Case Document 308 Filed 11/07/18 Pagel .474? Panel of 12 NOV 172013 CLERK. US. DIETRICT COURT SOUTHERN [313. CALIFORNIIK AVISO DE ACUERDO PROPUESTO BY FORMULARIO DE ELECCION DEL ?me my 0 5 2m Si estuvo separado de su(s) padre(s) hijo(s) en la frontera, sus derechos pueden verse afectados por un acuerdo de demanda colectiva propuesto. Se ha llegado a un acuerdo propuesto en las demandas colectivas en relaci?n con el mecanismo por el cual ciertos padres hijOs separados pueden solicitar asilo otra protecci?n en los Estados Unidos. Los juicios son de v. Sessions, Case No. 3: 18-cv-1v8-32-DMS (S.D. Ca1.), M.M.M v. Sessions, Case No. 1: (D.D.C.), Ms. L. v. ICE, Caso N0. 3: (SD Cal.), Dora v. Sessions, Caso No. 18-cv-1938 (D.D.C.). 5De qu? se tratan estas demandas? Estas demandas fueron presentadas en nombre de padres hijos que fueron separados despu?s de ser detenidos por el_ gobierno de los Estados Unidos en 0 cerca de la frontera. Los demandantes alegan que el gobierno de los Estados Unidos no les dio a estos padres hijos la oportunidad adecuada de buscar asilo otra protecci?n contra la expulsion en los Estados Unidos. E1 juez que supervisa las demandas detuvo temporalmente e1 traslado de las familias que se reunieron despu?s de haber sido separados en la ??ontera. Los demandantes el gobierno de los Estados Unidos. posteriormente acordaron un acuerdo, que otorgara a los padres hijos e1 acceso a los procedjmientos para solicitar asilo otra protecci?n contra 1a expulsion en los Estados Unidos. gQuie?n esta incluido? Un padre puede ser un miembro de la Clase del Acuerdo de Padres si ?l 0 ella: 0 Es un padre extranjero adulto que entr? a los Estados Unidos en entre los puertos de entrada designados con su(s) hij 0 ?le detenido bajo custodia de inmigracion por el Departamento de Segliridad Nacional (DHS), Tiene un hijo que estuvo esta separado de 61 ella que se encontraba bajo 1a custodia del DHS, 1a custodia de la O?cina de Reasentamiento de Re?lgiados (ORR, por sus siglas en ingl?s), cuidado de crianza temporal de ORR a partir del 26 de Junio de 2018. 0 Se 1e orden? reuni?carse de conformidad con la Orden de la Corte en la Sra. L. V. Estados Unidos de Inmigracion Control de Aduanas, No. 18-428 (S.D. Cal. 26 de Junio de 2018); 0 Ha estado presente ?sicamente continuamente en los Estados Unidos desde el 26 de Junjo de 2018. El acuerdo tambi?n re?eja e] acuerdo de las partes con respecto a los individuos que se ajustan a la descripci?n de la clase de padres segl?m se de?ne anteriormente, pero que se eliminaron de los Case Document 308 Filed 11/07/18 PageID.4741 Page20f 12 Estados Unidos, asi como los derechos de los miembros de la clase de ni?os (de?nidos a continuaci?n) cuyos padres han sido remoto. Un; nil?io-pqedeiser 1m miembro de la Clase del Acuerdo Infantil si: 0 Es un ni?o extranjero menor de 18 a?os de edad a partir de la fecha de vigencia del acuerdo, que - ingres? a los Estados Unidos en 0 entre los puertos de entrada designados con un padre extranjero, Fue separado de su(s) padre(s), - 0 Ha sido sera reuni?cado con su(s) padre(s) bajo la orden preliminar emitida en la Sra. v. US. Inmigraci?n Control de Aduanas, No. 18?428 (S.D. Cal. 26 de Junio de 2018), 0 Ha estado presente ?sicarnente continuarnente en los Estados Unidos desde el 26 de Junio de 2018. 5Qu? alivio proporciona el acuerdo? Entre otras cosas, el Aouerdo de Resolucion requiere que, para los padres que inicialmente recibieron un hallazgo de miedo creible negativo tienen una orden ?nal-dc remoci?n acelerada, el gobierno de los Estados Unidos realizara una revision de buena fe de los hallazgos de temor oreibles anteriores de los padre,1 que incluye reunirse con un o?cial de asilo para presentar informacion adicional. Para los hijos de dichos padres a quienes se les emitio un Aviso de compareoencia (NTA) 0 se encuentran en proceso de deportaci?n, 1a NTA se cancelara?. 0 e1 gobierno se movera para descartar los procedimientos de expulsion, el ni?o sera oolocado en una deportaci?n acelerada junto con el padre. E1 nii?io tambi?n sera referido para una entrevista de temor creible si e1 ni?o expresa temor de regresar. Si se desoubre que el padre tiene un temor creible, a ambos padres hijos se les otorgara una NTA para que comparezoa ante un juez de inmigracion, donde podran presentar .una solicitud de asilo otras demandas de protecci?n ante e1 tribunal de inmigraci?n. Si los padres no reciben un hallazgo de miedo creible positive en la revision, entonces el gobierno de los Estados Unidos los proporcionara a sus hijos su propia entrevista de miedo creible. Silos ni?os reciben un hallazgo de temor creible positivo, ellos sus padres recibiran una NTA para que comparezcan ante un juez de inmigracion, donde podran presentar una solicitud de asilo otras demandas de protecoion ante el tribunal de inmigraoi?n. Se aplican procedirnientos adicionales 0 de otro tipo cuando los padres los ni?os han sido liberados de la detenoion, cuando los padres estan sujetos a ordenes de expulsion reintegradas de?nitivas, cuando los padres ya han sido retirados. El 'Aouerdo de Conciliacion no proporciona ningi?m page monetario a los miembros de la clase. Los padres los ni?os que entran en estas categorias deben leer e1 Acuerdo de Resoluci?n ?nal y/ consultar con un abogado para comprender qu? derechos pueden tener en virtud del Acuerdo. Si se aprueba e1 Acuerdo de conciliacion, se prohibira a los miembros de la olase que busquen cualquier otra medida cautelar, declaratoria equitativa relacionada con la inmigraci?n 0 e1 asilo relacionada con las alegaciones formuladas e11 estas demandas. Todos los t?rminos del Acuerdo propuesto estan sujetos a la aprobacion del Tribunal en una "Audienoia de Aprobaci?n Final" que se explioa a continuaci?n. Se adjunta una copia del Acuerdo de conciliaci?n a este aViso. 1 ?Miedo crefble? se re?ere a1 prooeso mediante el cual los individuos sujetos a una remocion acelerada pueden buscar asilo en los Estados Unidos, en el oual un ?mcionario de asilo del gobierno de los EE. UU. puede establecer 1m temor oreible de torture si son devueltos a su pals de origen. Si e1 extranjero reoibe una determinaoion de temor creible positiva, 61 ella puede presentar una solicitud de asilo ante e1 tribunal de inmigracion. Case Document 308 Filed 11/07/18 PageID.4742 Page30f 12 Usted tiene el derecho de objetar el acuerdo. Aunque puede renunciar a sus derechos de buscar alivio en Virtud de este Acuerdo de Conciliacion, no puede excluirse del acuerdo. Sin embargo, puede solicitar a1 Tribunal que rechace la aprobacion presentando una objecion. Si la Corte niega la aprobaci?n, las demandas continuar?n. Si eso es lo que quieres que suceda, debes objetar. Usted puede objetar el acuerdo propuesto por escrito. Tambi?n puede presentarse en la Audiencia de aprobacion de?nitiva, ya sea en persona por medio de su propio abogado. Todas las objeciones escritas documentos de apoyo deben identi?car claramente los siguientes nombres n?rneros de casos: v. Sessions, Caso No. 3: (S.D. Cal.) Ms. L. v. ICE, Caso No. 3: (S.D. Cal.), enviarse a1 Tribunal enviandolos por correo al Secretario de Accion de Clase, Tribunal de Distrito de los Estados Unidos para el Distrito Sur de California, Palacio de Justicia de San West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, 0 presentandolos personalmente en cualquier lugar del Tribunal de Distrito de los Estados Unidos para el Distrito Sur de California, debe presentarse enviarse por correo postal e12 de Noviembre de 2018 antes. gCuando dongle decidira el Tribunal Si apiruebia' e1 acuerdo? La audiencia de aprobaci?n ?nal se llevara a cabo e1 15 de Noviernbre de 2018, a la 10:30 am. (PT) en la sala 13A, piso 13, suite 1310, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, para detenninar la irnparcialidad, razonabilidad adecuaci?n de la propuesta Asentarniento. La feoha puede cambiar sin previo aviso a la clase. gD?nde puedo obtener mas informaci?n? Este aviso resume e1 acuerdo propuesto. Para conocer los t?rminos condiciones exactos del acuerdo, consulte el Acuerdo de Aouerdo adjunto, contactando a1 abogado de la clase que se identi?ca a continuacion, accediendo a1 expediente del Tribunal en este case a trav?s del sistema de Acceso Publico a los Registros Electronicos del Tribunal (PACER) en l/ ecf.casd.uscourts.gov, Visitando la o?cina del Secretario de la Corte del Tribunal de Distrito de los Estados Unidos para el Distrito Sur de California, San Diego, entre las 8:30 am las 4:30 pm, de Lunes a Viernes, excluyendo dias festivos. POR FAVOR, NO A LA OFICINA DEL TRIBUNAL 0 AL TRIBUNAL DE CORREO PARA CONSULTAR SOBRE ESTE ACUERDO . Case Document 308 Filed 11/07/18 PagelD.4743 Page4of 12 5Qui?n representa alas Clases? Grapo de Abogados Propaestas para la Clase de Padres (Padres an [as Estados Unidos): Wilson G. Barmeyer Carol T. McClarnon John H. Fleming EVERSI-IEDS SUTI-IERLAND (US) LLP 700*Sixth Street NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20001 Tel?fono: (202) 220-8628 Fax: (202) 637-3593 Shine Shebaya Johnathan Smith MUSLIM ADVOCATES Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg Sophia Gregg LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER Grupo de Abagados Propaestas para la Clase Infantil: Justin W. Bernick Zachary W. Best T. Clark Weymouth HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street? NW WaShing?ton, DC 20004 Te'l?fono: (883) 365-1112 Fax: (202) 637-5910 Cansejo Propuesto para Padres Retirados: familxseparation@aclu.org Lee Gelernt Judy Rabinovitz Anand Balalm'shnan Stephen Kang Spencer Amdur AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad St. .18th Floor. . . New York, NY 10004 Tel?fono: (212) 549-2660 - - Fax: (212) 549-2654 Case Document 308 Filed 11/07/18 PageID.4744 Page50f 12 Usted tiene el derecho de renunciar a la exenci?n e11 virtud del acuerdo. Los padres hijos que deseen renunciar a sus derechos en Virtud de este Acuerdo de Conciliaci?n ser trasladados sin demora a su pais de origen, tienen derecho a hacerlo mediante la ejecuci?n del siguiente formulario. Cualquier decisi?n de regresar a su pais de origen debe tomarse a?rmativamente, a sabiendas voluntariamente. El hecho de no devolver este formulario no se interpretara 001110 una renuncia a sus derechos en virtud del Acuerdo de Conciliaci?n. Instrucciones: Este formulario debe ser leido a1 miembro de la clase en 1111 idioma que ?l/ella entienda. El miembro de la clase debe indicar qu? opci?n esta eligiendo a1 ?rmar el cuadro correspondiente a continuaci?n. Si e1 miembro de la clase es un ni?o carece de capacidad 0 es menor de 14 afios, este formulario debe ser ?rmado por el padre 0 representante legal del ni?o. Se deben completar formularios separados para cada miembro de la familia. Los formularios completados deben enviarse par correo 0 par correo 111 abogado para la clase propuesta apropiada que se establece a continuacidn. - Solicito permanecer en los Esfatlos )Uilidos' para buscar alivio de remoci?n. .?Entiendo-que demanda colectiva no garantiza que recibir? alivio de la elimina i?n. .- Nombre (en letra de molde): Ufa/53L 65M 1113 .2: {*1/13 ?iv/i 1 110114.51?; I - I I - Estoy solicitando de manera afirmativa, deliberada voluntaria mi traslado a 111i pais de origen lo antes posible. Entiendo' que estoy renunciando a cualquier derecho a permanecer en Ios Estados Unidos para seguir los procedimientos establecidos en el acuerdo, incluido cualquier derecho a solicitar asilo otra protecci?n contra la expulsion. Nombre? {en letra de molde): Firma: Tu informaci?n: Nombrec 1 M93 1/1 Cu: Zara/T? (31 gem/mall Fecha de Nacimiento: ~73 -- 9s? 2 2/5) 723? 53,5? - Pais de Ciudadania: Qua 1&1 11171443, Centre de detenci?n (si es aplicable): - - D0m101110- 4/3? 337 - f3! f: A) Numero de tel?fono: 5 ,3 5? 9 Nombre(s) del padre(s) hijo(s): Padre(s) hij0(s) A Domicilio del padre(s) hijo(s): Tel?fono dc padre(s) hijo(s): Certi?caci?n de Abogado: Yo represento (Hombre) en su proceso migratorio. Le he inforrnado a ?l ella (y 511 padre madre representante legal) de sus derechos en virtud del acuerdo dc demanda colectiva propuesto en (idioma). Firma de abogado: Nombre de Abogado: Fecha: N?mero de tel?fono del abogado: Domicilio del abogado: Case Document 308 Filed 11/07/18 PageID.4745 Page60f 12 Case Document 308 Filed 11/07/18 PageID.4746 Page7of 12 Settlement Agreement Plan to address the asylum claims of class-member parents and children who are physically present in the United States The government is willing to agree to the following procedures for addressing the asylum claims of agreed class members and the claims of Mr. I. class members (and Dam plaintiffs), other than those class members who agree to waive these procedures (and thus to waive any further claims or relief).1 (In this document, references to Ms. class members encompass Dom plaintiffs.) Class counsel are responsible for determining a class member?s intentions related to waiver of the procedures set forth below. Upon approval of this agreed-upon plan by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, agreed class members agree to dismiss their pending litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and to re?'ain from seeking preliminary injunctive relief in their litigation pending in the US. District Court for the Southern District of California; Doro plaintiffs agree to dismiss their pending litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; and agreed class members and Ms. class members agree to refrain ??om additional litigation seeking immigration? or asylum-related injunctive, declaratory, or equitable relief that arises from the facts and circumstances set forth in the Mr. L, and Dora complaints relating to those parents and The classes of individuals to whom this plan relates include: Ms. Class Members and Dom Plaintiffs: All adult alien parents who entered the United States at or between designated ports of entry with their child(ren), and who, on or before the effective date of this agreement: (1) were detained in immigration custody by the (2) have a child who was or is separated ?'om them by DHS and, on or after June 26, 2018, was housed in OR custody, ORR foster care, or DHS custody, absent a determination that the parent is un?t or presents a danger to the child; and (3) have been (and whose child(ren) have been) continuously physically present within the United States since June 26, 2018, whether in detention or released. The class does not include alien parents with criminal histories or a communicable disease, or those encountered in the interior of the United States. ed Class Members: All alien children who are under the age of 18 on the effective date of this agreement who: (I) entered the United States at or between designated ports of entry with an alien parent, and who were separated ?om their parents, on or before the effective date of this settlement agreement; (2) have been or will be reuni?ed with that parent pursuant to the preliminary injunction issued by the Court in Mr. US. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, No. 18-428 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018); and (3) have been continuously physically present in the United States since June 26, 2018. All references to a ?class? or ?class member? in this document refer to the classes described above, as well as alien parents who are not part of the Ms. class due to criminal history or communicable disease, but who the Court has ordered must be reum?' ed. children covered by this plan, including statutory claims. This plan applies only to Ms. class members and agreed class members who have been continuously physically present in the United States since June 26, 2018, and does not set any precedent for any additional group of aliens, and any exercise of legal authority or discretion taken pursuant to this plan is exercised only to effectuate the implementation of this plan in relation to this group of individuals. The Court?s approval of this agreement will resolve the pending preliminary-injunction motion in and will also lift the TRO issued in that matter. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this plan, which represents the substantive terms for the implementation of a settlement agreement and supersedes the prior written or oral communications between the parties regarding this plan. Ms. class members and agreed class members who are not cmrently detained in DHS custody (and are not currently in HHS custody) and who have been issued Notices to Appear (NT As) will not be removed by DHS prior to issuance of a ?nal removal order in their resulting removal proceedings conducted under Section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). If a Ms. class member or agreed class member was released from DHS or ORR custody, is not currently in Section 240 removal proceedings, and is not subject to a ?nal removal order, that individual can a?irmatively apply for asylum before US. Citizenship and Immigration Services (U SCIS), USCIS will adjudicate such an application regardless of whether an un?led NTA exists, and USCIS will follow its established procedures concerning a parent?s involvement in his or her minor child?s asylum application process. If an agreed class member (whether currently detained or released) received a ?nal removal order in Section 240 removal proceedings prior to rami?cation, DHS and HHS will work in good faith with counsel to identify such children within 15 days of approval of this agreement, and DHS will join in a motion to reopen those proceedings if requested by the agreed class member ?no later than 45 days from approval of this agreement. agreed class members who have not been rermi?ed with their parent(s) as of the e?'cctive date of this agreement will be a??orded existing procedures for unaccompanied alien children pursuant to governing statutes and regulations, including but not limited to Section 240 removal proceedings, unless and until they are reuni?ed with a parent, in which case the procedures described below will apply. If a detained, reunited agreed class member child has been served with an NTA, but the NTA has not been ?led with an immigration court, DHS will exercise its discretion under 8 C.F.R. 239.2(a) to cancel the NTA within 15 days of the Court's approval of this agreement. For such a child who either had an NTA cancelled in this way, or who has never been served with an NTA, if the child is an arriving alien or was initially encountered by DHS within 14 days of entry and 100 miles of the border, ICE will then initiate expedited removal (ER) proceedings under Section 235 of the INA against the child Where such a class member child asserts, or has already asserted, an intention to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution or torture, either directly or through counsel, they shall be referred to USCIS for a credible fear determination Case Document 308 Filed 11/07/18 PageID.4747 Page80f 12 If a detained, reunited agreed class member child has been issued an NTA that has been ?led with an immigration court and the child is an arriving alien or was initially encountered by DHS within 14 days of entry and 100 miles of the border, DHS will ?le a motion to dismiss the pending Section 240 proceeding, seeking to do so jointly with the child?s immigration attorney .of record, as practicable; Such a motion shall be ?led within 30 days of the Court?s approval of this agreement and shall request expedited consideration by the immigration court. Upon dismissal of the Section 240 proceeding, ICE will initiate expedited removal proceedings under Section 235 of the INA against the child Where such a-class member child asserts, or has already asserted, an intention to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution or torture, either directly or through counsel, they shall be referred to USCIS for a credible fear determination For Mr. class members Who have not been issued an NIA and have ?nal ER orders that have not been cancelled by DHS, USCIS will exercise its discretionary authority to sua sponte conduct in good faith a de novo review ofthe credible fear ?nding of the parent to determine if reconsideration of the negative determination is warranted. During that review process for Ms. class members, USCIS will review the parent?s case and the information provided and determine whether the individual has a credible fear of persecution or torture. For the limited purpose of this settlement agreement, USCIS will speak with the individual again for additional fact-gathering and the individual may present new or additional information at this time, with the assistance of the individualis counsel in-person unlessICE determines in good faith that in?person participation would adversely impact facility security or operations due to facility staffing, con?guration, or accesspolicies, in-which case counsel will be permitted to participate telephonically, provided that counsel?s attendance is at no eXpense to the government and does not unreasonably delay the process. In determining whether any factual inconsistencies between the original interview and the subsequent fact-gathering impact the credibility of the parent, due consideration will be given to the state of the parent at the time of the initial interview. Ifthe parent establishes that he or she can meet the credible fear standard, as it is described at of the INA and 8 C.F.R and (3), then DHS will issue and subsequently ?le an NTA. The children will be treated as the parent?s dependents under 8 C.F.R. 208.30Cb). If the parent?s credible fear determination remains negative, USCIS will screen the child individually for credible fear. The parent Will be permitted to participate in the credible fear interview and provide testimony on behalf of the child(ren), in addition to any testimony ??om the child(ren). Counsel for the child will be permitted to attend the interview in person unless ICE determines in good faith that-in-person participation would adversely impact facility security or operations due to facility staf?ng, con?guration, or access policies, in which case counsel will be permitted to participate telephonically, so long as it does not unreasonably delay the process and any attorney assistance is at no expense to the government. e. For Mr. class members who are currently detained2 with their agreed class member child(ren) at an ICE EKG and are subject to reinstated orders of removal, ICE will initiate ER proceedings under Section 235 against the minor child(ren), upon a determination that the child was initially encountered within 14 days of entry and 100 miles of the border. During those proceedings, the child(ren) will be referred for a credible fear determination if the child(ren) asserts, or has already asserted, a fear of return, either directly or through counsel. The credible fear claim will then be considered under the standards of 8 C.F.R ?208.30, as described above. USCIS will conduct the credible fear interview of the child(ren) in coordination with a sua sponte review of the reasonable fear determination for the parents to determine Whether reconsideration of the negative reasonable fear determination is warranted. USCIS will review the parent?s case and the information provided and determine whether the individual has a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. For the limited pin-pose of this settlement agreement, USCIS will speak with the individual again for additional fact-gathering and the individual may present new or additional information at this time, with the assistance of the individual?s counsel in?person unless ICE determines in good faith that in-person participation is impracticable or would adversely impact facility security or operations due to facility staffing, con?guration, or access policies, in which case counsel will be permitted to participate telephonically, provided that counsel?s attendance is at no expense to the government and does not unreasonably delay the process. In'determining whether any factual inconsistencies between the original interview and the subsequent fact- gathering impact the credibility of the parent, due consideration will be given to the state of the parent at the time of the initial interview. If the parent establishes that he or she can meet the reasonable fear standard, as it is described at 8 C.F.R. then DHS will place the parent in withholding-only proceedings. The parent will be permitted to participate in the credible fear interview and provide testimony on behalf of the child(ren), in addition to any testimony from the child(ren). Counsel for the child will be permitted to attend the interview in person unless ICE determines in good faith that in-person participation is impracticable or would adversely impact facility security or operations due to facility staf?ng, con?guration, or access, in which case counsel will be permitted to participate telephonically, so long 'as 'it does not unreasonably delay the process and any attorney assistance is at no-expense to the government. If the parent?s credible fear or reasonable fear ?nding remains negative upon review, USCIS will notify the parent in writing that USCIS declines to reconsider the existing negative credible fear or reasonable fear determination. If the child receives a separate negative credible fear determination, the child may seek review by an immigration judge. 2 This agreement does not impact the ability of m. class members with reinstated orders of removal who are not detained to pursue any available appeal of such an order under existing law and subject to statutory time periods. Case Document 308 Filed 11/07/18 PageID.4748 Page9of 12 :35" For purposes of the reviews and interviews of detained parents andfor children described in this proposal, the government shall provide the parent andfor child with the orientation that is normally provided for credible fear interviews, and shall provide at least 5 days? notice of such orientation. Notice of the orientation shall be provided no later than 3 days following the parent andlor child?s execution of a document re?ecting his or her decision pursuant to paragraph 8 of this agreement, and the notice shall state the purpose of the notice (orientation for an interview or review) and the date, time, and location of the orientation. Such reviews and interviews will be conducted at least 48 hours after the orientation, with due consideration given to any reasonable requests to-continue the interview. The notice and time periods described in this paragraph will not apply if a parent af?rmatively requests, in writing, that the review or interview take place on an expedited basis. In the case of a parent and child(ren) both in ER proceedings under the process described above, if either the parent or the child establishes a credible fear of persecution or torture, USCIS will issue NTAs to both. parent and child and place the family in Section 240 removal proceedings. =See 208.306) (positive credible fear ?nding made by USCIS), (positive credible fear ?nding madeby immigration judge). .. - In the casejiof a parent and child(rcn) both in ER-proceedings under the process described above, if none of the family members establish crediblefear of persecution or torture (and in the case of a child who seeks review of the credible fear ?nding by an immigration judge, such ?nding is upheldby an immigration judge), the ER orders may immediately be executed. - . In the cases-of a parent who is subject to a reinstated order of removal, if the child(ren) establishes credible fear and the parent does not establish a reasonable fear, the child(ren) would be placed in Section 240removal proceedings and the parent would at that time be subject to continued detention or release, in DHS's discretion, censistent with paragraph 7 below. DHS will not remove a Ms. class member who received a negative reasonable fear ?nding while his or her agreed class member child goes through the credible fear process and, if applicable, Section 240 removal proceedings. Plaintiffs concede, however,.that removal of any Ms. class member with a reinstated removal order under this agreement is signi?cantly likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future and that, if a parent initiates legal proceedings challenging their continued detention, DHS may immediately proceed with that Ms. class member?s removal, regardless of any injunctive orders issued in Ms. and provided that DHS gives the parent at least 7 days? advance notice to the parent that he or she will be removed. In the case of a parent who is subject to a reinstated order of removal, if the child(ren) establish credible fear and the parent establishes a reasonable fear, the child(ren) would be issued NTAs and placed in Section 240 removal proceedings, and the parent would be referred for withholding-only proceedings pursuant to 8 C.F.class member who is currently detained3 in an ICE FRC with his or her agreed class member child is subject to a ?nal removal order issued in proceedings conducted under. Section 240 (other than a reinstated order) and the child is an arriving alien or was initially-snoountered by DHS within 14 days of entry and 100 miles of the border, ICE would initiate ER proceedings under Section 235 against the child within 7 days Of the Court?s approval of this agreement, and refer the child for a credible fear interview. While the ?nal order parent would not be a party to the child?s credible fear adjudication, the parent would be available to consult with and assist the child in the course of that precess. The parent would be permitted to participate in the credible fear interview and provide testimony on behalf of the child(ren), in addition to any testimony the child(ren). Counsel for the child will be permitted to attend the interview in person, so long as it does not unreasonably delay the process and any attorney assistance is at no expense to the government, and the timing of the interview will be in accordance with Paragraph 1. g. above. Ifthe child establishes a credible fear of persecution or torture, USCIS will place the child in Section 240 removal proceedings, and ICE will move for reopening of the parent's prior removal proceedings and consolidation of the parent's case with the child?s before the immigration court If the child does not establish credible fear of persecution or torture, the removal orders may immediately be executed Detention and custody decisions for aliens covered by this plan will be made consistent with authorities under Sections 235, 236, and 241, and the Order Granting Joint Motion Regarding Scope Of The Court?s Preliminary Injunction in M5212. v. ICE, No. 13-423 (S.D. Cal.) (Aug. 16, 2013) (ECF 192) (recognizing that class members may be required" to choose whether to waive their own right not to be separated from their miner child(ren) or to waive their right under the Flores Settlement Agreement to be released, including the rights with regard to placement in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor's age and special needs, and the right to release or placement in a ?licensed program"). Ms. counsel, counsel, or Dora counsel may identify class members who wish to waive the. procedures described herein and be removed to their country of origin Ms. counsel, counsel, and Dam counsel will develop a process for obtaining and documenting such a choice through a knowing and voluntary waiver. Defendants will not engage with class members on such matters, but will seek to effectuate such waiver decisions when communicated and documented by Ms. counsel, counsel, or Dora counsel. Class members may either pursue the relief described in this agreement or elect prompt removal, but may not pursue any other 'irnmigration- or asylum-related injunctive, declaratory, or equitable relief based on the allegations or claims made Dora complaints ?led in any court accruing as of the date this plan is approved by 3 This agreement does not impact the ability of Ms. class members with ?nal removal orders issued in Section 240 removal proceedings, other than a reinstated order of removal, and who are not detained, to pursue individual appeals of such orders under existing law and subject to statutory time periods for challenging any such order. Case Document 308 Filed 11/07/18 PageID.4749 Page 10 of 12 the Court, including statutOry claims. This agreement does not a?ect the right of Ms. class members to seek reuni?cation under the June 26, 2018 preliminary injunction in Ms. L. The return of removed parents to the United States4 The government does not intend to, nor does it agree to, return any removed parent to the United States or to facilitate any return of such removed parents. The classes agree not to pursue any right or claim of removed parents to return to the United States other than as Speci?cally set forth in this paragraph. Plainti?is? counsel may raise with the governmentgindividual cases in which plaintiffs? counsel believes the return of a particular removed Ms. class member may be warranted Plaintiffs? counsel represent that theygbelieve that such individual cases will be rare and unusual and that they have no basis :for behaving that such individual cases will be other than rare and unusual. Plainti?ls? counsel agree to present any such cases, including all evidence they would likeEconsidered by the government within 30 days of the approval of this agreement In light of plaintiffs? counsel?s representation that such cases will be rare and unusual, Defendants agree to provide a reply to any case presented by Plaintiffs within 30 days of receiving Plaintif?s? request to consider the case. Except as speci?cally set forth herein, the classes agree that existing law, existing procedures, and the Court-approved reuni?cation plan address all interests that such parents or their children may have. With respect to agreed class members who seek asylum and who have removed parents, the government agrees not to oppose requests that the removed parent provide testimony ?or evidence telephonically or in writing in the child?s asylum or removal proceedings and that ICE attorneys appearing in immigration court (1) will not object to the admission of documentary evidence (such as photocopied, scanned, or faxed documents) provided by the removed parent on the grounds that such documentary evidence does not hear an original signature or is not an original copy (ICE reserves the right to object based on other grounds), and (2) will not object to telephonic participation by the parent in the agreed class member?s Section 240 removal proceedings provided that the alien (and his or her legal representative, if applicable) make appropriate motions to the immigration judge to permit telephonic testimony in advance of any merits hearing, that the alien is responsible for providing accurate contact information to permit the immigration judge to make contact with the parent, and that the parent?s unavailability and faulty connections or other technological impediments may not serve as the basis for delaying scheduled hearings. Class members, however, recognize that ICE has no control over the technology or logistics of the Executive Of?ce for Immigration Review. 4 For this section of this agreement, the classes are the same as in footnote 1 above except that the requirements of continuous physical presence in the United States do not apply to this section of the agreement, since this section addresses removed parents. 7896,74 r/l ex WC e: ?Ti?figmeg 0459/ C3131 479 . We 614 (/Jo?gl/y [0?3 mm Haw/03 Case Document 308 Filed 11/07/18 PageID.4751 Page 12 of 12 Hi 1 _?m1a n11_1 a353_ 54 SH ILLE TN i i 18 i {141- 92101 6/563 (75" r7j/{? 0U em [D/?S7ermz 0631317!? /0 W51 g??b brC?jO Cci/f?f' ?ce?uvi?oug: 355 54/597!? 5mm] Way Sawelfeja 624 (72/0/ I H2304M113389-03