111
Office ol the r;ene1<1l Counsel
[~ S ]Jll!lll½lilli,1]1 0:.: \.i.1lll!tl]i/clliOII

-----,

19

2~-i

-'- /

.21

)

i\•i·

_.lifd._,

icr

L1\ ,Yt1lhn1 i/,lli\111

.
)

ll l~'.)\li__)l~.lli 1;1 \)

2+
)

I

\rlbur c;tr<fthcfn, fen ,l,•f;,11,/n11f,,

) )

-

',(/A_

I >c11, d: I lcn·mlic,

-,

}_1·
)

-

.h,

2001
L\Illi'Si \lhllhtl,lt

: '
! i

t

llllCI

~l t\

ll-l

 DEC-07-2001

17:42

INS GENERAL COUNSEL

202
0455
Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page50
202
of 514
51
of 275

1

P 02

';'

2 For a period of six months ft om the date this Stipulation is filed, plaintiffs shall not

2

initiate legal proceedings to compel publication of final regulations implementing this

3

Agreement Plaintiffs agree to work with defendants cooperatively toward resolving

4

disputes regarding compliance with the Settlement The parties agree to confer regularly no

5

less frequently than once monthly for the purpose of discussing the implementation of and

6

compliance with the settlement agreement. However, nothing herein shall require plaintiffs

7

to forebear legal action to compel compliance with this Agreement where plaintiff class

8

membe1s are suffering irreparable injury

9

Dated: December 7, 200L

CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS &
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

10
11

Carlos Holguin
Peter A. Schey

12

LATHAM & WATKINS

Steven Schulman

13

YOUTH LAW CENTER

14

Alice Bussiere

15

16

------·--···-·---·---·-------

17

Carlos Holguin, for plaintiffs

18
19

Dated: December 7, 2001

Arthur Sti:athern
Office of the c:;eneral Counsel
US Immigration & }1laturalization Service

a /" . --~

Ii
I;

'20
21

2.'2
Arthur Strathern, fo1 defin,dants
Per fax authoti:-:::itiori

24
25

11 IS SO ORDERED

26

Dated: December 7, 2001
lTNITFfl .',r; !ES DISTRICT )liflGE

?.7

28
-

_)

-

 Case
Case
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-1
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page51
203
of 51
of 275

PROOF OF SERVICI; BY i\1AIL

2

I, Carlos Holguin, declme and say as follows:

3

1 1 am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to this action I am

4

employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California My business address is 256

5

South Occidental Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90057, in said county and state
2 On December 7, 2001, I served the attached STIPULATION on defendants in this

6

7

proceeding by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed to their attorneys

8

of record as follows:

9

Arthur Strathern
Office of the General Counsel
US Immigration & Naturalization Service
425 I St N \\!
Washington, DC 20536

10
11

12

13
14

15

and by then sealing said envelope and depositing the same, with postage thereon fully
prepaid, in the mail at Los ,\ngeles, California; that there is regular delivery of mail betheen
the place of mailing and the place so addressed
I declare under penalt 1 of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct

16

Executed thisf-fi<dav o! December, 200 I, al Los ,\nge)<>s, C:ilifornia

17
1::-;

19

'

21
))

) '

-

'

2-l

,-

4

I

/

I

I

-

I,

1

I_/

I//

---

 Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration Enforcemen... Page 1 of 3
CaseCase
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-2
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page155
of of
3 275

JUSTICE NEWS
Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration Enforcement Actions
of the Trump Administration
San Diego, CA ~ Monday, May 7, 2018

Thank you all for being here.
Thank you to Tom Homan. Tom, you have done outstanding work leading ICE. Thank you for your
more than 30 years of service in law enforcement. We are going to miss you.
Today we are here to send a message to the world: we are not going to let this country be
overwhelmed.
People are not going to caravan or otherwise stampede our border.
We need legality and integrity in the system.
That’s why the Department of Homeland Security is now referring 100 percent of illegal Southwest
Border crossings to the Department of Justice for prosecution. And the Department of Justice will take
up those cases.
I have put in place a “zero tolerance” policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border. If you cross this
border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple.
If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, then we will prosecute you.
If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as
required by law.
If you make false statements to an immigration officer or file a fraudulent asylum claim, that’s a felony.
If you help others to do so, that’s a felony, too. You’re going to jail.
So if you’re going to come to this country, come here legally. Don’t come here illegally.
In order to carry out these important new enforcement policies, I have sent 35 prosecutors to the
Southwest and moved 18 immigration judges to the border. These are supervisory judges that don’t
have existing caseloads and will be able to function full time on moving these cases. That will be about
a 50 percent increase in the number of immigration judges who will be handling the asylum claims.
These actions are necessary. And they are made even more necessary by the massive increases in
illegal crossings in recent months. This February saw 55 percent more border apprehensions than last
February. This March saw triple the number from last March. April saw triple the number last April.
The trends are clear: this must end.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-remarks-discussi...

6/1/2018

 Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration Enforcemen... Page 2 of 3
CaseCase
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-2
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page256
of of
3 275
Eleven million people are already here illegally. That’s more than the population of Portugal or the state
of Georgia.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that those 11 million have 4.5 million children who are
American citizens. Combined, that group would be our fifth-most populous state.
This situation has been many years in the making.
For decades, the American people have been pleading with our elected representatives for a lawful
system of immigration that serves the national interest—a system we can be proud of.
That is not too much to ask. The American people are right and just and decent to ask for this. They
are right to want a safe, secure border and a government that knows who is here and who isn’t.
Donald Trump ran for office on that idea. I believe that is a big reason why he won. He is on fire about
this. This entire government knows it.
The American people have a right to expect that the laws that their representatives voted for are going
to be carried out. Failure to enforce our duly-enacted laws would be an affront to the American people
and a threat to our very system of self-government.
And these laws are the most generous immigration laws in the world. We accept 1.1 million lawful
permanent residents every year—that’s more than the population of Montana, every single year. These
are the highest numbers in the world.
I have no doubt that many of those crossing our border illegally are leaving difficult situations. But we
cannot take everyone on Earth who is in a difficult situation.
According to a Gallup poll from a few years ago, 150 million people around the world want to immigrate
to the United States. Gallup says that 37 percent of Liberians want to immigrate to the United States.
One fifth of Cambodians want to move here. One-in-six Salvadorans are already in the United
States—and another 19 percent tell Gallup they want to come here.
It’s obvious that we cannot take everyone who wants to come here without also hurting the interests of
the citizens we are sworn to serve and protect.
We have to have limits. And Congress has already set them.
And if you want to change our laws, then pass a bill in Congress. Persuade your fellow citizens to your
point of view.
Immigrants should ask to apply lawfully before they enter our country. Citizens of other countries don’t
get to violate our laws or rewrite them for us. People around the world have no right to demand entry in
violation of our sovereignty.
This is a great nation—the greatest in the history of the world. It is no surprise that people want to
come here. But they must do so properly. They must follow our laws—or not come here at all. Make
no mistake, the objections, the lawsuits, the sanctuary jurisdictions are often the product of a radical
open border philosophy. They oppose all enforcement.
And so this Department, under President Trump’s leadership, is enforcing the law without exception.
We will finally secure this border so that we can give the American people safety and peace of mind.
That’s what the people deserve.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-remarks-discussi...

6/1/2018

 Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration Enforcemen... Page 3 of 3
CaseCase
2:18-cv-00939-MJP
4:18-cv-40149 Document
Document1-2
1-1 Filed
Filed09/05/18
06/26/18 Page
Page357
of of
3 275

Thank you.

Speaker:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions
Topic(s):
Immigration
Component(s):
Office of the Attorney General
Updated May 7, 2018

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-remarks-discussi...

6/1/2018

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1-3 Filed 09/05/18 Page 1 of 7

via electronic mail
January 23, 2018
The Honorable Kirstjen M. Nielsen
Secretary
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
3801 Nebraska Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20016
Urgent Appeal from Experts in Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice and Child Development to
Halt Any Plans to Separate Children from Parents at the Border
Dear Secretary Nielsen:
We, the more than 50 national organizations and more than 150 additional organizations from 33
states and the District of Columbia, have well-recognized expertise in the fields of child welfare,
juvenile justice and child health, development and safety. We first sent this letter to you on
January 16, 2018, but are resubmitting it today to include additional organizations that wished to
be listed in this appeal. We are also submitting it as part of the record of the oversight hearing
before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 16, 2018 at which you testified.
We understand that your agency is considering plans to separate children from their parents
when they arrive at or are found near the U.S. border. We fear these actions will have significant
and long-lasting consequences for the safety, health, development, and well-being of children,
and urgently request that the Administration reverse course on any policies that would separate
families.
Countless reports have documented that these families are fleeing persecution and violence in
their countries, and come here seeking protection. While many come from Central American
countries, the parents and children arrive at our border from all over the world, including
countries in Africa, the Caribbean, South America, Asia, the Middle East and Europe. According
to recent reports, the proposed plan would require that parents be placed in adult immigration
detention centers and/or summarily deported, while their children would be transferred to the
custody of the Department of Health and Human Services in facilities across the country—as far
away as Illinois, Washington, New York, Florida, and Michigan. HHS would bear the
responsibility of caring for the traumatized children and finding suitable, alternative caregivers.
These children could remain in government care for months or more than a year, during which
time the continued separation from their parents would compound their trauma and the time it
would take them to recover and return to a trajectory of good health and normal development.
Nor would it make any sense to require those children to participate in a formal legal proceeding
about their immigration case while separated from the parent who brought them here, who may
have critical information—or the only information—about the child’s claim for protection.

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1-3 Filed 09/05/18 Page 2 of 7

There is overwhelming evidence that children need to be cared for by their parents to be safe and
healthy, to grow and develop. 1 Likewise, there is ample evidence that separating children from
their mothers or fathers leads to serious, negative consequences to children’s health and
development. 2 Forced separation disrupts the parent-child relationship and puts children at
increased risk for both physical and mental illness. Adverse childhood experiences—including
the incarceration of a family member—are well-recognized precursors of negative health
outcomes later in life. 3 And the psychological distress, anxiety, and depression associated with
separation from a parent would follow the children well after the immediate period of
separation—even after eventual reunification with a parent or other family. We are deeply
concerned that the proposed plan would formalize such harm by taking children from their
parents as a matter of policy.
Family unity is a foundational principle of child welfare law. In order to grow and develop,
children need to remain in the care of their parents where they are loved, nurtured and feel safe.
Thus parents’ rights to the care and custody of their children are afforded particularly strong
protection under the U.S. Constitution. 4 While parent-child relationships are generally the
province of state law, federal law also recognizes the principle of family unity by providing
strong incentives for states to keep children with their parents and to provide services to families
to prevent separation and maintain family unity. 5 The proposed changes to your agency’s
policies would eviscerate that principle.

1

See, e.g., American Psychological Assn, Parents and Caregivers are Essential to Children’s Healthy
Development, available at http://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/parents-caregivers.aspx.
2
See, e.g., Sankaran, Vivek, Church, Christopher, “Easy Come, Easy Go: The Plight of Children Who
Spend Less than 30 Days in Foster Care,” 19 U. Pa. J. L. Soc. Change 207 (2017) (identifying harms to
children arising from even short-term separation from a parent’s custody as a result of state action); and
Zayas LH, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Yoon H, Rey GN, “The Distress of Citizen-Children with Detained and
Deported Parents,” J. Child & Fam. Studies, 2015; 24(11):3213-3223 (the arrest and separation of parents
“serve[s] only to complete the trauma, and the certain detrimental impact on the children’s mental
health.”).
3
See, e.g., Dube SR, Cook ML, Edwards VJ, Health-related Outcomes of Adverse Childhood
Experiences in Texas, 2002, Prev Chronic Dis., 2010; 7(3):A52, available at
http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2010/may/09_0158.htm.
4
See, e.g., Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982) (a parent’s right to the care and custody of her
child is a fundamental liberty interest).
5
See U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau, Child Welfare Information Gateway,
Reasonable Efforts to Preserve or Reunify Families and Achieve Permanency for Children, (March
2016), available at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/reunify.pdf (“Federal law has long required
State agencies to demonstrate that reasonable efforts have been made to provide assistance and services to
prevent the removal of a child from his or her home.”).
Page 2 of 7

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1-3 Filed 09/05/18 Page 3 of 7

For all of these reasons, we urge you to abandon any plans to systematically separate children
from their families absent evidence that a specific parent posed a threat to the safety and wellbeing of his or her child, as required by the laws of all 50 states.
Sincerely,
MaryLee Allen
Director of Policy
Children’s Defense Fund
on behalf of:
National Organizations
Alliance for Strong Families and Communities
American Academy of Pediatrics
Campaign for Youth Justice
Casa de Esperanza: National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and Communities
Center for Children’s Law and Policy
Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
Center for the Study of Social Policy
Child Welfare League of America
Children’s Advocacy Institute
Children’s Defense Fund
Coalition for Juvenile Justice
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund
Dorothy Day Catholic Worker
Every Mother is a Working Mother Network
Family Focused Treatment Association
Field Center for Children’s Policy, Practice & Research
First Focus
First Star Institute
Foster Care Alumni of America
Futures Without Violence
Generations United
Healthy Teen Network
Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative
Justice Policy Institute
Juvenile Law Center
National Alliance of Children's Trust Funds
National Association for Children’s Behavioral Health
National Association of Counsel for Children
National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners
National Association of Social Workers
National Center for Housing and Child Welfare
National Center for Parent Leadership, Advocacy, and Community Empowerment
National Center for Youth Law
National Center on Adoption and Permanency
Page 3 of 7

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1-3 Filed 09/05/18 Page 4 of 7

National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Crittenton Foundation
National Domestic Violence Hotline
National Indian Child Welfare Association
National Juvenile Defender Center
National Juvenile Justice Network
North American Council on Adoptable Children
Partnership for America’s Children
RISE
Robert F Kennedy Children’s Action Corps
School Social Work Association of America
The Children’s Village
The Sentencing Project
UNICEF USA
Voices for Adoption
W. Haywood Burns Institute
Year Up
Youth Advocate Programs (YAP)
Youth Law Center
State and Local Organizations
A New Leaf (AZ)
ACTIONN (NV)
Advocates for Children and Youth (MD)
AIDS Foundation of Chicago (IL)
Alaska Children's Trust
All Faiths Children’s Advocacy Center (NM)
Allendale Association (IL)
Alliance for Childhood Education (KS, MO)
Arden Shore Child and Family Services (IL)
Bronx Defenders (NY)
Brooklyn Defender Services (NY)
California Department of Social Services
Catholic Charities Community Maternity Services (NY)
Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare at the University of Minnesota
Center for Children’s Advocacy, Inc. (CT)
Center for Family Representation (NY)
Center on Halsted (IL)
Chicago Children's Advocacy Center (IL)
Chicago Survivors
Child and Family Policy Center (IA)
Child and Family Resources (AZ)
Child and Family Services (NY)
Child Welfare Organizing Project (NY)
Children’s Action Alliance (AZ)
Children’s Advocacy Alliance (NV)
Page 4 of 7

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1-3 Filed 09/05/18 Page 5 of 7

Children’s Defense Fund - Texas
Children’s Law Center of Minnesota
Children’s Place Association (IL)
Children's Law Center (DC)
Children's Service Society (UT)
CHRIS 180 (GA)
Citizens' Committee for Children of New York, Inc. (NY)
Citizens for Juvenile Justice (MA)
Coalition for Asian American Children and Families (NY)
Committee for Public Counsel Services (MA)
Community Behavioral Healthcare Association of Illinois (IL)
Community Chest, Inc (NV)
Connecticut Alliance of Foster and Adoptive Families, Inc
Connecticut Association for Human Services
Connecticut Voices for Children
Council of Family and Child Caring Agencies (NY)
County Welfare Directors Association of California (CA)
Duane Dean Behavioral Health Services (IL)
EPIC ‘Ohana
Esperanza Health Centers (IL)
EverThrive Illinois
Families and Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children
Families First (GA)
Family to Family Connection, ISD 13 (NV)
Family Violence Appellate Project (CA)
Forefront (IL)
Forestdale, Inc. (NY)
Foster Adopt Connect (MO, KS)
Foster Care Alumni of America-Illinois Chapter
Foster Change (NV)
Foster Kinship (NV)
Harriet Buhai Center for Family Law (CA)
Heartland for Children (FL)
Heartland Human Care Services (IL, MI)
Hillsides (CA)
Hispanic Caucus (NV)
Identity, Inc. (MD)
Illinois Childhood Trauma Coalition/
Illinois Collaboration on Youth
Illinois Partners for Human Service
Illinois PTA
Illinois Public Health Association
Illinois Public Health Institute
Instituto del Progreso Latino (IL)
Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity (CA)
JCCA (NY)
Page 5 of 7

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1-3 Filed 09/05/18 Page 6 of 7

Juvenile Justice Initiative of Illinois
Juvenile Protective Association (IL)
Juvenile Restorative Justice, Inc. (KY)
Kaleidoscope (IL)
Kansas Action for Children
Kansas Appleseed
Kansas Association for the Education of Young Children
Kansas Head Start Association
Kids Forward (WI)
Kids in Common, a program of Planned Parenthood Mar Monte (CA)
Kingsley House (LA)
Legal Council for Health Justice (IL)
Legal Services for Children (CA)
Lower Roxbury Coalition (MA)
Loyola University Chicago Civitas Childlaw Center (IL)
Lutheran Social Services of the Southwest
Lutheran Social Services of Wisconsin
Maine Children’s Alliance
Make it Work Nevada
Martin de Porres Group Homes (NY)
Mary’s Center (DC)
Maryville Academy (IL)
Massachusetts Adoption Resource Exchange (MA)
MercyFirst (NY)
Methodist Children's Home Society (MI)
Metropolitan Family Services (IL)
Michigan’s Children
Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services (MD)
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Connecticut Chapter
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Illinois Chapter
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Kentucky Chapter
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Massachusetts Chapter
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Michigan Chapter
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Minnesota Chapter
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) New Jersey Chapter
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) New Mexico Chapter
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Tennessee Chapter
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Texas Chapter
NC Child
New Jersey Parents Caucus, Inc
New Mexico Voices for Children
New York City Administration for Children's Services
Northern River Family of Services (NY)
One Hope United (IL, FL, MO, WI)
OneJustice (CA)
Ounce of Prevention Fund (IL)
Page 6 of 7

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1-3 Filed 09/05/18 Page 7 of 7

Prevent Child Abuse Arizona (AZ)
Pride Inc., Pride Manchester, Inc., Pride Wilton, Inc. (ND)
PromiseShip (NE)
Rhode Island Coalition for Children and Families
Rhode Island KIDS COUNT
Rincon Family Services (IL)
San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program (CA)
Schuyler Center for Analysis & Advocacy (NY)
Southwest Key Programs (AZ, CA, FL, NY, TX, WI)
SPAN Parent Advocacy Network (NJ)
Starfish Family Homes (IL)
Sunny Hills Services (CA)
Texans Care for Children
The Adoption Exchange (CO, NV, UT)
The Children 's Home Society of New Jersey
The Children’s Partnership (CA)
The Foster and Adoption Coalition of Nevada
The Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Southern Nevada
The Hills Preschool (NV)
The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley (CA)
The Villages of Indiana, Inc.
Three Rivers Adoption Council (PA)
Thresholds (IL)
Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities (IL)
United Community Services of Johnson County (KS)
Voice for Children in Nebraska
Voices for Children of San Antonio (TX)
Voices for Georgia's Children
Voices for Illinois Children
VOICES Youth Centers (CA)
Wayfinder Family Services (CA)
Whittier Street Health Center (MA)
Wisconsin Association of Family & Children's Agencies (WI)
Youth Employment Coalition (IL)
Youth Justice Coalition (CA)
Youth Service, Inc. (PA)
Youth, Rights and Justice (OR)

Page 7 of 7

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1-4 Filed 09/05/18 Page 1 of 5

ltlnittd ?rms gamut

WASHINGTON, DC 20510

February 12, 2018

The Honorable Kirstj en Nielsen
Secretary of Homeland Security

Department of Homeland Security
3801 Nebraska Avenue NW.
Washington, DC. 20528

Dear Secretary Nielsen:

We write to express our deep concern that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under
the Trump Administration is considering a proposal to systematically separate immigrant
children from their parents upon arrival in the United States. We condemn such a proposal in the
strongest possible terms and urge you to unequivocally reject this cruel measure.

We believe that a systematic and blanket policy to separate a child from a parent would likely
violate the constitutional rights of the parents, violate the spirit of the Flores Agreement, in?ict
signi?cant trauma on small children, create additional unnecessary due process obstacles to
accessing a meaningful day in court, is contrary to arguments the Department of Justice has
made before federal courts in the past, and is grotesquely inhumane.

Further, we are deeply concerned that DHS may already be carrying out such a policy. In one
recent case, a one-year-old child was separated from his father.' The child was placed in a
children?s shelter in Texas while the father was detained in an adult facility in San Diego.2
Numerous other cases in which parents have been separated from their children have been
documented.3 It is unconscionable that the Department would consider tearing these children
away from their parents, deliberately agonizing children and parents alike.

Terrorizing children and their parents in an effort to prevent future migration also ignores the
horrifying circumstances they have experienced. For many of these children and their parents,
?eeing their home country is literally a life-or-death situation. Threatening to separate them and
impairing their ability to seek protection country.

During a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, you failed to repudiate this proposal.4 We
ask you to refrain from staining America?s long-standing role as a human rights leader and to

 

Caitlin Dickerson Ron Nixon, Trump Administration Considers Separating Families to omhat 
immigration, NY. TIMES (Dec. 21, 2017}, 7 152 us; 
separatehtml.

3 id.

3 The Separation ofFamiiy Members Apprehended by or Found inadmissibie White in U. S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) Custody at the [LS-Mexico Border, AM. IMMIGR. COUNCIL, Dec. 1 1, 2017,

liles genera! litigatiuuft'ami l_\w_scp_a_r_a_t__i_on compla?t?df.

4 Oversight of the U.S. Dep ?t of Homeland Sec. Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 15?h Cong. (2018)
(statement of Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security).

 

Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1-4 Filed 09/05/18 Page 2 of 5

choose a different path on this issue. In a March 7, 2017 interview with Wolf Blitzer, your
predecessor, Mr. John Kelly, said that DHS was considering a policy to separate families at the
border, a position he later reversed.5 We urge you to do the same. Do not forsake children,
Madam Secretary, especially when they have had no say in their present situation.

We ask you to instead employ policies such as alternatives to detention that better protect
families and reduce reliance on a costly and inhumane immigrant detention system. America can
and should treat children with care when we take them into federal custody. We appreciate your
consideration and request a prompt response on this important matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sincerely,
I "69 
I
D. HARRIS IANNE FEINSTEIN

United States Senator United States Senator
PATTY QIRRAY ROBERT MENEN 
United States Senator United States Senator
EDWARD J. a KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND
United States Senator United Senator

. 0M 

RY A. BOOKER TOM UDALL

United States Senator United States Senator

 

5 Daniella Diaz, Kelly: DHS is Considering Separating Undocumented Children?'nm their Parents at the Border,
CNN (Mar. 7, 2017), 20] 1'03 {lo-politics- 
imm l.

 

Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1-4 Filed 09/05/18 Page 3 of 5

(fez

 

TINA SMITH
United States Senator

 

 

 

BERNARD SANDERS
United States Senator

151:ka

 

MAZIE K. HIRONO
Unit States Senator

    

OPHER S. MURPHY 
United States Senator

711/4;

 

TIM KAINE
United States Senator

34.?

BRIAN SCI-IATZ A
United States Senator

 

Mm

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
United States Senator



I
TAMMY SALDWIN
United States Senator

 



BENJAMIN L. CARDIN
United States Senator

 

LDON WHITEHOUSE
United States Senator

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
United States Senator

Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1-4 Filed 09/05/18 Page 4 of 5



TAMMY 

 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN
United States Senator

PATRICK LEAHY 
United States Senator

States Senator

 

MARTIN HEINRICH
United States Senator

AW 6mm

 

SHERROD BROWN
United States Senator

 

- REED
ed States Senator

RICHARD DURBIN
United States Senator



MICHAEL Fr BENNET
United States Senator

AW EMMA


nite States Senator
$441

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS
United States Senator

in Wye/Ax

RON WYDEN
United States Senator

m?w

MARIA CANTWELL
United States Senator

Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1-4 Filed 09/05/18 Page 5 of 5

 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr.
United States Senator

Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1-5 Filed 09/05/18 Page 1 of 1

July 16, 2018

The Honorable Kirstjen M. Nielsen
Secretary of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528

Dear Secretary Nielsen,
We have valued our membership on the Homeland Security Advisory Council, because it has provided
opportunities to offer advice on DHS missions and to support the efforts of its workforce.
Very unfortunately, however, there was no call for advice before recent immigration decisions were
announced, enforced, and then retracted by this Administration. Were we consulted, we would have
observed that routinely taking children from migrant parents was morally repugnant, counter-productive
and ill-considered.
We cannot tolerate association with the immigration policies of this administration, nor the illusion that
we are consulted on these matters.
Accordingly, please take this letter as a formal tender of our resignations from the Homeland Security
Advisory Council.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Danzig
Elizabeth Holtzman
David A. Martin
Matthew G. Olsen

 Case Document 1-6 Filed 09/05/18 Page 1 of 1

Elizabeth Holtzman
180 Bergen Street
Brooklyn, NY 11217

July 16, 2018

The Honorable Kirstjen Nielsen
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528

Dear Secretary Nielsen:

have joined today with others in a separate letter of resignation from the Department of
Homeland Security Advisory Council and am writing to add some further comments now.

As an author of the Refugee Act of 1980, along with Senator Ted Kennedy, I believe the
treatment of refugees by you and President Trump violates that law and our treaty obligations to
refugees. The 1980 Act created a framework for the admission of refugees, which it viewed as an
integral and important part of US policy. The Act was adopted against the background of the Holocaust,
in which the US took only a tiny handful of refugees from the Nazis, leaving untold numbers to perish at
their hands. The Act was intended to prevent any repetition of that. it was also passed in response to
the massive exodus of boat people from Vietnam. There was a time that the US welcomed refugees. We
readily accepted and absorbed more than 600,000 refugees from Cuba, 750,000 refugees from Vietnam
and more than 100,000 Jews from the Soviet Union. Considering that history, the thought that the US
government is afraid today of 2,000 children and their parents is both laughable and appalling.

Under your administration and that of Donald Trump?s, DHS has been transformed into an
agency that is making war on immigrants and refugees. The ethnically and religiously motivated travel
ban, the refusal to provide relief to the Dreamers and the new mass deportation program that does not
prioritize the removal of undocumented aliens with serious criminal records (thereby harming American
citizen children and spouses by removing a parent and a breadwinnerfrom the family and hurting the
country by removing productive people who have been living here for decades) are malign and
ultimately self-destructive policies.

The final straw has been the separation of children from their parents at the Southwest border.
This is child kidnapping, plain and simple. Seizing children from their parents in violation of the
constitutional rights of both is bad enough (mentally harmful to the children and infinitely painful to
both the parents and children), but doing so without creating proper records to enable family
reunification shows utter depravity on the part of the government officials involved.

Although it is who am resigning in protest against these policies, it is you who should be

tendering your resignation instead.


Elizabeth Hol zma

     
   
  

y/

 

Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1-7 Filed 09/05/18 Page 1 of 2
D.\\-ID -\. I\L\ltTIN

Vr nct
\("Iu()t

N

L]t.

t.

la
\\\'

\\.\lt\liR.ll()OKlll{

l)lSII\(;

L'ISIII:l)

l)R()ll,SS()R

()l

July 16,

l!l

I:R\.\'l

l()\.\1.

1..\\\'lr\l

l:Rllt'S

201 8

The Honorable Kirsden M. Nielsen
Secretary of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528
Dear Secretary Nielsen:

joined today's letter from several HSAC members tendering our resignations from
the Homeland Security Advisory Council, but I write to expand on the reasons for my
I

action.
The unjust policy of separating families at the border obviously was the precipitating
event, as indicated in the joint letter. Now it has become clear that the policy was also
executed with astounding casualness about precise tracking of family relationships - as
though eventual reunification was deemed unlikely or at least unimportant, even for
toddlers and preschoolers.

I have spent much of my working life studying and implementing eff'ective, realistic
asylum adjudication systems, and also trying to lay the groundwork for serious and
resolute immigration enforcement. I know that both objectives can be reached in humane
ways. From the beginning, however, the administration has opted instead for gratuitously
severe actions in the immigration arena, such as the travel ban and the termination of the
DACA program, combined with commitment to a vast wall that no serious professional
thinks is an effective way to spend 25 billion enforcement dollars. These actions have
fueled polarization, alienated state and local governments, and moved us much further
from a sustainable, eff-ective, and strategically sensible immigration enforcement
program.
Further, the family separation policy crystallized for many HSAC members
profound doubts about the administration's commitment to the rule of law. These doubts
were sown, lbr example, when the president pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who had been
found in criminal contempt of courl for willfully violating a civil-rights-based
injunction. That pardon was issued less than two weeks after the President refused to
condemn the violent massing of Nazi and KKK sympathizers in Charlottesville. Our
doubts have then been nurtured regularly by tweets and statements talsely impugning the
integrity of the FBI, the Justice Department, the intelligence community, and various
federal courts.

580 Nlassic l{oarl

. (lharlrttcsvillc, \',\

22903-1738

'

r,rr,,rr

;13-1.92-1.314-1

'

r rx -+3.+.982.28.+5

'

dmrrtin(flarv.r'irginia.eclu

 Case 4:18-cv-40149 Document 1-7 Filed 09/05/18 Page 2 of 2

Commitment to the rule of law is essential to the protection of homeland security both constitutionally and operationally. Our nation's past successes in thwarling terrorist
acts and receiving information on nascent plots derive in major pafi from an
understanding by the members of our national community. including ethnic and religious
minorities - and by our global allies - that the IJS government stands for such values.

I greatly valued my time as an officer of DHS, and I then worked hard to contribute
constructively as a member of HSAC. Many friends remain at the Depaftment, and I
respect their ongoing efforts to fulfill a complex and challenging niission. I regret tliat the
administration's actions have pushed me and several other colleagues to this departure
from the Council.

Sincerely,

a
e**'/

. ,. 'n,1,4

A'

David A. Martin

-+-^

/t/ (qJL--