Case Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DORA, et a1. Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, et al., Defendants. CASE NO. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYMS AND TO FILE SUPPORTING EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL UNOPPOSED MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYMS AND TO FILE SUPPORTING EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL Plaintiffs respectfully move for leave to proceed anonymously in the above- captioned litigation and to ?le supporting exhibits under seal. Speci?cally, Plaintiffs request that this Court permit them to (1) proceed under pseudonyms and (2) file under seal an exhibit to this motion that matches the pseudonyms used in the publicly ?led complaint to the Plaintiffs? actual names, as well as a copy of the complaint that contains Plaintiffs? actual names. Plaintiffs also request that Defendants be prohibited from publicly disclosing Plaintiffs? identities or any personal identifying information that could lead to identi?cation of Plaintiffs by non-parties. The basis for this motion is that Plaintiffs and their minor children, asylum applicants from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, fear persecution and possible death both here and in their home countries if their identities are exposed. 408438613 Case Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 2 of 13 Statement UndervLocal Rule 7m. The parties have conferred pursuant to Local Rule 7m and Defendants agreed not to oppose this motion, without prejudice to their ability to file a motion to unseal. INTRODUCTION This action, brought under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq, the Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. 706, the Immigration and Nationality Act 8 U.S.C. 11001 et seq, and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, US. Const, amend. V, challenges Defendants? unlawful, unconstitutional, and procedurally de?cient credible fear determinations, made immediately following the forcible separation of Plaintiffs from their minor children and during a time when Plaintiffs were experiencing significant trauma. Because Plaintiffs would be at risk of great harm if their identities were revealed, they respectfully request leave to proceed anonymously in this litigation. In addition, Plaintiffs request leave to file under seal the following two documents: (1) Exhibit A, which includes Plaintiffs? true names matched with the pseudonyms they seek to use in this lawsuit; and (2) a copy of the complaint that includes Plaintiffs? true names. Plaintiffs do not seek to remain anonymous with respect to Defendants. Finally, Plaintiffs request that Defendants be prohibited from publicly disclosing Plaintiffs? identities or any personal identifying information that could lead to identification of Plaintiffs by non?parties. Plaintiffs? motion is supported by several independent grounds. The record in this case will reveal sensitive, private, and personal details concerning Plaintiffs? applications for relief from removal. Plaintiffs reasonably fear for their own safety and well-beingw 408438613 Case Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 3 of 13 as well as the safety and well-being of their family members, both here and abroad?4f details about their identities, efforts to seek asylum, and participation in this lawsuit become public. In contrast to Plaintiffs? strong interest in con?dentiality, the countervailing interests in disclosure of Plaintiffs? identities are minimal or nonexistent. The public?s interest, if any, in knowing Plaintiffs? identities is negligible and its interest in open judicial proceedings will only be minimally affected if Plaintiffs are permitted to proceed anonymously. Moreover, granting Plaintiffs? request to proceed under pseudonyms will serve the public interest by allowing this case to go forward. Finally, Defendants will not be prejudiced if Plaintiffs are permitted to proceed anonymously, particularly because Plaintiffs are not withholding their identities from Defendants. Under these circumstances, there is simply no need for Plaintiffs? identities to be publicly disclosed. Accordingly, this motion should be granted. LEGAL STANDARD The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules generally require that complaints name all parties, but this Court and the DC. Circuit have permitted parties to proceed pseudonymously when circumstances justify the need to maintain confidentiality. See, Doe v. Stephens, 851 F.2d 1457, 1459 n.2 (DC. Cir. 1988); Doe v. US. Dep ?t ofJusz?ice, 660 F. Supp.2d 31, 40 (D.D.C. 2009). When a party seeks to litigate under a pseudonym, the court must ensure that ?special circumstances? exist such that the party?s ?need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public?s interest in knowing [Doe?s] identity.? 40843861.?) Case Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 4 of 13 John Doe Co. No. 1 v. CFPB, 195 F. Supp. 3d 9, 23 (D.D.C. 2016) (citation omitted). In balancing these interests, courts consider the following nonexclusive factors: (1) whether the justi?cation asserted by the requesting party is merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation or is to preserve privacy in a matter of a sensitive and highly personal nature; (2) whether identi?cation poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the requesting party or even more critically, to innocent non-parties; (3) the ages of the persons Whose privacy interests are sought to be protected; (4) whether the action is against a governmental or private party; and (5) the risk of unfairness to the opposing party from allowing an action against it to proceed anonymously. Id. at 23 (citation omitted). ?No single factor is necessarily determinative.? Doe v. Teri, No. 2015 WL 6689862, at *2 (D.D.C. Oct. 19, 2015). Instead, the court ?should carefully review all the circumstances of a given case and then decide whether the customary practice of disclosing the plaintiff?s identity should yield? to the plaintiff 3 request for anonymity. Id. (quotation marks omitted). The burden on the party seeking to proceed under a pseudonym is not a heavy one: it need only make a ?colorable argument in support of the request? that is ?not frivolous.? Qualls v. Rumsfeld, 228 F.R.D. 8, 10 (D.D.C. 2005). In fact, trial courts have been found to have abused their discretion when they failed to consider ?that in some cases the general presumption of open trialswincluding identi?cation of parties and witnesses by their real names?should yield in deference to suf?ciently pressing needs for party or witness anonymity.? See, eg, James v. Jacobson, 6. F.3d 233, 242 (4th Cir. 1993); Sealed Plainti?fv. Sealed Defendant 537 F.3d 185, 189?90 (2d Cir. 2008). ARGUMENT The relevant factors in this case weigh heavily in favor of allowing Plaintiffs to proceed under pseudonyms. The sensitive nature of this action and the high risk of 408438613 Case Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 5 of 13 physical harm Plaintiffs and their children would face if their identities were publicly revealed, both here and in their home countries in the event that they are required to return, demonstrate that their need for con?dentiality outweighs the public?s interest in knowing their identities. In contrast, permitting them to proceed anonymously would neither materially harm the public interest in open court proceedings nor risk unfair prejudice to Defendants. Plaintiffs? motion to proceed anonymously should therefore be granted. 1. Plaintiffs Have a Compelling Need to Retain Their Anonymity Plaintiffs have a strong interest in proceeding anonymously in this litigation and are not simply attempting to avoid the normal ?annoyance and criticism that comes with litigation.? CFPB, 195 F. Supp. 3d at 16. First and foremost, the anonymity of the Plaintiff parents in this case is closely intertwined with protecting the identity and safety of their minor children, and, as a result, the privacy interests sought to be protected in this case include those of Plaintiffs? children. Children?s identities in court ?lings are protected by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which applies even in less sensitive cases that do not involve extreme persecution and threats of bodily harm to minors. And, as the DC. District Court has recognized, a child?s privacy interests and those of his or her parents are ?intractably intertwined? in some cases, such that the child?s identity would effectively I be revealed unless the parent or guardian is granted anonymity. Eley v. D. C., No. 806, 2016 WL 6267951, at *2 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2016) (discussing parents? anonymity interest in the context of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act suits) (quoting J. W. 12. D. C., 318 F.R.D. 196, 199 (DEC. 2016)). In this case, the revelation ofthe Plaintiff parents? names alone could effectively ?eviscerate? the protection created by Federal 5 403438613 Case Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 6 of 13 Rule Id. (quoting RM v. Evans?Brant Cent. Sch. Dist, No. 2008 WL 4379490, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2008)). Furthermore, Plaintiffs ?ed their countries of origin beCause they feared persecution. See Exhibit B, McClarnon Declaration at 4. As asylum seekers, they fall within a particularly vulnerable class of migrants for whom con?dentiality about the nature and existence of their claims is particularly important because their identi?cation would create a risk of retaliatory harm. See Qualls, 228 .R.D. at 10?11; UN. High Comm?r for Refugees UNCHR Advisory Opinion on the Rules of Con?dentialini Regarding Asylum Information, 2?3 (Mar. 31, 2005), and its con?dentiality requirements are especially important for an asylum-seeker, whose claim inherently supposes a fear of persecution by the authorities of the country of origin and whose situation can be jeopardized if protection of information is not ensured?). Plaintiffs have a reasonable fear of violence, harm, and possible death in their native countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, respectively, if identi?ed as participants in this litigation.1 Gang violence in each of the three countries is a real and present threat, as well as retaliation for perceived disloyalty or other infractions.2 1 Thomas Boerrnan Jennifer Knapp, Gang Culture and Violence against Women in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Immigration Briefings (Mar. 2017), 1e7805f8306da0c3 cca/Vie p=l (?Through the use of terror, Central American gangs and organized criminal groups have now effectively rendered the state and its agents police, prosecutors, courts, prisons) irrelevant in major respects and act as de facto governments in many areas because they have so thoroughly undermined the state?s capacity to fulfill basic functions of governance?). 2 See UNHCR, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from El Salvador, 12?13 (Mar. 15, 40843 861 .3 Case Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 7 of 13 Violence against women is particularly prevalent} Internal displacement is not often a viable option for PlaintiffswEl Salvador is smaller than the state of New Jersey, which means that internal displacement is extremely difficult and generally only a short?term solution.4 Many of the Plaintiffs have described death threats against themselves or their families or witnessed extreme violent acts, including rape and murder. Exhibit B, McClarnon Declaration at 11 Several Plaintiffs have described ?eeing their countries of origin after gangs threatened to kill the Plaintiff and everyone in their families. Id. 2016), (?Persons who resist the authority of the local gang or who even just inadvertently cross it, or who collaborate with the security forces or with rival gangs, are reportedly subjected to swift and brutal retaliation from the gang. Not only are such persons killed by the gangs but their family members are often targeted as well?); UNHCR, Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs Guatemala, 39?40 (Jan. 2018), [hereinafter UNCHR Guatemala Guidelines] (stating that individuals who are seen as resisting gang authority are often killed without prior warning or otherwise attacked); UNCHR, Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum?Seekers from Honduras, 18 (July, 27 2016), (?Gangs are reported to exercise extraordinary levels of social control over the population in their territories (and, to a lesser extent, over other territories where they may also practise 3 See Angelika Albaladejo, How Violence Affects Women in El Salvador (Feb. 22, 2016), http:// action?center/ lawg-blo g/ 69? general/ 1 590?110w-violence?affects? womenuinuehsalvador (?More than half of all Salvadoran women say they have suffered some form of violence in their lives. Over a quarter of these women were victims of sexual or physical violence?); UNHCR Guatemala Guidelines at 47 (?In the territories where the gangs operate, sexual and gender?based violence against women and girls is reportedly widespread, as is the forcible recruitment of girls to carry out tasks for the gangs?); Research Directorate, Immigration Refugee Board of Canada, Honduras: Information Gathering Mission Report, 2.2 (Feb. 2018), (?The mission learned that there is a high prevalence of femicide in Honduras, with a rate of one woman killed every 16 hours, just for being a woman?). 4 Angelika Albaladej o, No Life Here: Internal Displacement in El Salvador, Latin America Working Group (Feb. 18, 2016), general/15 8 40843 861.3 Case Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 8 of 13 One Plaintiff described being ?sold? to a gang leader and repeatedly raped as a result of her membership in a particular social group. Id. Many have reported having been stalked or watched as a result of their political af?liations. Id. In the face of this violent, threatening behavior, most Plaintiffs have expressed a belief that the police either will not or cannot do anything to protect them. Id. The federal government has itself recognized the importance of protecting the identities of asylum seekers. Asylum regulations provide for the confidentiality of asylum applications and credible fear interviewees, including about the fact that an applicant has applied for asylum or received a credible fear interview. See 8 C.F.R. 208.6, 1208.6. The Department of Homeland Security has speci?cally acknowledged the importance of confidentiality regulations because they ?safeguard information that, if disclosed publicly, could subject the claimant to retaliatory measures by government authorities or non~state actors in the event that the claimant is repatriated, or endanger the security of the claimant?s family members who may still be residing in the country of origin.? Anim v. Mulcasey, 535 F.3d 243, 253 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting US. Citizenship Immig. Serv. Asylum Div., U.S. Dep?t of Homeland Sec. (2005)). in fact, the disclosure of an asylum applicant?s identity creates such a severe risk of persecution in his or her country of origin that a breach of confidentiality can itself serve as grounds for asylum. See, ag. id. at 256 (remanding asylum case to BIA so that petitioner could present new asylum claim based upon US. government?s breach of the seeker?s confidentiality). Plaintiffs also should be allowed to proceed anonymously because of extreme hostility in certain parts of the United States to asylum seekers and their children. See, ag, Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1981) (according plaintiffs? anonymity 408438613 Case Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 9 of 13 because of threats made against plaintiffs and community hostility). Media coverage of the ?ow of central American asylum seekers has gone so far as to characterize individuals like Plaintiffs as enemy combatants. Kristinn Taylor, INVASION: Army of Illegal Migrants Is Marching Its Way Through Mexico to US. Border, Gateway Pundit (Mar. 30, 201 8), 1 8/ 03/ invasion-mexico~allowing~ (describing a ?horde? of ?invading migrants? who are ?organized into groups and subgroups like an army?). Plaintiffs and their children are also at risk of being targeted by Americans angry about immigration. For example, on April 2018, a federal jury found three men had conspired to bomb an apartment complex to target Somali refugees and immigrants. Madison Park, 3 Men Convicted in Plot to Attack Somali Immigrants with Weapon of Mass Destruction, CNN (Apr. 19, 2018), conviction/index.html. Without protective anonymity from this Court, Plaintiffs and their minor children will be vulnerable to potential attacks and harassment on the basis of their immigration claims in the United States and their involvement in this case. Recognizing the powerful interest in maintaining the con?dentiality of asylum seekers? identities, numerous courts have allowed them to proceed with pseudonyms or initials. See, eg, ELL-R v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164, 172 (D.D.C. 2015); NLA. v. Holder, 744 F.3d 425, 428 n.1 (7th Cir. 2014); Doe v. Holder, 736 F.3d 871, 872 n.1 (9th Cir. 2013). In essence, Plaintiffs should also be allowed to proceed pseudonymously because they reasonably fear that disclosure of their identities will lead to retaliation or harassment from violent actors here or in their home countries. The threat to Plaintiffs, 408438613 Case Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 10 of 13 their minor children, and their relatives if Plaintiffs? identities are disclosed strongly counsels in favor of allowing them to proceed anonymously in this litigation. See Doe v. US. Dep ofStare, No. 1:15~cv~0197l, 2015 WL 9647660, at *3 (D.D.C. Nov. 3, 2015) (granting request to proceed under pseudonym where plaintiff faced credible fear of violence in country of origin); Int?l Refugee Assistance Project 12. Trump, No. TDC-17- 0361, 2017 WL 818255, at *2 (?Potential retaliatory physical or mental harm against individuals in another country can form the basis for permitting plaintiffs to use pseudonyms?). II. Any Interest in Disclosure of Plaintiffs? Identities Is Minimal In contrast to Plaintiffs? strong interest in con?dentiality, the countervailing interests in disclosure of their identities are minimal or nonexistent. First, the public?s interest, if any, in knowing the identities of Plaintiffs is negligible. To be sure, the issues that Plaintiffs raise in this lawsuit are important ones and may well be a matter of concern to the general public. However, that is not true of the identities of Plaintiffs: ?[P]arty anonymity does not obstruct the public?s view of the issues joined or the court?s performance in resolving them.? Does 1 thru 12. Advanced Textile Corp, 214 F.3d 1058, 1068?69 (quoting Stegall, 653 F.2d at 185). To the contrary, the public interest strongly supports allowing Plaintiffs to proceed pseudonymously, as the public has a strong interest in seeing the controversial and important issues raised by this case resolved on the merits. Absent the ?protection of anonymity,? Plaintiffs likely will decline to participate in the lawsuit, allowing the public?s interest in testing the Defendants? actions to ?remain unexplored.? Lozano v. City of Hazlez?orz, 496 F. Supp. 2d 477, 512 (MD. Penn. 2007). Requiring disclosure of 10 408438613 Case Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 11 of 13 Plaintiffs? names in this case would not only discourage them from bringing this action, it would allow Defendants to continue to engage in unlawful behavior without any repercussion. Accordingly, both Plaintiffs and the public at large have aligned interests in the maintenance of Plaintiffs? anonymity in this litigation. Nor would granting Plaintiffs? motion create any risk of unfairness or prejudice to Defendants. As stated above, Plaintiffs do not seek to withhold their identities from Defendants, and there is no reason to believe a fact-?finder would be in?uenced by the fact that Plaintiffs are proceeding anonymously. See, e. g, James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 240?42 (4th Cir. 1993) (rejecting the notion that plaintiffs? anonymity would limit the ability of defendant to impeach the credibility of plaintiffs or that it would create the assumption of liability in the defendant); see also Doe No. I v. Williams, 167 F. Supp. 2d 45, 46 n.1 (D.D.C. 2001) (granting plaintiffs leave to proceed by pseudonym on condition that they disclose identity to defendants), rev on other grounds, 2003 21466903 (DC. Cir. June 19, 2003). Moreover, courts ?are more likely to permit plaintiffs to proceed under a pseudonym when they are pursuing a claim against the government rather than a private individual? because ?although the mere ?ling of a lawsuit against a private party may cause the defendant reputational and economic harm, such that fairness requires the identi?cation of the plaintiffs, the government is not vulnerable to similar reputational harrn, particularly in a case involving a challenge to the constitutional, statutory, or regulatory validity of government activity.? Int?l Refugee Assistance Project, 2017 WL 818255 at *3 (collecting cases); see also J. W., 318 F.R.D. at 201 litigation is more acceptable when the defendant is a governmental body because 1 1 408438613 Case Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 12 of 13 government defendants do not share the concerns about reputation that private individuals have . . (internal citation omitted)). All of the defendants in this case are sued in their of?cial capacity as officers of the federal government. In short, Defendants face no unfair prejudice if Plaintiffs are allowed to proceed under pseudonyms, particularly at this early stage of the litigation. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs and their minor children would be at risk of great harm if their identities were revealed. Permitting them to proceed anonymously would neither materially harm the public?s interest in open court proceedings nor risk unfair prejudice to Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court permit them to proceed under pseudonyms in this litigation and to file under seal an exhibit in support of this motion and an tin-redacted copy of the complaint. Plaintiffs also respectfully request that Defendants be prohibited from publicly disclosing Plaintiffs? identities or any personal identifying information that could lead to identification of Plaintiffs by non?parties. 12 408438613 Case Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 13 of 13 Dated: August 17, 2018 By Sirine Shebava Sirine Shebaya (D.C. Bar No. 1019748) Johnathan Smith (D.C. Bar No. 1029373) Joseph (Yusuf) Saei??O MUSLIM ADVOCATES PO. Box 34440 Washington, DC. 20043 (202) 897-2622 (202) 508-1007 (facsimile) iohnathanchmuslimadvocates.org sirine@muslimadvocates.org yusuf@muslimadvocates.org *application for pro hac vice admission forthcoming 0admitted in California; supervised by members of the DC bar Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg* simon@iustice4all.org Sophia Gregg* sonhia@iustice4all.org LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER 6066 Leesburg Pike, Suite 520 Falls Church, VA 22041 (703) 778?3450 (703) 778?3454 (facsimile) *applicaiion for pro hac vice admission forthcoming 13 408438613 Respectfully Submitted, wessw Wilson G. B?a?iey??r (D.C. Bar No. 987107) Carol T. McClarnon* (D.C. Bar No. 452107) Samir A. Aguirre (D.C. Bar No. 999585) EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 700 Sixth Street NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 383-0100 (202) 637-3593 (facsimile) *admission application forthcoming John H. Fleming* (Georgia Bar No. 263250) Margaret L. Flatt* (Georgia Bar No. 201864) EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 999 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2300 Atlanta, GA 30309 (404) 853-8000 (404) 853-8806 (facsimile) *application for pro hac vice admission forthcoming Kara Ford* (New York Bar No. 5357967) EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP The Grace Building, 40th Floor 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 (212) 389-5000 (212) 389?5099 (facsimile) *applicaiion for pro hac vice admission forthcoming Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 1 of 5 EXHIBIT Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 2 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DORA, et a1. CASE NO. Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, et a1., Defendants. DECLARATION OF CAROL T. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, Carol T. McClarnon, hereby declare and state as follows: 1. I am over the age of eighteen years, and I make this declaration based on my own personal knowledge. 2. I am an attorney with Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP and, together with counsel listed in the complaint; I represent Plaintiffs in this lawsuit. 3. In the course of preparing this lawsuit, 1 have reviewed the following documents for each of the Plaintiffs seeking to proceed pseudonymouslyherein: a. Form l??87O Record of Determination Credible Fear Worksheet, together with attached notes, if any; b. Request for Reccnsideration of Negative Credible Fear Interview, together with attached exhibits; and/or c. Plaintiff?s declaration filed with his or her Request for Reconsideration. 408435624 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 3 of 5 4. My review of these documents indicates that: a. Plaintiffs and their minor children are asylum applicants from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, seeking asylum in the United States on the basis of past persecution in their country of origin and a fear of future persecution and possible death should they be ordered to return; b. Plaintiffs reasonably fear for their own safety and well-being?as well as the safety and well-being of their family members, both here and abroad?if details about their identities, efforts to seek asylum, and participation in this lawsuit become public; and 0. Identi?cation of Plaintiffs would pose a real risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm, including death, to the Plaintiffs, their minor children or innocent non-parties to this litigation, from violent actors in E1 Salvador,1 Guatemala,2 or 1 In El Salvador, gang violence poses a real risk of harm to the Salvadoran Plaintiffs. ?The gangs control entire communities, leveraging so much power that even police are afraid to enter some areas.? Sarah Kinosian, Angelika Albaladejo Lisa Haugaard, El Salvador ?5 Violence: No Easy Way Out, Latin America Working Group (Aug. 2016), see also UN. High Comm?r for Refugees UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum?Seekers from El Salvador, 12?1 3 (Mar. 2016), (?Persons who resist the authority of the local gang or who even just inadvertently cross it, or who collaborate with the security forces or with rival gangs, are reportedly subjected to swift and brutal retaliation from the gang. Not only are such persons killed by the gangs but their family members are often targeted as well. Moreover, especially in the current context of heightened confrontation, the gangs reportedly sometimes impose collective threats and punishments on whole communities or parts of them where they believe that the community bears some share of responsibility for the perceived infraction or disloyalty?) 2 The Guatemalan Plaintiffs also have a reasonable fear of harm, prosecution, and possible death. ?Violent crime and homicides continue to plague Guatemala. In 2017, the PNC reported approximately 4,400 homicides, 5,200 aggravated assaults, and over 2,900 missing persons.? OSAC, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, US. Dep?t of State, Guatemala 2018 Crime and Safety Report (May 9, 2018), see also UNHCR, Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of asylum- seekers from Guatemala, 39?40 (Jan. 2018), (?Gangs in Guatemala reportedly perceive a wide range of acts by residents of the area under the 408435624 2 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 4 of 5 Honduras,3 as applicable. d. Many of the Plaintiffs described receiving death threats against themselves or their families and witnessing extreme violent acts, including murder. Several Plaintiffs explained that they were ?eeing their countries of origin after gangs threatened to kill the Plaintiff and everyone in his or her family. Many also reported having been stalked or followed. One Plaintiff told about her experience of being ?sold? to a gang leader gang?s control as demonstrating ?resistance? to their authority. Acts commonly construed as challenging a gang?s authority reportedly include but are not limited to: criticizing the gang; refusing a request by a gang member; arguing with or looking mistrustfully at a gang member; refusing to participate in gang activities or to join the gang; rejecting the sexual attention of a gang member; having (perceived) links with a rival gang or a zone controlled by a rival gang; participating in community policing groups; refusing to pay extortion demands; wearing certain clothing, tattoos or other symbols; and passing on information about the gang to rivals, authorities or outsiders. . . . Most perceived contraventions of gang imposed rules are reportedly dealt with severely by the gangs of Guatemala: individuals whom the gang members suspect of resisting their authority are reported often to be killed without prior warning, although sometimes the killing is reportedly preceded by threats and/or other attacks against the person concerned?). 3 The Honduran Plaintiffs also have a reasonable fear of harm, persecution, and possible death. ?Homicide rates in NTCA were nearly seven times the global average in 2017, despite reductions in recent years. Aside from assassinations, extrajudicial killings and femicide, the region is also haunted by disappearances, rape, kidnappings, threats, the forced recruitment of children, intimidation and extortion. There tend to be few of?cial investigations into crimes and even fewer convictions, even for homicides, creating an environment of ?agrant impunity.? Norwegian Refugee Council Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, 2018 Global Report on Internal Displacement - Spotlight: Northern Triangle of Central America (May 16, 2018), see also UNHCR, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Honduras, 18 (July, 27 2016), (?Gangs are reported to exercise extraordinary levels of social control over the population in their territories (and, to a lesser extent, over other territories where they may also practise extortion). In these zones, inhabitants reportedly must stay ?silent? about the gang and its activities and often face a plethora of gang - imposed restrictions on whom they can talk to and what about, what time they must be inside their homes, where they can walk or go to school, whom they can visit and who can visit them, what they can wear, and even, reportedly, the colour of their hair. Many gangs are reported to forbid inhabitants to show ?disrespect? for the gang, a subjective evaluation on the part of gang members that, especially in the case of the more violent gangs, can reportedly encompass a multitude of perceived slights and offences such as arguing with a gang member or refusing a request, resisting a child?s recruitment into gang activities, or rejecting the amorous attentions of a gang member?). 408435624 3 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 5 of 5 and repeatedly raped because she was a member of a particular social group. Either expressly or implicitly, all have indicated their beliefs that the police either will not or cannot do anything to protect them. 5. The record in this case will reveal sensitive, private, and personal details concerning Plaintiffs? asylum applications. 6. Plaintiffs are not seeking to withhold Plaintiffs? identities from Defendants and are seeking leave to ?le a copy of the complaint with Plaintiffs? full names together with a chart matching Plaintiffs? proposed pseudonyms with their actual names. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge rmation, and belief. Executed on August 17, 2018. 408435614 4 Case 1:18-cv-01938-PLF Document 1-2 Filed 08/17/18 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DORA, et al. CASE NO. ____________ Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, et al., Defendants. [PROPOSED] ORDER UPON CONSIDERATION of Plaintiffs’ Motion To Proceed Under Pseudonyms and To File Supporting Exhibits Under Seal, along with all exhibits thereto, and for good cause shown, it is, this _____ day of ________ 2018; ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion To Proceed Under Pseudonyms and To File Supporting Exhibits Under Seal is hereby GRANTED; and ORDERED, that Plaintiffs may proceed in this suit under their proposed pseudonyms; and ORDERED, that Plaintiffs may file under seal the pseudonym chart of their true names, matched with the pseudonyms they seek to use in this suit; and ORDERED, that Plaintiffs may file under seal a copy of the complaint that contains Plaintiffs’ full and actual names; and further Case 1:18-cv-01938-PLF Document 1-2 Filed 08/17/18 Page 2 of 2 ORDERED, that Defendants are prohibited from publicly disclosing Plaintiffs’ identities or any personal identifying information that could lead to the identification of Plaintiffs by non-parties. SO ORDERED. ______________________________ United States District Judge 2