Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 222 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.3498 Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General SCOTT G. STEWART Deputy Assistant Attorney General WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director Office of Immigration Litigation WILLIAM C. SILVIS Assistant Director Office of Immigration Litigation SARAH B. FABIAN Senior Litigation Counsel NICOLE MURLEY Trial Attorney Office of Immigration Litigation U.S. Department of Justice Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20442 Telephone: (202) 532-4824 Fax: (202) 616-8962 14 15 ADAM L. BRAVERMAN United States Attorney 16 SAMUEL W. BETTWY 17 Assistant U.S. Attorney California Bar No. 94918 18 Office of the U.S. Attorney 19 880 Front Street, Room 6293 San Diego, CA 92101-8893 20 619-546-7125 21 619-546-7751 (fax) 22 Attorneys for Federal Respondents23 Defendants 24 25 26 27 28 Lee Gelernt* Judy Rabinovitz* Anand Balakrishnan* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 T: (212) 549-2660 F: (212) 549-2654 lgelernt@aclu.org jrabinovitz@aclu.org abalakrishnan@aclu.org Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783) ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES P.O. Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138-7131 T: (619) 398-4485 F: (619) 232-0036 bvakili@aclusandiego.org Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280) Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 T: (415) 343-1198 F: (415) 395-0950 skang@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org Attorneys for PetitionersPlaintiffs *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 222 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.3499 Page 2 of 20 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 MS. L, et al., Case No. 18cv428 DMS MDD 4 Petitioners-Plaintiffs, 5 6 7 8 9 10 JOINT STATUS REPORT vs. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., Respondents-Defendants. 11 12 The Court ordered the parties to file a joint status report on September 13, 13 14 2018, in anticipation of the telephonic status conference scheduled for September 15 14, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. PST. The parties submit this joint status report in accordance 16 with the Court’s instruction. 17 DEFENDANTS’ POSITIONS 18 I. 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. Update on Reunifications: Defendants are discharging children appropriately and expeditiously Defendants have appropriately discharged an additional 36 children since the last Joint Status Report, for a total of 2,217 children. Looking ahead, there are 211 children proceeding towards reunification or 25 another appropriate discharge. Specifically, there are: 26 27 28 1 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 222 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.3500 Page 3 of 20 1 • 46 children in ORR care with a parent who is in the United States and 2 presently in the class. Of the 46 children, 7 cannot be reunified at this time 3 because their parents are in other federal, state, or local custody (e.g., state 4 5 criminal detention). One of the 46 children cannot be reunified at this time 6 because Defendants are still reviewing the parent’s “red flag.” Defendants 7 are working to appropriately discharge the remaining 38 of 46 children. 8 9 10 11 12 See Table 1: Reunification Update. • 58 children in ORR care who have parents presently departed from the United States, who have cleared Processes 1 through 3 of the court- 13 approved reunification plan, and who are proceeding towards reunification 14 with their parents in their home country. See Table 2: Reunification of 15 16 Removed Class Members. 17 • 107 children in ORR care who have parents presently departed from the 18 United States, and for whom the ACLU has not yet provided notice of 19 20 parental intent regarding reunification (or declination of reunification). 21 Defendants are supporting the efforts of the ACLU to obtain statements of 22 intent from those parents, as described in subsequent sections of this Joint 23 24 25 Status Report. Once Defendants receive the notices from the ACLU, Defendants will either reunify the children or move them into the TVPRA 26 27 28 2 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 222 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.3501 Page 4 of 20 1 2 3 sponsorship process, consistent with the intent of the parent. See Table 2: Reunification of Removed Class Members. Four groups of children in ORR care are not in the reunification process 4 5 because Defendants have concluded that their parents are out of the class. Those 6 groups include children who Defendants determined were not separated (55 7 children), children whose parents have final red flag determinations (29 children), 8 9 children with parents who are presently departed from the United States and have 10 declined reunification through the ACLU (114 children), and children with parents 11 who are in the United States and have indicated an intent not to reunify (28 children). 12 13 As discussed below, the parties are meeting and conferring regarding the status of 14 some of the children in some of those groups. 15 The current reunification status for children ages 0 through 17 is further 16 17 summarized in Table 1 below. The data in Table 1 reflects approximate numbers 18 maintained by ORR at least as of September 10, 2018. These numbers are dynamic 19 and continue to change as more reunifications or discharges occur. Changes in 20 21 format from last week’s reporting are explained further below. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 222 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.3502 Page 5 of 20 1 Table 1: Reunification Update 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Phase 2 Phase 1 and (Under 5) (5 above) Description Total number of possible children of potential 103 class members originally identified Discharged Children Total children discharged from ORR care: 84 • Children discharged by being reunified 72 with separated parent • Children discharged under other appropriate circumstances (these include discharges to other sponsors [such as 12 situations where the child’s separated parent is not eligible for reunification] or children that turned 18) Children in ORR Care, Parent in Class Total 2,551 2,654 2,133 2,217 1,913 1,985 220 232 205 211 5 160 • Parent presently outside the U.S. 1 45 • Parent presently inside the U.S. o Parent in other federal, state, or local 0 7 custody o Parent red flag case review ongoing – 0 1 safety and well being Children in ORR Care, Parent out of Class Children in care where further review shows 5 50 they were not separated from parents by DHS 165 46 Children in care where the parent is not eligible for reunification or is not available for discharge 6 at this time: Children in care where a final determination has 7 been made they cannot be reunified because the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child Children in care with parent presently departed 1 from the United States whose intent not to reunify has been confirmed by the ACLU Children in care with parent in the United States 0 who has indicated an intent not to reunify 7 1 55 22 29 113 114 28 28 27 28 4 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 222 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.3503 Page 6 of 20 1 As discussed above, Table 1 contains three new groups of children in ORR 2 care who are no longer in the reunification process because Defendants have 3 determined that the parents are out of the class. 4 5 The first new group is “Children in care where a final determination has been 6 made they cannot be reunified because the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the 7 child.” This group consists of cases where Defendants have resolved previous “red 8 9 flags” to reunification and made final determinations for exclusions based on 10 criminal history, parental fitness, or child safety. See Dkt. No 82 at 17 (defining 11 class). Defendants provided Plaintiffs with a line list of those cases on September 12 13 7, and are meeting and conferring with Plaintiffs about the same. 14 15 The second new group is “Children in care with parent presently departed from the United States whose intent not to reunify has been confirmed by the 16 17 ACLU.” This group corresponds to the cohort of children reported in “Table 2: 18 Reunification of Removed Class Members” as “Children whose parents waived 19 reunification.” For each of these children, Plaintiffs have confirmed, supported by 20 21 declarations under penalty of perjury, that their parents have “affirmatively, 22 knowingly, and voluntary waive[d] reunification and have the child proceed through 23 the standard TVPRA-governed ORR sponsorship process.” This group is now in 24 25 the TVPRA sponsorship process. 26 27 28 5 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 222 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.3504 Page 7 of 20 1 The third new group is “Children in care with parent in the United States who 2 has indicated an intent not to reunify.” Under the court-approved reunification plan, 3 the parents of these children are not in the class. Defendants have nevertheless 4 5 agreed to meet and confer with Plaintiffs about this group 6 7 B. Update on Removed Class Members: Defendants are working with Plaintiffs’ counsel to implement parental intent 8 The current reunification status of removed class members is set forth in Table 9 2 below. The data presented in this Table 2 reflects approximate numbers 10 11 maintained by ORR as of at least September 10, 2018. These numbers are dynamic 12 and continue to change as the reunification process moves forward. 13 Table 2: Reunification of Removed Class Members 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 REUNIFICATION REPORTING METRIC PROCESS STARTING Children in ORR care with POPULATION parents presently departed from the U.S. PROCESS 1: Identify & Resolve Children with no “red flags” for Safety/Parentage safety or parentage Concerns PROCESS 2: Establish Contact with Parents in Country of Origin Children with parent contact information identified Children with no contact issues identified by plaintiff or defendant Children with parent contact information provided to ACLU by Government NO. REPORTING PARTY 279 Def’s. 279 Def’s. 279 Def’s. 279 Def’s. & Pl.’s 279 Def’s. 26 27 28 6 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 222 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.3505 Page 8 of 20 1 2 PROCESS 3: Determine Parental Intention for Minor Children for whom ACLU has communicated parental intent for minor: 172 Pl’s. • Children whose parents waived reunification 114 Pl’s. 58 Pl’s. 107 Pl’s. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 • Children whose parents chose reunification in country of origin Children for whom ACLU has not yet communicated parental intent for minor: PROCESS 4: Total children cleared Processes Resolve 1-3 with confirmed intent for 58 Immigration reunification in country of origin Status of Minors to Allow • Children in ORR care with Reunification 19 orders of voluntary departure Pl’s. Def’s. 13 14 C. Locating Removed Parents 15 16 According to the latest weekly list provided to Defendants by Plaintiffs there 17 are zero children currently in care with removed parents for whom Plaintiffs’ data 18 shows that contact was unsuccessful or no phone number was provided. Today, 19 Plaintiffs informed Defendants that there are 60 parents remaining for which 20 21 Plaintiffs have phone numbers, but with whom Plaintiffs have not yet made contact. 22 They are continuing to reach out the phone numbers that they have for those parents, 23 and hope that contact will be made. Plaintiffs have not yet provided Defendants with 24 25 a list of those 60 parents. 26 27 28 7 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 222 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.3506 Page 9 of 20 1 Given that ORR programs have had consistent success contacting all parents 2 for whom Defendants have phone numbers (which would likely include all 60 3 parents whom Plaintiffs are still seeking to contact), when the parties met and 4 5 conferred on September 12, 2018, the Government suggested that the best next step 6 to facilitate communication with those remaining parents would be for the 7 Government to coordinate three-way calls between the child, parent and Steering 8 9 Committee. As the Declaration of Commander Jonathan White (being filed 10 concurrently herewith) explains, in the Government’s experience, contact with 11 parents through the ORR shelter care centers in which their children are housed is 12 13 the most expeditious and effective means to establish contact with parents in home 14 country. Put simply, where parents may not always be responsive to other 15 individuals, they are responsive to the ORR shelter programs. Plaintiffs agreed that 16 17 this would be helpful. 18 19 The government also will continue to work to ensure that the most up-to-date contact information for those cases is provided to Plaintiffs. Moreover, as 20 21 Defendants further explained to Plaintiffs when the parties spoke, the Government 22 remains open to taking additional steps when there is an indication that a phone 23 number is legitimately inoperative. Such additional steps, however, should be 24 25 tailored to the individual case. That is, additional steps should be geographically and 26 strategically targeted to reach the specific parents who are not reachable 27 28 8 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 222 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.3507 Page 10 of 20 1 telephonically. Plaintiffs have suggested methods that they believe should be tried if 2 necessary for these cases, and Defendants are willing to consider whether any of 3 those methods (or others) would be effective once they receive information from 4 5 Plaintiffs regarding individuals for whom efforts to make contact have failed. 6 7 When the parties spoke, Plaintiffs also raised questions about the coordination between Defendants and foreign governments to facilitate contact and reunifications. 8 9 Commander White’s declaration explains the coordination that occurs between the 10 United States government and foreign embassies, and between ICE attachés and the 11 agencies of foreign governments on the ground. Defendants will meet and confer 12 13 with Plaintiffs further on this subject as the process moved forward. 14 15 D. Information Sharing Defendants are now producing to Plaintiffs on a weekly basis spreadsheets 16 17 that identify the individuals who make up a majority of the numbers reported by 18 Defendants each week in Sections A and B of the Joint Status Report. Defendants 19 also are producing information on a weekly basis to Plaintiffs regarding waivers of 20 21 reunification and reunifications of families in ICE custody. Defendants also have 22 provided over the last few weeks many additional sets of information in response to 23 inquiries from Plaintiffs about data that was previously provided. 24 Defendants met and conferred with Plaintiffs on September 12, 2018, and 25 26 Defendants are following up regarding some further inquiries made by Plaintiffs on 27 28 9 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 222 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.3508 Page 11 of 20 1 that call. However, based on that discussion Defendants believe that the data that 2 they have provided, in conjunction with the weekly production, largely meets all of 3 Plaintiffs’ needs for data that they have expressed to date. The parties will continue 4 5 to meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs’ data needs. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 II. PLAINTIFFS’ POSITIONS A. Steering Committee Progress The Steering Committee has continued to make significant progress in contacting parents and confirming parent and child wishes with respect to reunifications. As of Wednesday, September 12, the Committee delivered final preferences for 185 1 parents to the Government. As requested by the Court, Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Steering Committee have also met and conferred with the Government regarding on-the-ground efforts in Central America, and are working together to implement ideas for those efforts, as outlined below. First, we report the status of our efforts based on the Government’s September 7 list of 304 children in ORR custody with removed parents. With respect to those children and parents, the Steering Committee’s progress in contacting parents and delivering preferences to the Government is as follows: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 This figure is based on the Government’s September 7 report of 304 children remaining in ORR custody. Since the creation of the Steering Committee, the Government first provided lists of children in ORR care with removed parents on August 7th and 10th. Both lists combined included a total number of 412 children in ORR care with removed parents. On Fridays since this time, the Government has sent new (shorter) lists of children in ORR care with removed parents. Its August 24th list included one additional child, for a total of 413. Its September 7th list included a further additional child in ORR care, for a total of 414. As noted infra, the Steering Committee has delivered the final preferences for 206 parents to the Government of 414 children reported by the Government in the aggregate to have been in ORR custody. 28 10 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 222 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.3509 Page 12 of 20 1 2 Removed parents identified by the Government to Steering Committee 3 4 5 6 • Parents for whom Committee has no phone number (and hasn’t otherwise contacted) 304 (reported to Steering Committee on 9/7/2018) 0 Steering Committee called phone number for parent (using Government-provided number or number otherwise obtained by Steering Committee) 304 Steering Committee spoke to parent (either by phone or in person) 237 230 12 • Parents successfully reached through phone contact 13 • Parents found through outreach by NGOs 7 14 • Parents called and not reached (and not reached 6792 through NGO efforts) 7 8 9 10 11 15 16 0 17 o Phone number determined to be inoperable or ineffective 18 o Contact efforts ongoing 679 19 20 21 Parents reached by phone or NGO outreach 237 • Reunified: confirmed reunifications in home 1 country 22 23 2 Since last week’s Status Conference, the Government has provided 24 additional contact information for several of these parents. The Steering 25 Committee is actively using this information to attempt to make contact with those parents (recognizing that multiple call attempts may be required for each parent) 26 and is meeting and conferring with the Government about any parents for whom 27 contact has not been possible, after exhausting repeated attempts. 28 11 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 222 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.3510 Page 13 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 • Parent’s preference with respect to reunification 189 has been confirmed to match child’s • Preliminary indication of parent’s wishes with 23 respect to reunification • Ongoing discussions reunification with parent • Parent’s final preference communicated to government has about 24 been 185 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 As discussed further below, the Steering Committee is meeting and conferring with the government to clarify the bases for which children and parents have been removed from the Government’s operative list, and has continued to reach out to parents who were on the Government’s previous lists, but who have been omitted Government’s current list.3 The Government has provided information that has clarified the status of a number of families, and we continue to work with the Government and anticipate receiving additional information from the Government relating to this issue. Where the Steering Committee has identified parents and children who remain separated and wish to be reunified, it has reported those family’s decisions to the Government, irrespective of whether the children appear on the Government’s most recent list. As of Wednesday, September 12, the Steering Committee had reported on the preferences of an additional 21 families who were on the Government’s earlier lists, but are not on the September 7 list. The Steering Committee’s progress for this larger group of 414 is reported at the end of the Steering Committee Report, so that the Court may compare progress in the past 25 3 As noted above, the total number of children in ORR care with removed 26 parents who at some point have been identified by the Government to the Steering 27 Committee is 414. 28 12 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 222 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.3511 Page 14 of 20 1 week using the same baseline group. 2 3 B. Effectuation of the Court-Approved Plan This week, the Steering Committee raised concerns with the Government 4 regarding its compliance with the Court-approved plan (the “Plan”). (ECF No. 5 189-1.) As set forth in the Plan, where a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) has been filed 6 in a child’s immigration proceedings and the Steering Committee has conveyed to 7 the Government a parent’s desire to be reunified with that child, DHS is required to 8 “move to dismiss proceedings without prejudice, noting in such motion that it is 9 based on Ms. L reunification” and the reunification should proceed accordingly in 10 the Country of Origin. (Id. at 6.) 11 The Steering Committee has learned of several instances where the Steering 12 Committee has submitted a declaration attesting to a parent’s wishes for 13 reunification but the child’s attorney was advised by DHS officials that it would 14 not dismiss the case (as called for in the Reunification Plan) and that a child must 15 instead request a Voluntary Departure order, which, among other things, has the 16 practical effect of delaying reunification. The Government has indicated, in 17 response, that it had been finalizing certain “documentation necessary for children 18 to be returned under the Plan” and that Voluntary Departure orders were being 19 pursued in the interim but that the documentation in question has now been 20 finalized and all future proceedings should occur with dismissals, as required under 21 the Plan. Plaintiffs therefore request that Voluntary Departure orders that were 22 previously obtained before this documentation was finalized be converted into 23 dismissals, as they should have been once the Reunification Plan went into effect, 24 and that the Government expeditiously move to terminate all proceedings that are 25 pending (where a Voluntary Departure order has not yet been obtained). 26 The Steering Committee has also brought to the Government’s attention 27 certain cases of very young children and children in distress that it asks be treated 28 13 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 222 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.3512 Page 15 of 20 1 with special care and expediency, and we expect to meet and confer with the 2 Government to ensure that these cases are appropriately addressed. 3 4 C. On-the-Ground Efforts At last week’s Status Conference, the Court asked the Steering Committee to 5 develop suggestions for steps the Government can take to assist with on-the6 ground efforts to locate and communicate with parents. The Steering Committee 7 has since met and conferred with the Government about the following ways in 8 which the Government may be able to assist with these efforts: 9 • Outreach Support 10 o The Steering Committee has suggested that Government place notices 11 in the countries of origin as outlined in Process 2 of the Plan, 12 specifically radio announcements, billboards, and notices in local 13 churches. 14 o The Steering Committee believes that some parents may not be 15 answering calls that appear to originate from the U.S. out of fear. Thus, 16 the Steering Committee requested that the Government procure and 17 provide local Guatemalan and Honduran telephone numbers/telephones 18 that the Steering Committee can use to contact parents. 19 o The Government has offered to coordinate three-way calls between the 20 child, parent and Steering Committee. As noted below, the Steering 21 Committee agrees that this would be helpful. 22 • Logistical Support 23 o To help address the innumerable logistical challenges on the ground, 24 the Steering Committee asks that the Government designate an 25 Ombudsman to work out of the U.S. Embassies/Consulates in 26 Guatemala and Honduras to assist with efforts to locate parents and 27 repatriate their children. This person would also be tasked with being 28 14 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 222 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.3513 Page 16 of 20 1 a point person for parents on logistical issues, such as ensuring 2 documents are in order, that parents are aware of the timing of 3 reunification, and coordinating travel by parents and children to the 4 place of reunification. Many parents do not have the means of making 5 this journey on their own. Moreover, because it may often take the 6 parents days to reach the location of the child’s drop-off, it is critical 7 that the parents be given sufficient advance notice that their child is on 8 his or her way home. This coordination work is currently being done 9 largely by non-profits or by the governments of Guatemala and 10 Honduras. 11 disadvantage, because they do not receive advance notice of when 12 children are to be repatriated. 13 Non-profits are also operating at an information • Travel Support: 14 o The Steering Committee has also inquired about the possibility of the 15 Government making available helicopter and car transportation for 16 investigators and advocates on the ground to facilitate travel to locate 17 and meet with parents in remote locations. 18 19 D. Outstanding Data-Related Issues for the Steering Committee The Steering Committee continues to meet and confer with the Government 20 regarding data requested from the Government in order to ensure that all parents 21 are accounted for and reunified with their children imminently, if that is the 22 parent’s wish. 23 The parties have made progress regarding a number of issues previously 24 reported to the Court, and the Steering Committee continues to hope that these 25 issues will be resolved informally. Removals from Government Lists 26 2. 27 The Steering Committee continues to meet and confer with the Government 28 15 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 222 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.3514 Page 17 of 20 1 regarding information explaining why parents and children have been removed 2 from or added to the lists of class members or children in ORR custody previously 3 produced by the Government (in a desire to understand changes made to the 4 Government’s “Starting Population” documented in each week’s Joint Status 5 Report). The Parties have made progress with respect to these data discrepancies 6 and the Steering Committee hopes the remaining issues can be resolved without 7 Court intervention. Inoperative/Ineffective/Lack of Phone Numbers 8 3. 9 The Steering Committee continues to meet and confer with the Government 10 over the apparent discrepancy in the Steering Committee’s inability to contact 11 certain parents due to inoperative or ineffective phone numbers, as compared to the 12 Government’s reported ability to contact these same parents. The Government has 13 provided additional information in the form of new phone numbers, which has 14 allowed the Steering Committee to make progress in contacting some parents. For 15 parents the Steering Committee is still unable to reach, the Parties have agreed that 16 the Steering Committee will identify such parents to the Government, and the 17 Government will work to facilitate three-way calls among the child, parent and the 18 Steering Committee. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Steering Committee Progress on Total Reported Parents/Children (414) Removed parents identified by the Government to Steering Committee (8/7/28, 8/10/18 and 8/24/18 lists) 414 • Parents for whom Committee has no phone number (and hasn’t otherwise contacted) 19 Steering Committee called phone number for parent (using Government-provided number or number otherwise obtained by Steering Committee) 395 27 28 16 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 222 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.3515 Page 18 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 Steering Committee spoke to parent (either by phone or in person) 302 • Parents called and successfully reached 289 • Parents found through outreach by NGOs 13 • Parents called and not reached (and not reached through NGO efforts) 93 7 o Phone number inoperable or ineffective 9 8 o Contact efforts ongoing 84 9 10 11 12 Parents reached by phone or NGO outreach 302 Reunified: confirmed reunifications in home country 21 Parent’s preference with respect to reunification has been confirmed to match child’s 213 Preliminary indication of parent’s wishes with respect to reunification 31 13 14 15 Ongoing discussions with parent about reunification 37 16 17 Parent’s final preference has been communicated to government 206 18 19 20 E. Information Sharing Regarding Government’s JSR Numbers Plaintiffs have now received A#s identifying the cases described in the 21 Government’s September 6 status report for most categories that the Government 22 reports. The parties have met and conferred on remaining issues, including timely 23 updates of those A#s underlying the Government’s numbers reported in weekly 24 status reports, and Plaintiffs’ request for updated data to show which Class 25 members are subject to final removal orders. Plaintiffs will continue to meet and 26 confer with the Government on these issues. 27 28 17 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 222 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.3516 Page 19 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 DATED: September 13, 2018 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Lee Gelernt Lee Gelernt* Judy Rabinovitz* Anand Balakrishnan* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 T: (212) 549-2660 F: (212) 549-2654 lgelernt@aclu.org jrabinovitz@aclu.org abalakrishnan@aclu.org Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783) ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES P.O. Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138-7131 T: (619) 398-4485 F: (619) 232-0036 bvakili@aclusandiego.org Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280) Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 T: (415) 343-1198 F: (415) 395-0950 skang@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org 25 26 Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs *Admitted Pro Hac Vice 27 28 18 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 222 Filed 09/13/18 PageID.3517 Page 20 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General SCOTT G. STEWART Deputy Assistant Attorney General WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director WILLIAM C. SILVIS Assistant Director /s/ Sarah B. Fabian SARAH B. FABIAN Senior Litigation Counsel NICOLE MURLEY Trial Attorney Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 532-4824 (202) 616-8962 (facsimile) sarah.b.fabian@usdoj.gov ADAM L. BRAVERMAN United States Attorney SAMUEL W. BETTWY Assistant U.S. Attorney 19 20 Attorneys for Respondents-Defendants 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 18cv428 DMS MDD