Case Document 309 Filed 11/07/18 Pagel 1216112131 NOV _7 2013 CLEPK.1J.S.DI COURT AVISO DE ACUERDO PROPUESTO Em ?Uses FORMULARIO DE ELECCION DEL p?D-wuc Si estuvo separado de su(s) padre(s) hijo(s) en la frontera, NOV 0 5 201B sus derechos pueden verse afectados por un acuerdo de demanda colectiva propuesto. Se ha llegado a un acuerdo propuesto en las demandas colectivas en relacion con el mecanismo por el cual ciertos padres hij os separados pueden solicitar asilo otra proteccion en los Estados Unidos. Los juicios son de v. Sessions, Case No. 3: (SD. 0111.), v. Sessions, Case No. 1: (D.D.C.), Ms. L. v. ICE, Caso No. 3: (SD Cal.), Dora v. - Sessions, Caso No. 18?cv-1938 (D.D.C.). gDe 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 ocerca de la frontera. Los demandantes alegan que el gobierno de 10s Estados Unjdos no les die a estos padres hijos la oportunidad adecuada de buscar asilo otra proteccion contra la expulsion en los Estados Unidos. E1 juez que supervisa' las demandas detuvo temporalmente el traslado de las familias que se reunierOn despu?s de haber sido separados en la frontera. Los demandantes el gobiemo de los Estados Unidos posteriormente acordaron un acuerdo, que otorgara a los padres hijos e1 acceso a los procedimientos para solicitar asilo otra proteccion contra la expulsion en los Estados Unjdos. gQui?n esta incluido? U11 padre puede ser un miembro de la Clase del Acuerdo de Padres si ?l ella: - Es 1111 padre extranjero adulto que entro a los Estados Unidos en 0 entre los puertos de entrada designados con su(s) hijo(s), fue detenido bajo custodia de mmigracion por el Departamento de Seg?ridad Nacional (DHS), - Tiene un hijo que estuvo esta separado de 61 ella que se encontraba bajo la custodia del DHS, la custodia de la O?cina de Reasentamiento de Refugiados (ORR, por sus siglas en ingl?s), cuidado de crianza temporal de OR a partir del 26 de Junio de 2018. 0 Se 1e ordeno reuni?carse de conformidad con la Orden de la Corie en la Sra. L. V. Estados Unjdos de Inmigraci?n Control de Aduanas, No. 18-428 (SD. Cal. 26 de Junio de 2018); 0 Ha estado presente ?sicamente continuamente en 103 Estados Unjdos desde el 26 de Junio de 2018. - El acuerdo tambi?n re?eja el acuerdo de las partes con respecto a 10s individuos que se ajustan a la descripci?n de la clase de padres segl?ln se define anteriormente, pero que se eliminaron de los Case Document 309 Filed 11/07/18 PageID.4753 Page20f 11 Estados Unidos, asi como los derechos de los miembros de la clase de ni?os (de?nidos a continuaci?n) cuyos padres han sido remote. U11 puede ser un miembro de la Clase del Acuerdo Infantil si: cl 7 Es1111111'1?io extranjero menor de 18 a?os de edad a partir de la fecha de vigencia del aeuerdo, que ingreso a los Estados Unidos en 0 entre los puertos de entrada designados con 1111 padre extranjero, I Fue separado de su(s) padre(s), ?1 Ha sido sera reuni?cado con 311(3) padre(s) bajo 1a orden preliminar emitida en la Sra. L. v. US. Inmigracion Control de Aduanas, No. 18-428 (SD. Cal. 26 de Junio de 2018), 0 Ha estado presente fisicamente continuarnente en los Estados Unidos desde el 26 de Junie de 2018. ?Qll? alivio proporciona el acuerd'o? Entre otras cosas, e1 Acuerdo de Resoluci?n requiere que, para los padres que inicialmente recibieron 1111 hallazgo de miedo creible negativo tienen una orden ?nal de remocion acelerada, e1 gobierno de los Estados Unidos realizara una revisi?n de buena fe de los hallazgos de temor creibles anteriores de los padre,1 que ineluye reunirse con un o?cial de asilo para presentar informaci?n adicional. Para los hij os de dichos padres a quienes se les emiti? un Aviso de comparecencia (NTA) 0 se encuentran en proceso de deportacion, la NTA se caneelara 0 el gobierno se mover? para descartar los procedimientos de expulsion, el nifio sera colocado en una depo?aci?n acelerada junto con el padre. E1 ni?o tambi?n sera referido para 1111a entrevista de temor creible si el ni?o expresa temor de regresar. Si se descubre que el padre tiene 1111 ternor creible, a ambos padres hijos se les otorgara una NTA para que comparezca ante un juez de inmigraci?n, donde podran presentar 1111a solicitud de asilo 11 otras demandas de protecci?n ante e1 tribunal de inmigraci?n. Si los padres no reciben un hallazgo de miedo creible positivo en la revision, entonces el gobierno de los Estados Unidos les proporcionara a sus hijos 311 propia entrevista de miedo creible. Si 105 ni?os reciben un hallazgo de temor creible positivo, ellos sus padres recibiran una NTA para que comparezcan ante un juez de inrnigraci?n, donde podran presentar una solicitud de asilo 11 otras demandas de protecci?n ante e1 tribunal de inrnigraci?n. Se aplican procedimientos adicionales 0 de 01:10 tipo cuando los padres los ni?os han sido liberados de la detenci?n, cuando los padres estan sujetos a ordenes de expi?si?n reintegradas de?nitivas, 0 cuando los padres ya han sido retirados. El Acuerdo de Conciliaci?n no proporciona ningi'in pago 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 eon 1111 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 clase que busquen cualquier otra medida cautelar,- declaratoria 0 equitativa relacionada con la inrnigraeion 0 el asilo relacionada con las alegaciones formuladas en estas demandas. Todos los te'rmi?nos del Acuerdo propuesto estan sujetos a la aprobaci?n del Tribunal en una "Audiencia de Aprobacion Final" que se explica a continuacion Se adeInta una copia del Acuerdo de COnCiliacion a este aviso. ?Miedo 01611116? 511 refiere a1 proceso mediante el cual Ids individuos sujetos a una remocion acelerada pueden buscar asilo en los Estados Unidos, en el cual un fimcionario de asilo del gobierno de los EB. UU. puede establecer un temor creible de persecuci?n tortura si son devueltos a su pais de origen. Si 61 extranjero recibe 1111a determinaci?n de temor crefble positiva, 61 ella puede presentar una solicitud de asilo ante eI tribunal de inmigracion. Case Document 309 Filed 11/07/18 PageID.4754 Page30f11 You have the right to object to the settlement. Although you may waive your'rights to seek relief under this Settlement Agreement, you cannot exclude yourself from the settlement. However, you can ask the Court to deny approval by ?ling an objection. If the Court denies approval, the lawsuits will continue. If that is what you want to happen, you must object. You may object to the proposed settlement in writing. You may also appear at the Final Approval Hearing, either in person or through your own attorney. All written objections and supporting papers must clearly identify the following case names and numbers: v. Sessions, Case No. (S.D. Cal.) and Ms. L. v. ICE, Case No. (S.D. Cal.), be submitted to the Court either by mailing them to the Class Action Clerk, United States. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego Courthouse, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, or by ?ling them in person at any location of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and be ?led or postmarked on or before November 2, 2018. -- When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the settlement? The Final Approval Hearing will be held on November 15, 2018, at 10:30 AM (PT) at Courtroom 13A, 13th Floor, Suite 1310, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, to determine the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed Settlement. The date may change without further notice to the class. Where can I get more information? This notice summarizes the proposed settlement. For the precise" terms and conditiOns of the settlement, please see the attached Settlement Agreement, by contacting class counsel identi?ed below, by accessing the Court docket in this case through the Court?s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at casd. ascourts. gov, or by Visiting the of?ce of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego, between 8:30 am. and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays. PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLENIENT. Case Document 309 Filed 11/07/18 PageID.4755 Page4of 11 Who represents the Classes? Proposed Class Counsel for Parent Class (Parents in the United States): Wilson G. Banneyer Carol T. McClarnon John H. Fleming EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAN (US) LLP 700 Sixth Street NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 220-8628 Fax: (202) 637-3593 Sin'ne Shebaya Johnathan Smith MUSLIM ADVOCATES Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg Sophia Gregg LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER Proposed Class Counsel for Child Class: DEE/[Settlements gues?onsg?hoganlovells.com Justin W. Bernick Zachary W. Best T. Clark Weymouth HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (888) 365-1 112 Fax: (202)637251910 Proposed Counsel for Removed Parents: fam?ysepara?on?laclumrg Lee Gelernt Judy Rabinovitz Anand Balaktishnan Stephen Kang Spencer Amdur AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad St. 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2660 Fax: (212) 549?2654 Case Document 309 Filed 11/07/18 PageID.4756 Page50f 11 Usted ?ene e1 derecho de renunciar a la exenci?n en virtud del acuerdo. Los padres hijos que deseen renunciar a sus derechos e11 virrud de este Acuerdo de Coneiliaci?n ser trasladados sin demora a su pais de origen, tienen derecho a hacerlo mediante la ejecucion del siguiente formulario. Cualquier decision de regresar a su pais de origen debe tomarse a?rmativamente, a sabiendas voluntariamente. El hecho de no devolver este formulario no se interpretara como una renuncia a sus derechos e11 virtud del Acuerdo de Conciliaci?n. Instrucciones: Este formulario debe ser leido al miembro de la clase en un idioma que ?l/ella entienda. El miembro de la clase debe indicar que opci?n esta eligiendo a1 ?rmar el cuadro correspondiente a continuaci?n. Si el miembro de la clase es un ni?o carece de capacidad 0 es menor de 14 a?os, este formulario debe ser ?rmado por el padre representante legal del ni?o. Se deben completar formularios separados para Cada miembro de la familia. Los formularias completados deben enviarse par correo 0 par correo electr?nico al abogado para la clase propuesta apropiada que se establece a continuacio?m I Solicito permanecer en los Estados Unidos para buscar alivio de remocion. Entiendo que el acuerdo de demanda colectiva no garantiz que recibir? alivio de la elimin i611. Nombre (en letr de Efwln/ WIEDSO jg}; Firma: Jr . U935 erWk? Estoy solicitando de manera afirmativa, deliberada voluntaria mi traslado a mi pais de origen lo antes posible. Entiendo que estoy renunciando a cualquier derecho a en los Estados Unidos para seguir los procedimientos establecidos en el acuerdo, incluido cualquier derecho a solicitar asilo otra proteecion contra la expulsion. Nomhre (en letra de molde): Firma: Tu information: I . Nombre: (-Emd r19 ?an-79m SD ?Ampa/h Fecha de Nacnniento: .. 1?6] - 2006' 922/5 F2. 89 ?3 [3 57 Pais de Ciudadania: (Jug [a . Centro de detencion (si es aplicable): Domicilio: 5? Numero de tel?fono: -- ?272, N0mbre(8) del Padre(S) hij0(S)= 1? Emma A25.) (ta/fa (274M224 Padre(s) 2/ 312.5? 46 35? Domicilio del padre(s) hijo(s): 137,57 5, Tel?fono de hijo(s): K: .5 24/1. ?3 g? 7 . Certi?caci?n de Abogado: Yo represento (nombre) en su proceso migratorio. Le he informado a 61 ella (y 311 padre madre representante legal) de sus derechos en virtud del acuerdo de demanda colectiva propuesto en (idioma). Firma de abogado: Nombre de Abogado: Fecha: N?mero de tel?fono del abogado: Domicilio del abogado:' Case Document 309 Filed 11/07/18 PageID.4757 Page60f 11 18-CV-OO428-DMS-MDD Document309 Filed 11/07/18 PagelD.4758 Page7of 11 Case 3 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 Ms. class members (and Doro plaintiffs), other than those class members who agree to waive these procedures (and thus to waive any further claims or relief).l (In this document, references to Ms. class members encompass Dora 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 refrain from seeking preliminary injunctive relief in their litigation pending in the U.S. 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 from additional litigation seeking immigration- or asylum-related injunctive, declaratory, or equitable relief that arises ?'om the facts and circumstances set forth in the Mr. L, and Doro complaints relating to those parents and The classes of individuals to whom this plan relates include: Ms. Class Members and Dam 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: (I) were detained in custody by the (2) have a child who was or is separated from them by DHS and, on or after June 26, 2018, was housed in ORR 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. A reed 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 MS. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs 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 reuni?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 currently detained in DHS custody (and are not currently in HHS custody) and who have been issued Notices to Appear (NTAs) 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 affirmatively apply for asylum before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), USCIS will adjudicate such an application regardless of whether an unfiled 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 reuni?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 reuni?ed with their parent(s) as of the effective date of this agreement will be afforded 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?cd with a parent, in which case the procedures described below will apply. If a detained, reunited agreed class member child has been servedwith 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. Document309 Filed 11/07/18 PagelD.4759 Page8of 11 Case 3 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 expeditedremoval 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 fer 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 Ms. class members who have not been issued 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 ,of the 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 individual's counsel 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, 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'credible fear standard, as it is described at Section 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. 208.3 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 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 would adversely impact facility security or operations due to. facility staf?ng, con?guration, or access policies, in which case Counselwill 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. 8. For Ms. class members who are currently detained2 With their agreed class member child(ren) at an ICE FRC 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 Ithe'standa'rds 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 individtial has a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. For the limited purpose of this settlement agreement, USCIS will spealc 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 injdividual?s counsel in-person unless ICE determines in good faith that participation is impracticable or 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 telepho'nically, previ'ded 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? or 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 DI-IS 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 unreasbnably 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. 1 This agreement does not impact the ability of Ms. class .members with reinstated orders of removal who are not detained to pursue any availablelappeal of such an order under existing law and subject to statutory time periods. Document309 Filed 11/07/18 PagelD.4760 Page9of 11 Case 3 g. For purposes of the reviews and interviews of detained parents and/or 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 and/or 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 affirmatively 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 8 C.F.R. 208.30(f) (positive credible fear ?nding made by USCIS), (positive credible fear ?nding made by immigration judge). In the case of a parent and child(ren) both in ER proceedings under the process I described above, if none of the family members establish credible fear 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 upheld by an immigration judge), the ER orders may immediately be executed. In the case 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 240 removal proceedings and the parent would at that time be subject to continued detention or release, in discretion, consistent 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 significantly 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 Mr. class member?s rembval, regardless of any injunctive orders issued in Ms. and provided that DHS gives the parent at least 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.R. and If a Mr. L. class member who is currently detained3 in an ICE FRC with his or her agreed class member child is subject to a final removal order issued in proceedings conducted under Section 240 (other than a reinstated order) and the child is an arriving alien or was initially encountered 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 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 process. 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 from 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 Lg. above. If the 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 Mr. L. v. ICE, No. 18?428 (S.D. Cal.) (Aug. 16, 2018) (ECF 192) (recognizing that class members may be required to choose whether to waive their own right not to be separated from their minor 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?). Mr. 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. M's. 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 immigration- or asylum-related injunctive, declaratory, or equitable relief based on the allegations or claims made Dom 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 final 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 309 Filed 11/07/18 PageID.4761 Page 10 of11 the Court, including statutory claims. This agreement does not affect 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. Plaintiffs? counsel may raise with the government individual cases in which plaintiffs? counsel believes the return of a particular removed Ms. class member may be warranted. Plaintiffs? counsel represent that they believe that such individual cases will be rare and unusual and that they have no basis for believing that such individual cases will be other than rare and unusual. Plaintiffs? counsel agree to present any such cases, including all evidence they would like considered 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 Plaintiffs? 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 bear 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. Case Document 309 Filed 11/07/18 PageID.4762 Page 11 of11 71; :1 II . 313.3% 1.53 5.5. . E15311 I U. . TA EPAI FSM 15:85? a SH mam New 13 ?33335?? AMOUNT mon 08 i? 92"? R2304M113339-03 i C/er-K/ U?f7/fa/ 5736x745:- p?S7Zr-r22/ Igou%?m ?f?ilr?k} 5/ cat/far?/hy 50m 15/6sz C?ur?IZ/clouS?y 555 Emma/Way CA (72/04 F?i . .