Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167 Filed 10/22/18 Page 1 of 16

1

THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART

2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
JOHN DOE, et al.,

CASE NO. C17-0178JLR

10
Plaintiffs,
DECLARATION OF MELISSA KEANEY
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT
MOTION TO COMPEL

11
v.
12
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15

JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

16
17
18

CASE NO. C17-1707JLR

v.

(RELATING TO BOTH CASES)

DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

19
20
21

I, Melissa Keaney, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby state and declare as follows:

22

1.

23
24

I am a staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center and counsel for the

Plaintiffs in Jewish Family Service, et al. v. Trump (JFS).
1.

I have full knowledge of the parties’ efforts to engage in discovery since the Court’s

25

July 27, 2018 Order Granting Motion for Discovery and Denying Motion to Dismiss Without

26

Prejudice (“Order”), ECF No. 155, which granted Plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery

27

aimed at producing facts regarding actions Defendants took to implement the October 24 Agency

28

Memorandum and their subsequent efforts to implement this Court’s preliminary injunction.
DECL. OF MELISSA KEANEY ISO
PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL
(No. 17-cv-0178-JLR)

Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167 Filed 10/22/18 Page 2 of 16

1

2.

Since that time, Plaintiffs have endeavored to keep their discovery requests targeted to

2

jurisdictional facts and the four categories of requests explicitly authorized by the Order. Plaintiffs

3

acted expeditiously, serving a joint request for production of documents only two days after receipt

4

of the Court’s Order (though filed on July 27, 2018, the Court’s Order was entered and received by

5

the Parties on July 30, 2018). The parties have engaged in good-faith efforts to resolve their

6

disputes, but have reached an impasse on the issues that Plaintiffs raise in their Motion.

7
8

3.

The parties’ meet and confer efforts, detailed in the paragraphs that follow, are

summarized in this chart:

9
WRITTEN DISCOVERY TIMELINE
10
11
12
13

DATE

DESCRIPTION

August 1, 2018

Plaintiffs serve First Set of Requests for Production (First RFP), consisting
of three Requests

August 7, 2018

Defendants request 21 days for objections and 45 days to produce records
responsive to First RFP and refuse to respond to Request #3

August 10, 2018

Parties meet and confer and resolve dispute with respect to Request #3 of
First RFP

August 17, 2018

Per Parties’ agreement, Plaintiffs re-style Request #3 of First RFP as
interrogatories, narrow their requests, and serve them as First Set of
Interrogatories (First ROG)

August 22, 2018

Defendants serve objections to First RFP

August 30, 2018

Plaintiffs send correspondence objecting to narrowing of Request #1 of
First RFPs and addressing other issues raised in Defendants’ August 22
correspondence

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Sept. 1, 2018

22
23
24

Sept. 5, 2018

25
26
27

Sept. 6, 2018

Defendants respond to Plaintiffs First ROG, object to six requests as overly
burdensome, and indicate response to the remainder will not be overly
burdensome
Defendants respond to Plaintiffs’ August 30 letter and indicate they will
require until Sept. 26 to respond to Plaintiffs’ First ROG
Doe Plaintiffs serve Second Set of Interrogatories, consisting of one
interrogatory
Plaintiffs serve Third Set of Interrogatories to replace six interrogatories in
Plaintiffs’ First ROG that Defendants objected to as overly burdensome
(Third ROG)

28
DECL. OF MELISSA KEANEY ISO
PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL
(No. 17-cv-0178-JLR) – 2

Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167 Filed 10/22/18 Page 3 of 16

1

Sept. 14, 2018

Defendants serve their first Document Production, consisting of 786 pages
of records responsive to Plaintiffs’ First RFP

Sept. 21, 2018

Defendants serve Plaintiffs with a draft Privilege Log with notice that it is
incomplete

Sept. 25, 2018

Defendants re-produce certain documents, lifting some prior redactions, and
serve a revised privilege log

Sept. 26, 2018

Defendants serve supplemental responses and objections to Plaintiffs’ First
ROG

Sept. 28, 2018

Plaintiffs request clarification on Defendants’ claims of privilege on
withheld documents and related issues

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Oct. 2, 2018

Defendants send correspondence asserting that documents produced thus far
“show unequivocally that [Defendants] complied with the injunction”

Oct. 4, 2018

Plaintiffs send correspondence outlining various deficiencies in the
Document Production

11

Oct. 5, 2018

Defendants serve responses and objections to Plaintiffs’ Third ROG

12

Oct. 5, 2018

Plaintiffs serve Fourth Set of Interrogatories (Fourth ROG), which seeks
answers to questions that arose from review of the Document Production

Oct. 9, 2018

Defendants categorically refuse to respond to Plaintiffs’ Fourth ROG,
asserting that the discovery produced to date is sufficient for Plaintiffs to
assess their case

Oct. 10, 2018

Defendants supplement their responses and objections to Plaintiffs’ First
ROG

Oct. 10, 2018

Plaintiffs seek Defendants’ position on depositions

Oct. 12, 2018

Defendants invoke the Parties’ FRE 502(d) agreement

Oct. 12, 2018

Parties invoke Local Rule LCR7(i) and request leave to brief the remaining
discovery disputes

Oct. 16, 2018

Parties meet and confer over the remaining discovery disputes

21

Oct. 17, 2018

Defendants re-produce certain documents, lifting some prior redactions and
re-submitting a revised privilege log

22

Oct. 17, 2018

Plaintiffs serve 30(b)(6) deposition notices to two of the defendant agencies

23

Oct. 19, 2018

Defendants decline to voluntarily produce deponents in response to
Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) deposition notices

24

Oct. 19, 2018

Defendants re-produce certain documents, lifting some redactions

Oct. 22, 2018

Defendants re-produce certain documents, lifting some redactions and
producing a revised privilege log

9
10

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

25
26
27
28

DECL. OF MELISSA KEANEY ISO
PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL
(No. 17-cv-0178-JLR) – 3

Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167 Filed 10/22/18 Page 4 of 16

1
2

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
4.

Plaintiffs’ first and only set of request for production of documents consisted of three

3

separate requests, including: (1) policies, guidance and similar documents related to actions taken

4

to implement the Agency Memorandum, to comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction, and

5

those taken as a result of the 90-day review and corresponding January 29, 2018 Memorandum of

6

Secretary Nielsen (“RFP #1”); (2) documents that show who the documents responsive to RFP #1

7

were distributed to; and (3) documents sufficient to show data related to the processing and

8

admission of refugees. Plaintiffs propounded their request for production of documents on August

9

1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of JFS and Doe Plaintiffs’ First Set of

10
11

Requests for Production to Defendants (“First Set RFPs”).
5.

Although not required to do so under this Court’s Order, Plaintiffs in the related cases

12

consolidated their request and collectively propounded only the above-referenced RFPs. Given the

13

accelerated period of discovery under this Court’s Order, Plaintiffs requested that Defendants

14

respond to Plaintiffs First Set RFPs within 15 days after service. Attached hereto as Exhibit 20 is

15

a true and correct copy of correspondence from Plaintiffs’ counsel Mollie Kornreich to Defendants’

16

counsel Joseph Dugan dated August 1, 2018.

17

6.

On August 7, Defendants counsel responded, objecting to the timeline suggested by

18

Plaintiffs, indicating Defendants would require 21 days after service to provide written responses

19

and objections to Plaintiffs First Set RFPs and 45 days after service to produce responsive records,

20

and altogether refusing to respond to Request #3 of Plaintiffs’ First Set of RFPs. Attached hereto

21

as Exhibit 21 is a true and correct copy of correspondence from Defendants’ counsel Joseph Dugan

22

to Plaintiffs’ counsel Mollie Kornreich dated August 7, 2018.

23

7.

After a meet and confer on Friday, August 10, the Parties resolved their disagreement

24

with respect to Request #3 of Plaintiffs First Set of RFPs, as Plaintiffs agreed to re-issue the requests

25

as interrogatories and narrow their requests (see below “Interrogatories”).

26

8.

On August 22, Defendants provided written responses and objections to Plaintiffs First

27

Set RFPs. In them, Defendants refused to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests as originally written,

28

including, among other things, by unilaterally narrowing Request #1 to only “final, formal guidance
DECL. OF MELISSA KEANEY ISO
PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL
(No. 17-cv-0178-JLR) – 4

Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167 Filed 10/22/18 Page 5 of 16

1

documents,” whereas Request #1 sought all “policies, directives, instructions, guidelines, guidance,

2

advisals, cables, notices, training, memorandum” and similar documents, whether considered final

3

or formal. Attached hereto as Exhibit 22 is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ Written

4

Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set RFP dated August 22, 2018.

5

9.

Plaintiffs objected to Defendants’ unjustified narrowing of Request #1 in a letter from

6

Plaintiffs’ counsel to Defendants’ counsel on August 30. That correspondence also outlined

7

Plaintiffs’ other objections to Defendants’ August 22 written responses including: (1) Defendants’

8

cramped interpretation of “custody”; (2) their refusal to even search for or provide discovery from

9

the White House without invoking a claim of executive privilege; and (3) their refusal to search for

10

“deliberative process” materials. Attached hereto as Exhibit 23 is a true and correct copy of

11

correspondence from Plaintiffs’ counsel Mollie Kornreich to Defendants’ counsel Joseph Dugan

12

dated August 30, 2018.

13

10. In Defendants’ September 5 response to Plaintiffs’ August 30 letter, they declined to

14

revisit their unilateral narrowing of Request #1 (“Defendants disagree that a request for production

15

of ‘policies, directives, instructions, guidelines, advisals, cables, notices, training, memoranda,’ and

16

similar documents is not appropriately construed as a request for final, formal guidance

17

documents.”). With respect to Plaintiffs’ request that Defendants’ search encompass White House

18

custodians, Defendants outlined what has become a repeat position throughout the Parties’

19

discovery negotiations—that in their view “the time and effort it would take . . . would vastly

20

outweigh whatever marginal advantage Plaintiffs may hope to gain from the fruits of such a search.”

21

Attached hereto as Exhibit 24 is a true and correct copy of correspondence from Defendants’

22

counsel Joseph Dugan to Plaintiffs’ counsel Mollie Kornreich dated Sept. 5, 2018.

23

11. On September 14, Defendants served Plaintiffs with 786 pages of records responsive

24

to Plaintiffs First Set RFPs. Defendants produced an additional 22 pages of documents on October

25

12. These are the only documents Defendants have produced to date although they have re-

26

produced many of the documents on several later dates. Defendants re-produced the entire

27

production on September 21, after Plaintiffs notified them that they had included (non-privileged)

28

metadata that they had intended to withhold. Thereafter, Defendants re-produced 76 pages on
DECL. OF MELISSA KEANEY ISO
PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL
(No. 17-cv-0178-JLR) – 5

Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167 Filed 10/22/18 Page 6 of 16

1

September 24; 216 pages on October 17; and a few pages each on October 19 and October 22. Each

2

of these re-productions were to add redactions, remove redactions, and/or replace documents with

3

technical issues.

4

12. Of the 808 pages Defendants have produced, approximately 196 pages, or 24.3% of the

5

production represents duplicative material. To determine the degree of duplication Plaintiffs’

6

counsel used two processes. First, Plaintiffs counsel’s software program, Relativity, identified a set

7

of 36 documents in the production of near-duplicates. Of those, 16 were the “principle” documents

8

and the remaining 20 were the non-principle duplicates. The 20 non-principle duplicates comprised

9

143 pages. Second, Plaintiffs’ counsel conducted a manual review of the entire production by

10

grouping together documents by file name to identify email threads. Then counsel reviewed all of

11

these threads and if the same or substantially similar email was sent to different recipients, it was

12

counted as duplicative. This led to a conclusion that 194 pages of the 808-page production contained

13

only information that was duplicated elsewhere in the production.

14

13. On September 21, Defendants served Plaintiffs with a privilege log. Accompanying

15

this privilege log, Defendants noted that it was incomplete, stating: “Defendants anticipate re-

16

releasing some of these documents early next week with some redactions lifted. Those redactions

17

are not addressed in the privilege log, as we anticipate re-releasing those documents.”

18
19

14. On September 25, Defendants re-produced documents, lifting certain redactions. On
this same date, Defendants provided a revised privilege log.

20

15. After reviewing Defendants’ revised privilege log, Plaintiffs became concerned that

21

Defendants were withholding documents on claims of privilege, but without identifying them on

22

the privilege log. Accordingly, on September 28, Plaintiffs’ counsel Abigail Sheehan Davis sent

23

an email to Defendants’ counsel to request clarification on this and related issues. Attached

24

hereto as Exhibit 25 is a true and correct copy of that electronic mail correspondence.

25

16. On October 2, Defendants’ counsel sent Plaintiffs’ counsel an email. Among other

26

things, the email asserted that the documents Defendants had produced thus far “show

27

unequivocally that we complied with the injunction and no longer maintain any semblance of a

28
DECL. OF MELISSA KEANEY ISO
PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL
(No. 17-cv-0178-JLR) – 6

Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167 Filed 10/22/18 Page 7 of 16

1

‘ban’ on processing/admissions of SAO and FTJ refugee applicants.” Attached hereto as Exhibit

2

26 is a true and correct copy of that electronic mail correspondence.

3

17. On October 4, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent Defendants’ counsel a letter outlining various

4

deficiencies they identified with the Defendants’ production, including: missing documents that

5

were referenced in the production provided but not themselves provided, documents with technical

6

issues, various issues related to Defendants’ redactions, and concerns regarding the scope of

7

Defendants’ search. Attached hereto as Exhibit 27 is a true and correct copy of the letter sent by

8

Plaintiffs’ counsel Abigail Davis to Defendants’ counsel dated October 4, 2018.

9

18. By email dated October 11, Defendants’ counsel responded to a few of the items in

10

Plaintiffs’ October 4 letter. With regard to the documents listed as “Missing” in Plaintiffs’ October

11

4 letter, Defendants stated that “all documents in this list were withheld as non-responsive,” but

12

decided to produce the seven spreadsheets labeled, “Cleared SAOs for Review,” but with significant

13

redactions.

14

19. On October 17, Defendants again sent Plaintiffs a revised privilege log. In it,

15

Defendants lifted all of their claims of deliberative process privilege and certain of their claims of

16

law enforcement sensitive privilege. Defendants also re-produced relevant pages from the

17

production with some redactions lifted, but also added redactions pursuant to new claims that

18

certain information was “law enforcement sensitive.”

19

20. Earlier today, Defendants’ counsel sent Plaintiffs another revision of the privilege log,

20

explaining that there were a few items missing from the previously-served privilege log. A true

21

and correct copy of this most recent version of Defendants’ privilege log is attached hereto as

22

Exhibit 3.

23

INTERROGATORIES

24

21. Throughout the discovery process, Plaintiffs have been responsive to Defendants’

25

stated concerns regarding burden and have made corresponding adjustments to their requests. For

26

example, when Defendants objected to the third request within Plaintiffs’ First Set RFP on the

27

grounds that it was overly burdensome and more properly styled as an interrogatory, Plaintiffs

28

agreed to re-submit their request as interrogatories, which Plaintiffs propounded on August 17,
DECL. OF MELISSA KEANEY ISO
PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL
(No. 17-cv-0178-JLR) – 7

Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167 Filed 10/22/18 Page 8 of 16

1

2018. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of JFS Plaintiffs’ First Set of

2

Interrogatories.

3

22. In addition to re-styling their third request of the First Set RFP as interrogatories,

4

Plaintiffs also eliminated several categories of information. Plaintiffs also expressed openness to

5

revisiting their interrogatory requests if Defendants provided specific information regarding their

6

claim that some of the requests would be overly burdensome to respond to. Attached hereto as

7

Exhibit 29 is a true and correct copy of electronic mail correspondence from Plaintiffs’ counsel

8

Mollie Kornreich sent to Defendants counsel on August 17, 2018.

9

23. Plaintiffs requested a response to their First Set of Interrogatories no later than

10

September 14, which Plaintiffs viewed as reasonable, particularly in light of the fact that Defendants

11

had notice of the requests as of August 1 (when Plaintiffs propounded the request as a request for

12

production). See id.

13

24. More than two weeks after Defendants were served with Plaintiffs First Set of

14

Interrogatories, Defendants’ counsel responded by letter objecting to six of the requests as overly

15

burdensome. As to the remainder of the requests, Defendants’ counsel indicated “Defendants

16

believe they may be equipped to respond without undue burden.” Attached hereto as Exhibit 30 is

17

a true and correct copy of correspondence from Defendants’ counsel Joseph Dugan to Plaintiffs’

18

counsel Mollie Kornreich, dated September 1, 2018.

19
20

25. On September 5, Defendants indicated that they would require until September 26 to
respond to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories.

21

26. In response to Defendants September 1 letter, Plaintiffs agreed to narrow the six

22

interrogatories identified by Defendants as overly burdensome. Plaintiffs propounded this narrower

23

set of six interrogatories on September 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of

24

Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories. 1

25
26
27
28

1

Doe Plaintiffs propounded a single interrogatory related only to the follow-to-join suspension, which was
labeled as “Plaintiff Joseph Doe’s Second Set of Interrogatories to Defendants.” Defendants did not respond to this
request, indicating that they did not track the data requested.
DECL. OF MELISSA KEANEY ISO
PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL
(No. 17-cv-0178-JLR) – 8

Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167 Filed 10/22/18 Page 9 of 16

1

27. In response, on September 14, Defendants indicated the earliest they could respond to

2

Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories was October 8, just one week before the parties’ deadline to

3

raise any discovery disputes with the Court.

4

28. After Plaintiffs agreed to an extension of Defendants’ deadline to respond to Plaintiffs

5

First Set of Interrogatories, Defendants served Plaintiffs with supplemental objections and

6

responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories on September 26.

7
8

29. On October 5, Defendants produced their written responses and objections to Plaintiffs
Third Set of Interrogatories.

9

30. Defendants supplemented their response to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories on

10

October 10, five days before the Court’s deadline to raise discovery disputes and requiring relief

11

from the Court.

12
13

31. Defendants then supplemented their response to Plaintiffs Third Set of Interrogatories
on October 11.

14

32. After further review of the Defendants’ document production and written responses to

15

Plaintiffs’ interrogatories, Plaintiffs determined that an additional six interrogatories were

16

necessary to aid in Plaintiffs’ determination of whether Defendants have complied with this Court’s

17

injunction, including determining how many individuals who should have been protected by this

18

Court’s injunction may have been affected by Defendants’ failure to issue instructions reversing

19

prior instructions to USCIS officers regarding marking applications made by SAO nationals as

20

“Unable to Stamp.” Plaintiffs propounded these additional six interrogatories on October 5.

21

Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s Fourth

22

Set of Interrogatories.

23

33. On October 9, Defendants categorically refused to respond to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Set of

24

Interrogatories, saying, among other things, that the discovery produced to date “should equip

25

Plaintiffs to assess their case in light of our forthcoming renewed Rule 12(b)(1) motion.” Attached

26

hereto as Exhibit 31 is a true and correct copy of electronic mail correspondence from Defendants’

27

counsel Joseph Dugan to Plaintiffs’ counsel sent on October 9, 2018.

28
DECL. OF MELISSA KEANEY ISO
PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL
(No. 17-cv-0178-JLR) – 9

Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167 Filed 10/22/18 Page 10 of 16

1
2

OVERLY BROAD ASSERTIONS OF PRIVILEGE
34.

Defendants have made expansive claims of privilege that they have refused to

3

justify. In Plaintiffs’ October 4, 2018 correspondence (Exhibit 27, discussed supra), Plaintiffs

4

requested that Defendants re-examine their claim of law enforcement sensitive privilege, which

5

Defendants refused to do. Plaintiffs re-raised this issue in a telephonic meet and confer on October

6

16, 2018.

7

35.

As a result of the October 16 telephone conference, on October 19, Defendants lifted

8

some of the redactions. But at the same time, they also invoked the parties’ agreement under Federal

9

Rule of Evidence 502(d), ECF No. 160, to add redactions to documents they had already produced

10
11

to Plaintiffs (sometimes more than once).
36.

As one example, Defendants have claimed the law enforcement privilege for

12

information that is already in the public domain (e.g., the identity of countries on the SAO list).

13

Plaintiffs’ requested in correspondence on October 4, 2018 for any authority that would justify such

14

a withholding or claim of privilege. Exhibit 27 at 5. The parties also discussed the issue at their

15

October 16 meet and confer. To date, however, Defendants continue to redact this information, and

16

without providing Plaintiffs with a single case citation that they believe justifies their claim of

17

privilege.

18

37.

Defendants have also invoked the parties’ agreement under Federal Rule of

19

Evidence 502(d)—which applies only to inadvertently produced information that is subject to

20

claims or privilege—to redact additional information from the documents already produced that

21

Defendants considered not responsive to Plaintiffs’ request for documents. Attached hereto as

22

Exhibit 28 is a true and correct copy of electronic mail correspondence sent by Defendants’ counsel

23

Kevin Snell to Plaintiffs’ counsel on October 12, 2018 at 11:37 am PT.

24

DEPOSITIONS

25

38. As Plaintiffs diligently reviewed the discovery materials produced on a rolling basis by

26

the Defendants, it became clear that a deposition would be necessary to answer certain questions

27

presented by the documents and interrogatory responses or not answered by them. Therefore,

28

Plaintiffs sought Defendants position on depositions of two employees of Defendant agencies,
DECL. OF MELISSA KEANEY ISO
PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL
(No. 17-cv-0178-JLR) – 10

Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167 Filed 10/22/18 Page 11 of 16

1

Kelly Gauger and Jennifer Higgins, both of whom have submitted multiple declarations during the

2

course of this litigation. In this same email correspondence, Plaintiffs indicated that they planned

3

to notice 30(b)(6) deposition(s) for the person(s) most knowledgeable “about the particular steps

4

Defendants took to implement the suspensions and then to comply with the preliminary injunction.”

5

Attached hereto as Exhibit 32 is electronic mail correspondence from Plaintiffs’ counsel Melissa

6

Keaney to Defendants’ counsel sent on October 10, 2018.

7

39. That same day, Defendants counsel responded that as “for the proposed depositions,

8

the parties will likely need to seek guidance from the Court. However, we doubt that Defendants

9

will be amenable to your eleventh hour and expansive depositions requests.” Attached hereto as

10

Exhibit 33 is a true and correct copy of electronic mail correspondence from Defendants’ counsel

11

Joseph Dugan to Plaintiffs’ counsel sent on October 10, 2018.

12
13

40. Plaintiffs’ counsel Melissa Keaney responded the next day, October 11, 2018, and
attached hereto as Exhibit 34 is true and correct copy of that electronic mail correspondence.

14

41. In an attempt to resolve the parties’ impasse over proceeding with depositions and other

15

outstanding discovery disputes, the Plaintiffs requested an opportunity to meet and confer with

16

Defendants’ counsel.

17

42. During the parties’ October 16 meet and confer, Defendants requested Plaintiffs serve

18

their 30(b)(6) deposition notices to enable them to determine their position. Plaintiffs served their

19

30(b)(6) notices on October 17. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 are true and correct copies of

20

Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) deposition notices. The notices are identical, except that one is directed to the

21

Department of State and the other to the Department of Homeland Security.

22

43. On October 19, Defendants responded to Plaintiffs’ two 30(b)(6) notices indicating

23

their position that Plaintiffs “have not specifically explained why they think two Rule 30(b)(6)

24

depositions … are necessary” and that “[a]s a practical matter, it seems unlikely that the parties will

25

be able to resolve their differences on this particular issue in advance of Plaintiffs’ filing on

26

Monday.” Attached hereto as Exhibit 35 is a true and correct copy of electronic mail

27

correspondence from Defendants’ counsel Kevin Snell to Plaintiffs sent on October 19, 2018.

28
DECL. OF MELISSA KEANEY ISO
PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL
(No. 17-cv-0178-JLR) – 11

Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167 Filed 10/22/18 Page 12 of 16

1

44. That same day, Plaintiffs’ counsel responded, re-iterating the reasons justifying their

2

request for depositions and offering to continue working collaboratively to narrow the disputes

3

between the Parties in advance of Plaintiffs’ filing of the instant motion. Attached hereto as Exhibit

4

36 is a true and correct copy of electronic mail correspondence from Plaintiffs’ counsel Justin Cox

5

to Defendants counsel sent on October 19, 2018.

6

RELEVANT PORTIONS OF DEFENDANTS’ DOCUMENT PRODUCTION

7

45. Attached hereto as Exhibits 7 through 18 are true and correct copies of documents that

8

Defendants have produced to Plaintiffs in response to Plaintiffs’ First Request for the Production

9

of Documents.

10

46. Exhibit 7 is guidance sent on November 9, 2017 by the United States Citizenship and

11

Immigration Service (USCIS) to its officers, which instructs that, absent a case-by-case waiver of

12

the SAO suspension, officers could not approve for formal refugee status—or “stamp”—cases that

13

included an SAO national.

14

47. After this USCIS guidance was sent on November 9, the records produced by

15

Defendants demonstrate that several emails sent later in November instructed USCIS officers to

16

stamp as “Unable to Stamp: Evidence documenting a case-by-case determination by DHS and State

17

required for further processing” any case affected by the October Agency Memo’s SAO suspension

18

if the case had not been already been granted a waiver. Exhibit 8 is an example of such an email.

19

Defendants have produced at least ten emails sent in November 2017 that contain similar (often

20

identical) instructions.

21

48. Many of these emails, including Exhibit 8 itself, included a hyperlink to the “Digital

22

Approval SOP” (presumably on an internal, secured intranet). Plaintiffs pointed out in their

23

October 4 letter that this SOP (and documents that are similarly incorporated by reference into the

24

documents produced) should be produced. As noted in paragraph 18 supra, on October 11,

25

Defendants’ counsel stated that this and similar documents would not be produced, based on their

26

view that they are not responsive to Plaintiffs’ First Set RFP.

27
28

49. Exhibit 9 is an email sent on January 11, 2018 to USCIS officers instructing them to
continue to “hold off on stamping” cases with SAO nationals.
DECL. OF MELISSA KEANEY ISO
PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL
(No. 17-cv-0178-JLR) – 12

Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167 Filed 10/22/18 Page 13 of 16

1
2

50. Exhibit 10 is an email sent on January 12, 2018 to USCIS officers instructing them to
continue to “hold off on stamping” cases with SAO nationals.

3

51. Exhibit 11 is a January 29, 2018 memorandum issued by Jennifer Higgins, the

4

Associate Director of the Refugee, Asylum, And International Operations (RAIO) Directorate at

5

USCIS, in which she directed the Refugee Affairs Division (RAD) to “immediately institute a

6

process and issue guidance to evaluate whether . . . cases already interviewed by a USCIS officer

7

but that are pending final approval[] involving SAO nationals require a re-interview in light of” the

8

new protocols adopted after the 90-day review.

9
10

52. Exhibit 12 is an April 2, 2018 memorandum issued by Joanna Ruppel, Chief of the
Refugee Affairs Division, regarding the “Pipeline DHS Review,” or “PDR.”

11

53. Exhibit 13 is a February 2, 2018 email sent by Hilary Ingraham, Director of the

12

Refugee Processing Center, announcing monthly quotas on the number of SAO checks that

13

Resettlement Support Centers (RSCs) could request. The global monthly quota was initially set at

14

2,010, allocated amongst seven RSCs.

15
16
17
18

54. Exhibit 14 is an April 30, 2018 email sent by Hilary Ingraham, Director of the Refugee
Processing Center, reducing the global monthly quota on the number of SAO checks to just 500.
55. Exhibit 15 is a December 24 email from a State Department employee, which states
that the agency “is aware” of the preliminary injunction issued in this case.

19

56. Exhibit 16 is a December 28 email from a State Department employee that gives details

20

about the scope of this Court’s preliminary injunction, but also indicates that Worldwide Refugee

21

Admissions Processing System (WRAPS) was not yet updated to permit the RSCs to begin

22

verifying which SAO nationals had bona fide relationships with entities or individuals in the United

23

States, such that they were protected by this Court’s preliminary injunction.

24

57. Exhibit 17 is an email sent on January 11, 2018, indicating that it took the State

25

Department until that date to make the requisite changes to WRAPS to permit RSCs to begin

26

requesting the information needed to verify claims that particular SAO nationals had bona fide

27

relationships with entities or individuals in the United States. This same email also instructed the

28
DECL. OF MELISSA KEANEY ISO
PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL
(No. 17-cv-0178-JLR) – 13

Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167 Filed 10/22/18 Page 14 of 16

1

RSCs to “immediately reach out to all SAO nationality cases scheduled for interview in Q2 to

2

confirm whether they have a BFR.”

3

58. Exhibit 18 is a December 24, 2017 email from a State Department employee

4

instructing other State Department employees to ask their RSC contacts whether they had any

5

“compelling expedite cases of SAO nationals that should be interviewed due to protection/medical

6

issues.” The email notes that any such cases identified would replace an interview slot already

7

assigned to a different refugee case, rather than be added to the schedule.

8

59. In Plaintiffs’ email serving Defendants’ with their proposed 30(b)(6) notices, Plaintiffs’

9

counsel alerted Defendants’ counsel to an apparent discrepancy between the contents of Exhibit 18

10

and Defendants’ prior descriptions of the activities that email reflects. Over the subsequent few

11

days, the parties’ counsel exchanged emails on this topic. Attached hereto as Exhibit 37 is a true

12

and accurate copy of this email chain.

13

60. Attached hereto as Exhibit 19 is a true and correct copy of a letter dated September 4,

14

2018 from USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna to Members of Congress. Plaintiffs did not obtain

15

this letter from Defendants.

16
17

61. Attached as Exhibit 38 is a summary of the key documents relating to the stamping
issue described in Plaintiffs’ motion.

18

62. Plaintiffs certify that, prior to filing their Motion to Compel, they conferred in good

19

faith with Defendants’ counsel regarding the topics covered by their motion, including through

20

conference calls on August 10, 2018 and October 16, 2018. Participating in the August 10

21

conference call were, for the government, Joseph Dugan, Kevin Snell, and Dan Bensing for the

22

government; Tana Lin and Lisa Nowlin for the Doe Plaintiffs; and Mollie Kornreich, Linda Evarts,

23

and myself for the JFS Plaintiffs. Participating in the October 16 conference call were Mssrs.

24

Dugan, Snell, and Bensing for the government; Tana Lin for the Doe Plaintiffs; and Justin Cox,

25

Madeleine MacNeil, Karen Tumlin, and Linda Evarts for the JFS Plaintiffs.

26

//

27

//

28
DECL. OF MELISSA KEANEY ISO
PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL
(No. 17-cv-0178-JLR) – 14

Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167 Filed 10/22/18 Page 15 of 16

1
2
3

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Executed this 22nd day of October, 2018, at Sacramento, California.

4

/s/ Melissa Keaney
Melissa Keaney

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECL. OF MELISSA KEANEY ISO
PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL
(No. 17-cv-0178-JLR) – 15

Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167 Filed 10/22/18 Page 16 of 16

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 22, 2018, I caused to be electronically filed the foregoing

3

document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of

4

such filing to all of the registered CM/ECF users for this case.

5

DATED this 22nd day of October, 2018.

6

/s/ Tyler Roberts

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
(No. 17-cv-0178-JLR) – 1
141663724.2

Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 1 of 4

1

THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART

2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
JOHN DOE, et al.,

CASE NO. C17-0178JLR

10
Plaintiffs,
LIST OF EXHIBITS & ATTACHMENTS
TO PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO
COMPEL

11
v.
12
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15

JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

16
v.

17
18

CASE NO. C17-1707JLR

(RELATING TO BOTH CASES)

DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

19
20
21

LIST OF EXHIBITS & ATTACHMENTS TO PLAINTIFFS’
JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL

22
23

EXHIBIT
Declaration of Youstina Youssef

24
25

DESCRIPTION
Declaration of Melissa Keaney

1

Pls.’ Fourth Set of Interrogatories

26

2

Pls.’ notices of proposed Rule 30(b)(6) depositions

27

3

Defs.’ privilege log served on October 22, 2018

28

4

Pls.’ First Request for Production of Documents

LIST OF EXHIBITS AND ATTACHMENTS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL
(No. 17-cv-0178-JLR)
141733805.1

Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 2 of 4

LIST OF EXHIBITS & ATTACHMENTS TO PLAINTIFFS’
JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL

1
2
3

EXHIBIT

DESCRIPTION

5

Pls.’ First Set of Interrogatories

4

6

Pls.’ Third Set of Interrogatories

5

7

Interim Guidance for Decisions on Applications for Refugee Status (Nov. 9, 2017)

6

8

USCIS email dated Nov. 17, 2017, with the subject line, “Digital Stamping – add’l
guidance”

9

USCIS email dated Jan. 11, 2018, with the subject line, “Digital Stamping”

8

10

USCIS email dated Jan. 12, 2018, with the subject line, “Digital Stamping”

9

11

Memorandum from Jennifer Higgins, “New Procedures and Revised Guidelines for
Refugee Adjudications as a Result of the 90-Day Review,” dated Jan. 29, 2018

12

Memorandum from Joanna Ruppel, “Pipeline DHS Review (PDR) Guidance,”
dated Apr. 2, 2018

13

State Department email dated Feb. 2, 2018, with the subject line, “Message #6 of
FY 2018: Update on USRAP Operations -- Requesting SAOs”

14

State Department email dated Apr. 30, 2018, with the subject line, “Update on
Monthly Allocations for SAOs”

15

State Department email dated Dec. 24, 2017, with the subject line, “Message #2 FY
2018 update on USRAP operations”

16

State Department email dated Dec. 28, 2017, with the subject line, “Message #3 FY
2018: Update on USRAP operations”

18

17

State Department email dated Jan. 11, 2018, with the subject line, “Message #4 FY
2018: Update on USRAP operations”

19

18

State Department email dated Dec. 26, 2017, with the subject line, “IO and RAD
CRs”

19

Letter and enclosure from L. Francis Cissna, Director of USCIS, to The Honorable
Bill Pascrell, Jr., dated Sept. 4, 2018

20

Letter from Pls.’ counsel Mollie Kornreich to Defs.’ counsel Joseph Dugan dated
August 1, 2018 regarding Pls.’ First Request for Production of Documents

21

Letter from Defs.’ counsel Joseph Dugan to Pls.’ counsel Mollie Kornreich dated
August 7, 2018 regarding Pls.’ First Request for Production of Documents

22

Defs.’ Written Reponses and Objections to Pls.’ First Set of Production of
Documents dated August 22, 2018

23

Letter from Pls.’ counsel Mollie Kornreich to Defs.’ counsel Joseph Dugan dated
August 30, 2018 regarding Pls.’ First Request for Production of Documents

24

Letter from Defs.’ counsel Joseph Dugan to Pls.’ counsel Mollie Kornreich dated
September 5, 2018 regarding Pls.’ First Request for Production of Documents

7

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

LIST OF EXHIBITS AND ATTACHMENTS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL
(No. 17-cv-0178-JLR) – 2
141733805.1

Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 3 of 4

LIST OF EXHIBITS & ATTACHMENTS TO PLAINTIFFS’
JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL

1
2

EXHIBIT

DESCRIPTION

25

Email correspondence from Pls.’ counsel Abigail Sheehan Davis to Defs.’ counsel
dated September 28, 2018 regarding the document production

26

Email correspondence from Defs.’ counsel Joseph Dugan to Pls.’ counsel sent on
October 2, 2018 regarding the document production

27

Letter sent by Pls.’ counsel Abigail Davis to Defs.’ counsel dated October 4, 2018
regarding the document production

28

Email correspondence sent by Defs.’ counsel Kevin Snell to Pls.’ counsel on
October 12, 2018 regarding FRE 502(d)

29

Email correspondence from Pls.’ counsel Mollie Kornreich sent to Defs.’ counsel
on August 17, 2018 regarding Pls.’ First Set of Interrogatories

30

Letter from Defs.’ counsel Joseph Dugan to Pls.’ counsel Mollie Kornreich, dated
September 1, 2018 regarding Pls.’ First Set of Interrogatories

31

Email correspondence from Defs.’ counsel Joseph Dugan to Pls.’ counsel sent on
October 9, 2018 regarding Pls.’ Fourth Set of Interrogatories

32

Email correspondence from Pls.’ counsel Melissa Keaney to Defs.’ counsel sent on
October 10, 2018 regarding depositions

33

Email correspondence from Defs.’ counsel Joseph Dugan to Pls.’ counsel sent on
October 10, 2018

34

Email correspondence from Pls.’ counsel Melissa Keaney to Defs.’ counsel sent on
October 11, 2018

18

35

Email correspondence from Defs.’ counsel Kevin Snell to Plaintiffs sent on October
19, 2018 regarding depositions

19

36

Email correspondence from Pls.’ counsel Justin Cox to Defendants counsel sent on
October 19, 2018 regarding depositions

37

Email exchange between Pls.’ counsel Justin Cox and Defs.’ counsel Joseph Dugan
from October 17, 2018 through October 19, 2018

38

Summary of Key Documents on PI Compliance and Digital Stamping of Security
Advisory Opinion (SAO) Cases with Bona Fide Relationships (BFRs)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

LIST OF EXHIBITS AND ATTACHMENTS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL
(No. 17-cv-0178-JLR) – 3
141733805.1

Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 4 of 4

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 22, 2018, I caused to be electronically filed the foregoing

3

document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of

4

such filing to all of the registered CM/ECF users for this case.

5

DATED this 22nd day of October, 2018.

6
7

/s/ Tyler Roberts

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
(No. 17-cv-0178-JLR) – 1
141733805.1

Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 1 of 223

EXHIBIT 1
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 2 of 223

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

1
2
3

JOHN DOE, et al.,

4
5
6

CASE NO. C17-0178JLR
Plaintiffs,

v.
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,

7

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS JFS AND JOSEPH
DOE’S FOURTH SET OF
INTERROGATORIES TO
DEFENDANTS
(RELATING TO BOTH CASES)

8
9

JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11
12

CASE NO. C17-1707JLR

v.
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15
16

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

17 Plaintiffs Jewish Family Service of Seattle (“JFS”) and Joseph Doe (“Doe”),
18 through their undersigned counsel, request that Defendants President Donald
19 Trump, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of Homeland Security
20 Kirstjen Nielsen, U.S. Department of State, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo,
21 Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and Director of National Intelligence
22 Dan Coats answer in full and under oath the following interrogatories by the
23 discovery cutoff date of October 25, 2018, and thereafter supplement responses as
24 required by Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
25
26
27
28

{00011200}

-1PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE’S FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 3 of 223

1

The following Definitions and Instructions shall apply to each and every part

2 of this Fourth Set of Interrogatories.
3
4

DEFINITIONS
1.

The term “Agencies Involved in the USRAP” refers to all

5 governmental agencies, nongovernmental agencies, and international organizations
6 involved in the USRAP.
7

2.

The term “Agency Memo” refers to the memorandum from Defendants

8 then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, then Acting Secretary of Homeland Security
9 Elaine Duke, and Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats to Defendant
10 President Donald Trump dated October 23, 2017, but released on October 24, 2017,
11 which was issued with Executive Order 13,815, 82 Fed. Reg. 50,055 (Oct. 27,
12 2017).
13

3.

The word “all” shall be construed to include and encompass the words

14 “each,” “every,” and “any.”
15

4.

The word “Approved” refers to a USCIS officer’s action in providing

16 either a Digital I-590 Approval or a Wet I-590 Stamp to a case.
17

5.

The term “BFRs” refers to whether refugees have a bona fide

18 relationship with a person or entity in the United States, as defined by Trump v.
19 International Refugee Assistance Project, —— U.S. ——, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017),
20 and its progeny.
21

6.

The words “Defendants,” “You,” and “Your” refer to President Donald

22 Trump, the White House Office, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Secretary
23 of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, U.S. Department of State, Secretary of State
24 Michael Pompeo, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Director of
25 National Intelligence Dan Coats, their officers, agents, assigns, employees, insurers,
26 attorneys, subsidiaries, successors, and predecessors, and anyone acting on their
27 behalf.
28
{00011200}

-2PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE’S FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 4 of 223

1

7.

The term “Digital I-590 Approval” refers to USCIS digital approval of

2 Form I-590 issued without the necessity of being on-site to provide a Wet I-590
3 Stamp, as discussed in Doe-JFS_State_0000143-Doe-JFS_State_0000149.
4

8.

The words “Document” and “Documents” shall be construed to be

5 synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage of the terms in Federal Rule
6 of Civil Procedure 34(a), in its broadest sense, and shall mean and include all
7 written, printed, typed, recorded or graphic matter of every kind and description,
8 including Correspondence, both originals and copies, and all attachments and
9 appendices thereto, that are in Your possession, custody, or control, or in the
10 possession, custody, or control of Your attorney. A draft of a non-identical copy is a
11 separate Document within the meaning of this term. Without limiting the term
12 “control,” a Document is deemed to be within Your control if You have ownership,
13 possession, or custody of the Document, or the right to secure the Document or copy
14 thereof from any persons or public or private entity having physical control thereof.
15

9.

The term “Follow-to-Join Refugees” refers to beneficiaries of Form I-

16 730 petitions filed by refugees residing in the United States seeking to reunite with
17 their families pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c)(2)(A).
18

10.

The term “I-590 Form” refers to the Department of Homeland Security

19 and/or USCIS Form entitled “Registration for Classification as Refugee.”
20

11.

The words “including” and “includes” shall be construed to mean

21 “including, but not limited to” and “includes, but is not limited to” respectively.
22

12.

The term “Preliminary Injunction” refers to the Court’s Findings of

23 Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Issuing a Preliminary Injunction issued on
24 December 23, 2017 (ECF No. 92).
25

13.

The term “Presented for Digital I-590 Approval” refers to the act of

26 adding the “Request Digital USCIS Approval CAR” to request Digital I-590
27 Approval, as discussed in Doe-JFS_State_0000143-Doe-JFS_State_0000149.
28
{00011200}

-3PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE’S FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 5 of 223

1

14.

The term “Presented for Wet I-590 Stamp” refers to the act of

2 presenting a case to USCIS for Wet I-590 Stamp after the case has cleared all
3 security checks.
4

15.

The word “Processing ” refers to all stages of processing in the USRAP

5 by Agencies Involved in the USRAP, including referring cases to the USRAP,
6 preparing and storing files, collecting data, conducting pre-interviews and
7 interviews, adjudicating applications, reviewing case decisions, conducting security
8 checks and medical clearances, obtaining assurances, providing cultural orientation,
9 and arranging travel to the United States.
10

16.

The term “Requests Pending” refers to cases presented to USCIS to be

11 Approved but upon which USCIS has not yet taken action.
12

17.

The term “SAO Countries” refers to the particular countries designated

13 on the Security Advisory Opinion (“SAO”) list.
14

18.

The term “Stamping” refers to the action taken by a USCIS officer

15 when he or she issues an Approved Decision and applies either a Digital Stamp or a
16 Wet Stamp to the applicant’s Form I-590, Registration for Classification as Refugee.
17

19.

The term “USCIS” shall refer to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

18 Services.
19

20.

The term “USRAP” refers to the United States Refugee Admissions

20 Program.
21

21.

The term “Unable to Stamp” refers to the action taken by a USCIS

22 officer when he or she marks the case “Unable to Stamp: Evidence documenting a
23 case-by-case determination by DHS and State required for further processing.”
24

22.

The term “Wet I-590 Stamp” refers to USCIS approval of Form I-590

25 that requires USCIS to be on-site to provide the stamp, as discussed in Doe26 JFS_State_0000143-Doe-JFS_State_0000149.
27
28
{00011200}

-4PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE’S FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 6 of 223

1

23.

The connectives “and” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively

2 or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all
3 responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope.
4

24.

Words used in the plural shall be construed to include the singular, and

5 words used in the singular shall be interpreted to include the plural.
6

25.

The use of a verb in any tense shall be construed as the use of the verb

7 in all other tenses, whenever necessary to bring into the scope of the specification all
8 responses which might otherwise be construed outside the scope.
9

26.

The use of any masculine or feminine pronoun shall be construed to

10 include both the masculine and feminine.
11

INSTRUCTIONS

12 1. In answering these interrogatories, furnish all information, including but not
13

limited to information contained in or on any Document, that is known or

14

available to You, including all information in the possession of Your

15

attorneys or other persons acting on Your behalf or under Your attorney’s

16

employment or direction.

17 2. To the extent any objection is made to any of these interrogatories, You must
18

respond to so much of each such interrogatory as to which no objection is

19

made. State in full the part of the interrogatory objected to and set forth the

20

grounds for each objection. If any objection is made on the grounds of

21

vagueness, over-breadth, or any similar ground, You must respond to the

22

interrogatory as narrowed to conform to Your objection. If You contend that

23

any of the requested information is protected by the attorney-client privilege,

24

work product doctrine, or any other privilege, please provide a concise

25

statement of the grounds upon which the claim of privilege is asserted.

26 3. You may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for any failure to
27

answer any of these interrogatories, unless You state that You have made

28
{00011200}

-5PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE’S FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 7 of 223

1

reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by

2

You is insufficient to allow You to answer the interrogatory or

3

interrogatories. If You cannot answer any interrogatory fully and completely

4

after exercising such due diligence, so state, and answer each such

5

interrogatory to the full extent You deem possible, specify the portion of such

6

interrogatory that You claim You are unable to answer fully and completely;

7

state the facts on which You rely to support Your contention that You are

8

unable to answer such interrogatory fully and completely; and state what

9

knowledge, information, and belief You have concerning the unanswered

10

portion of each such interrogatory.

11 4. If any interrogatory calls for information that is not in Your possession, custody,
12

or subject to Your control or ascertainable by You, Your attorneys, or others

13

acting on Your behalf upon reasonable inquiry, then identify the custodian or

14

possessor of such information, if known.

15 5. Unless otherwise specified, each interrogatory refers to the time period since
16

October 23, 2017.

17 6. The interrogatories herein are continuing in nature, and Defendants are required
18

to supplement their responses pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of

19

Civil Procedure in the event that Defendants or any person acting on their

20

behalf obtains additional information called for by the interrogatory herein

21

after the time of Defendants’ original response.

22 7. For each of the interrogatories below, identify the numbers requested and specify
23

how many relate to (1) Refugees from SAO Countries, and of those, how

24

many have BFRs; (2) Follow-to-Join Refugees; and (3) any overlap in these

25

two groups.

26
27
28
{00011200}

-6PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE’S FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 8 of 223

INTERROGATORIES 1

1

2 INTERROGATORY NO. 31:
3

Identify the number of cases and refugees Presented for Digital I-590

4 Approval each week.
5 INTERROGATORY NO. 32:
6

Identify the number of cases and refugees Presented for Wet I-590 Stamp

7 each week.
8 INTERROGATORY NO. 33:
9

For each week, identify the total number of cases and refugees with Requests

10 Pending for Digital I-590 Approval and the total number of cases and refugees
11 with Requests Pending for Wet I-590 Stamp.
12 INTERROGATORY NO. 34:
13

Identify the number of cases and refugees Approved via Digital I-590

14 Approval each week and the number of cases and refugees Approved via Wet I15 590 Stamp each week.
16 INTERROGATORY NO. 35:
17

Identify the number of cases and refugees marked Unable to Stamp each

18 week, and for each of those cases and refugees identify: their names; nationalities;
19 each Processing step completed and the corresponding date of each step; and
20 current case status.
21 INTERROGATORY NO. 36:
22

Identify the total number of cases and refugees that were determined, prior to

23 December 24, 2017, to meet the Agency Memo’s criteria for continued case-by24 case processing, and for each of those cases and refugees identify: their names; their
25 nationalities; the dates on which the case-by-case determinations were made; each
26
27

1

Bold typeface indicates words, phrases, and acronyms defined in the Definitions
28 section.
{00011200}
-7PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE’S FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 9 of 223

1 processing step completed after the case-by-case determinations and the
2 corresponding dates of each step; and current case status.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{00011200}

-8PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE’S FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 10 of 223

1 Dated: October 5, 2018
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

By: /s/ Abigail E. Davis
Lauren E. Aguiar, Pro Hac Vice
Mollie M. Kornreich, Pro Hac Vice
Abigail E. Davis, Pro Hac Vice
Four Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Tel: (212) 735-3000
Fax: (212) 735-2000
lauren.aguiar@probonolaw.com
mollie.kornreich@probonolaw.com
abigail.sheehan@probonolaw.com
Deepa Alagesan, Pro Hac Vice
Mariko Hirose, Pro Hac Vice
Linda Evarts, Pro Hac Vice
Kathryn C. Meyer, Pro Hac Vice
International Refugee Assistance Project
40 Rector Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (646) 459-3044
mhirose@refugeerights.org
dalagesan@refugeerights.org
levarts@refugeerights.org
kmeyer@refugeerights.org
David Burman, WSBA No. 10611
Lauren Watts Staniar, WSBA No. 48741
Tyler Roberts, WSBA No. 52688
Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: 206.359.8000
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
dburman@perkinscoie.com
lstaniar@perkinscoie.com
troberts@perkinscoie.com

Justin B. Cox, Pro Hac Vice
International Refugee Assistance Project
PO Box 170208
Atlanta, GA 30317
Tel: (678) 404-9119
jcox@refugeerights.org
Karen C. Tumlin, Pro Hac Vice
Melissa S. Keaney, Pro Hac Vice
Esther H. Sung, Pro Hac Vice
National Immigration Law Center
3450 Wilshire Blvd, #108-62
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 639-3900
Fax: (213) 639-3911
tumlin@nilc.org
keaney@nilc.org
sung@nilc.org
Elizabeth Sweet, Pro Hac Vice
Mark Hetfield, Pro Hac Vice
HIAS, Inc.
1300 Spring Street, Suite 500
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tel: 301-844-7300
liz.sweet@hias.org
mark.hetfield@hias.org
Counsel for Plaintiff Jewish Family
Service of Seattle

26
27
28
{00011200}

-9PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE’S FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 11 of 223

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF WASHINGTON
FOUNDATION
By: /s/ Emily Chiang
/s/ Lisa Nowlin
Emily Chiang, WSBA # 50517
Lisa Nowlin, WSBA # 51512
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630
Seattle, WA 98164
Telephone: (206) 624-2184
Email: echiang@aclu-wa.org
lnowlin@aclu-wa.org
Counsel for Plaintiff Joseph Doe

11
12
13
14

KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
By: /s/ Lynn Lincoln Sarko
By: /s/ Tana Lin
By: /s/ Amy Williams-Derry
By: /s/ Derek W. Loeser
By: /s/ Alison S. Gaffney
Lynn Lincoln Sarko, WSBA # 16569
Tana Lin, WSBA # 35271
Amy Williams-Derry, WSBA # 28711
Derek W. Loeser, WSBA # 24274
Alison S. Gaffney, WSBA # 45565
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
tlin@kellerrohrback.com
awilliamsderry@kellerrohrback.com
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
agaffney@kellerrohrback.com

15
By: /s/ Laurie B. Ashton
Laurie B. Ashton, Pro Hac Vice
3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600
Telephone: (602) 248-0088
Facsimile: (602) 248-2822
Email: lashton@kellerrohrback.com

16
17
18
19
20

By: /s/ Alison Chase
Alison Chase, Pro Hac Vice
1129 State Street, Suite 8
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com

21
22
23
24
25

Counsel for Plaintiff Joseph Doe

26
27
28
{00011200}

-10PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE’S FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 12 of 223

EXHIBIT 2
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 13 of 223

1

THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART

2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7
8
9

JOHN DOE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10

DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
(RELATING TO BOTH CASES)
Defendants.

13
14
15

JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE of
SEATTLE, et al.,

v.

17

DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

19
20

TO:

Defendants President Donald Trump, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, U.S. Department of State,
Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats.

AND TO:

Joseph H. Hunt, August E. Flentje, Jennifer D. Ricketts, John R. Tyler, Daniel
Bensing, Kevin Snell, and Joseph C. Dugan.

21
22
23

CASE NO. C17-1707JLR

Plaintiffs,

16

18

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE
30(b)(6) DEPOSITION

v.

11

12

CASE NO. C17-0178JLR

24
25

26

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6),
Plaintiffs Jewish Family Service of Seattle (“JFS”) and Joseph Doe (“Doe”), by and through

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION
(No. C17-0178JLR) – 1

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 14 of 223

1

counsel, will take the deposition of U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) on the

2

subject matters set forth in Exhibit A at a time and place mutually agreeable to the parties.

3

Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), DHS shall designate one or more representatives or agents, or other

4

persons most knowledgeable regarding all information known or reasonably available to it

5

relating to the subject matters identified in Exhibit A.

6

The deposition shall be taken before a duly certified court reporter and notary public or

7

other person authorized by law to administer oaths. Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(3), the testimony will

8

be recorded by stenographic, audio, video, and/or real-time transcription means.

9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION
(No. C17-0178JLR) – 2

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 15 of 223

1

Respectfully submitted,

2

/s/
David Burman, WSBA No. 10611
Lauren Watts Staniar, WSBA No. 48741
Tyler Roberts, WSBA No. 52688
Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: 206.359.8000
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
dburman@perkinscoie.com
lstaniar@perkinscoie.com
troberts@perkinscoie.com

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

19

Mariko Hirose, Pro Hac Vice
Deepa Alagesan, Pro Hac Vice
Linda Evarts, Pro Hac Vice
Kathryn C. Meyer, Pro Hac Vice
International Refugee Assistance Project
40 Rector Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (646) 459-3044
mhirose@refugeerights.org
dalagesan@refugeerights.org
levarts@refugeerights.org
kmeyer@refugeerights.org
Elizabeth Sweet, Pro Hac Vice
Mark Hetfield, Pro Hac Vice
HIAS, Inc.
1300 Spring Street, Suite 500
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tel: 301-844-7300
liz.sweet@hias.org
mark.hetfield@hias.org

DATED: October 17, 2018
Justin B. Cox, Pro Hac Vice
International Refugee Assistance Project
PO Box 170208
Atlanta, GA 30317
Tel: (678) 404-9119
jcox@refugeerights.org
Karen C. Tumlin, Pro Hac Vice
Melissa S. Keaney, Pro Hac Vice
Esther H. Sung, Pro Hac Vice
National Immigration Law Center
3450 Wilshire Blvd, #108-62
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 639-3900
Fax: (213) 639-3911
tumlin@nilc.org
keaney@nilc.org
sung@nilc.org
Lauren E. Aguiar, Pro Hac Vice
Mollie M. Kornreich, Pro Hac Vice
Abigail E. Davis, Pro Hac Vice
Four Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Tel: (212) 735-3000
Fax: (212) 735-2000
lauren.aguiar@probonolaw.com
mollie.kornreich@probonolaw.com
abigail.sheehan@probonolaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs Jewish Family Service,
et al.

20
21
22
23
24
25

26
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION
(No. C17-0178JLR) – 3

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 16 of 223

1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION
By: /s/ Emily Chiang
/s/ Lisa Nowlin
Emily Chiang, WSBA # 50517
Lisa Nowlin, WSBA # 51512
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630
Seattle, WA 98164
Telephone: (206) 624-2184
Email: echiang@aclu-wa.org
lnowlin@aclu-wa.org
Counsel for Plaintiffs Doe, et al.

9
10
11

12

KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
By: /s/ Lynn Lincoln Sarko
By: /s/ Tana Lin
By: /s/ Amy Williams-Derry
By: /s/ Derek W. Loeser
By: /s/ Alison S. Gaffney
Lynn Lincoln Sarko, WSBA # 16569
Tana Lin, WSBA # 35271
Amy Williams-Derry, WSBA # 28711
Derek W. Loeser, WSBA # 24274
Alison S. Gaffney, WSBA # 45565
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
tlin@kellerrohrback.com
awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
agaffney@kellerrohrback.com
By: /s/ Laurie B. Ashton
Laurie B. Ashton (admitted pro hac vice)
3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600
Telephone: (602) 248-0088
Facsimile: (602) 248-2822
Email: lashton@kellerrohrback.com

13
14
15
16

By: /s/ Alison Chase
Alison Chase (admitted pro hac vice)
1129 State Street, Suite 8
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com

17
18

19
20

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Doe, et al./Cooperating
Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties
Union Of Washington Foundation

21
22
23
24
25

26
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION
(No. C17-0178JLR) – 4

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 17 of 223

1

EXHIBIT A

2

DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

3
4

The following definitions and instructions shall apply:
1.

The term “Agency Memo” refers to the memorandum from Defendants then

5

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, then Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke, and

6

Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats to Defendant President Donald Trump dated

7

October 23, 2017, but released on October 24, 2017, which was issued with Executive Order

8

13,815, 82 Fed. Reg. 50,055 (Oct. 27, 2017).

9
10
11

2.

The word “all” shall be construed to include and encompass the words “each,”

“every,” and “any.”
3.

The term “BFR Status” refers to whether refugees have a bona fide relationship

12

with a person or entity in the United States, as defined by Trump v. International Refugee

13

Assistance Project, —— U.S. ——, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017), and its progeny.

14

4.

The words “Defendants,” “You,” and “Your” refer to President Donald Trump,

15

the White House Office, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of Homeland

16

Security Kirstjen Nielsen, U.S. Department of State, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, Office

17

of the Director of National Intelligence, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, their

18

officers, agents, assigns, employees, insurers, attorneys, subsidiaries, successors, and

19

predecessors, and anyone acting on their behalf.

20

5.

The term “DHS” refers to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, a federal

21

agency that is headed by a Secretary, currently Kirstjen Nielsen, and includes, but is not limited

22

to, any predecessor or successor agencies, and any divisions, departments, affiliates, agents,

23

attorneys, representatives, employees, and/or other persons acting on its behalf.

24
25

6.

The term “Digital Stamp Queue” refers to those cases that have been submitted to

USCIS for digital approval of the I-590 Form.

26
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION
(No. C17-0178JLR) – 5

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 18 of 223

1

7.

The term “DOS” refers to the U.S. Department of State, a federal agency that is

2

headed by a Secretary, currently Michael Pompeo, and includes, but is not limited to, any

3

predecessor or successor agencies, and any divisions, departments, affiliates, agents, attorneys,

4

representatives, employees, and/or other persons or entities acting on its behalf, including the

5

RSCs.

6

8.

The term “Follow-to-Join Refugees” refers to the beneficiaries (i.e., the

7

petitioners’ spouses and unmarried children under age 21) of Form I-730 petitions filed by

8

refugees residing in the United States seeking to reunite with their families pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

9

§ 1157(c)(2)(A).

10

9.

11

12
13
14

The term “I-590 Form” refers to the DHS and/or USCIS Form entitled

“Registration for Classification as Refugee.”
10.

The words “including” and “includes” shall be construed to mean “including, but

not limited to” and “includes, but is not limited to” respectively.
11.

The term “IV-Processing Posts” refers to posts to which NIV-only embassies and

15

consulates were instructed to transfer all pending and new Follow-to-Join Refugee cases, as

16

described in Doe-JFS_State_00000184-185.

17
18

19

12.

The term “Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Stay” refers to the Court’s order

denying Defendants’ motion for stay pending appeal, issued on January 9, 2018 (ECF No. 106).
13.

The term “Preliminary Injunction” refers to the Court’s Findings of Fact,

20

Conclusions of Law, and Order Issuing a Preliminary Injunction issued on December 23, 2017

21

(ECF No. 92).

22

14.

The term “Processing of Applications” refers to all stages of processing in the

23

USRAP by Agencies Involved in the USRAP, including referring cases to the USRAP, preparing

24

and storing files, collecting data, conducting pre-interviews and interviews, adjudicating

25

applications, reviewing case decisions, conducting security checks and medical clearances,

26

obtaining assurances, providing cultural orientation, and arranging travel to the United States.
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION
(No. C17-0178JLR) – 6

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 19 of 223

1

2
3

15.

The term “Refugees from SAO Countries” refers to refugees who are nationals of

or stateless persons who last habitually resided in the SAO Countries.
16.

The terms “relate to” and “relating to” shall be construed in the broadest sense

4

and shall mean, without limitation, anything that, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly,

5

analyzes, comments upon, comprises, concerns, constitutes, contains, discusses, embodies,

6

evidences, explains, identifies, manifests, mentions, reflects, refers to, relates to, states,

7

summarizes, or is in any way relevant to the particular subject matter identified.

8
9
10
11

12
13
14

17.

The term “RSCs” refers to Department of State-funded Resettlement Support

Centers involved in the USRAP.
18.

The term “SAO Cases” refers to refugee cases with at least one case member who

is subject to an SAO Check as part of Processing of Applications.
19.

The term “SAO Countries” refers to the particular countries designated on the

Security Advisory Opinion list.
20.

The term “SAO Check” refers to the security check currently required to be

15

performed for some nationals of the particular countries designated on the Security Advisory

16

Opinion list as part of Processing of Applications.

17

21.

The term “USCIS” means U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a federal

18

agency that is a component of DHS and is headed by a director, currently L. Francis Cissna, and

19

includes, but is not limited to, any predecessor or successor agencies, and any divisions,

20

departments, affiliates, agents, attorneys, representatives, employees, and/or other persons acting

21

on its behalf.

22

22.

The term “USRAP” refers to the United States Refugee Admissions Program.

23

23.

The term “WRAPS” refers to the Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing

24

System, a computer system used to process and track refugees as part of Processing of

25

Applications.

26
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION
(No. C17-0178JLR) – 7

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 20 of 223

1

24.

The connectives “and” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or

2

conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all responses that

3

might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope.

4
5

25.

Words used in the plural shall be construed to include the singular, and words

used in the singular shall be interpreted to include the plural.

6

26.

The use of a verb in any tense shall be construed as the use of the verb in all other

7

tenses, whenever necessary to bring into the scope of the specification all responses which might

8

otherwise be construed outside the scope.

9
10

27.

The use of any masculine or feminine pronoun shall be construed to include both

the masculine and feminine.

11

28.

These Topics are intended to elicit as much information as possible concerning

12

the issues, and to the extent any Topic could be interpreted in more than one way, you should

13

employ the interpretation of the Topic most likely to encompass and elicit the greatest amount of

14

information possible.

15

29.

Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement these Topics as necessary.

16

TOPICS FOR EXAMINATION1

17

In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), DHS shall identify,

18

designate, and produce for deposition one or more officers, directors, managing agents, or other

19

person(s) most knowledgeable to testify on its behalf regarding the following topics:

20
21

1.

The actions taken to implement the Agency Memo, including, for example, the

issuance of guidance, instructions, or other forms of directive:

22

(a)

to place holds on SAO Cases;

23

(b)

not to request new SAO Checks;

24

(c)

not to schedule interviews for Follow-to-Join Refugees or Refugees from

25

SAO Countries;

26
1

Terms defined in the Definitions and Instructions section are in bold.
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION
(No. C17-0178JLR) – 8

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 21 of 223

1

(d)

to hold processing of Follow-to-Join Refugees who were Refugees from

2

SAO Countries and of all Follow-to-Join Refugees whose applications were not

3

processed through RSCs in Kenya and Thailand;

4

(e)

not to present Refugees from SAO Countries to USCIS for adjudication;

5

(f)

not to review cases of Refugees from SAO Countries in the Digital

6

Stamp Queue or to adjudicate them as approved without evidence of case-by-case

7

waiver;

8

(g)

not to issue final approvals to Follow-to-Join Refugees;

9

(h)

not to schedule travel for Refugees from SAO Countries or Follow-to-

10

Join Refugees;

11

(i)

not to issue travel documents to Follow-to-Join Refugees; and

12

(j)

to remove BFR Status from WRAPS;

13

2.

The actions taken to implement the Preliminary Injunction and Order Denying

14

Defendants’ Motion to Stay, including, for example, all actions taken to undo, rescind, and/or

15

reverse each of the actions enumerated in or otherwise encompassed by item 1 above.

16

3.

The Pipeline for DHS Review, referred to in Program Announcement 2018-15.

17

4.

The decision to transfer Follow-to-Join Refugees to IV-Processing Posts.

18

5.

The decisions to limit the number of SAO Checks that RSCs could request each

19

month.

20
21
22
23
24
25

26
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION
(No. C17-0178JLR) – 9

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 22 of 223

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on October 17, 2018, I caused service of the foregoing,

3

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION, via email to all counsel of record

4

herein.

5

11

DANIEL BENSING
KEVIN SNELL
JOSEPH C. DUGAN
Senior Trial Counsel / Trial Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259
Fax: (202) 616-8470
Daniel.Bensing@usdoj.gov
Kevin.Snell@usdoj.gov
Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov

12

Counsel for Defendants

6
7
8
9
10

13
DATED this 17th day of October, 2018, at Atlanta, Georgia.
14
/s/
Justin B. Cox
International Refugee Assistance Project
PO Box 170208
Atlanta, GA 30317
Tel: (678) 404-9119
jcox@refugeerights.org

15
16
17
18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 23 of 223

1

THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART

2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7
8
9

JOHN DOE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10

DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
(RELATING TO BOTH CASES)
Defendants.

13
14
15

JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE of
SEATTLE, et al.,

v.

17

DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

19
20

TO:

Defendants President Donald Trump, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, U.S. Department of State,
Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats.

AND TO:

Joseph H. Hunt, August E. Flentje, Jennifer D. Ricketts, John R. Tyler, Daniel
Bensing, Kevin Snell, and Joseph C. Dugan.

21
22
23

CASE NO. C17-1707JLR

Plaintiffs,

16

18

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE
30(b)(6) DEPOSITION

v.

11

12

CASE NO. C17-0178JLR

24
25

26

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6),
Plaintiffs Jewish Family Service of Seattle (“JFS”) and Joseph Doe (“Doe”), by and through

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION
(No. C17-0178JLR) – 1

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 24 of 223

1

counsel, will take the deposition of U.S. Department of State (“DOS”) on the subject matters set

2

forth in Exhibit A at a time and place mutually agreeable to the parties. Pursuant to Rule

3

30(b)(6), DOS shall designate one or more representatives or agents, or other persons most

4

knowledgeable regarding all information known or reasonably available to it relating to the

5

subject matters identified in Exhibit A.

6

The deposition shall be taken before a duly certified court reporter and notary public or

7

other person authorized by law to administer oaths. Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(3), the testimony will

8

be recorded by stenographic, audio, video, and/or real-time transcription means.

9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION
(No. C17-0178JLR) – 2

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 25 of 223

1

Respectfully submitted,

2

/s/
David Burman, WSBA No. 10611
Lauren Watts Staniar, WSBA No. 48741
Tyler Roberts, WSBA No. 52688
Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: 206.359.8000
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
dburman@perkinscoie.com
lstaniar@perkinscoie.com
troberts@perkinscoie.com

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

19

Mariko Hirose, Pro Hac Vice
Deepa Alagesan, Pro Hac Vice
Linda Evarts, Pro Hac Vice
Kathryn C. Meyer, Pro Hac Vice
International Refugee Assistance Project
40 Rector Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (646) 459-3044
mhirose@refugeerights.org
dalagesan@refugeerights.org
levarts@refugeerights.org
kmeyer@refugeerights.org
Elizabeth Sweet, Pro Hac Vice
Mark Hetfield, Pro Hac Vice
HIAS, Inc.
1300 Spring Street, Suite 500
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tel: 301-844-7300
liz.sweet@hias.org
mark.hetfield@hias.org

DATED: October 17, 2018
Justin B. Cox, Pro Hac Vice
International Refugee Assistance Project
PO Box 170208
Atlanta, GA 30317
Tel: (678) 404-9119
jcox@refugeerights.org
Karen C. Tumlin, Pro Hac Vice
Melissa S. Keaney, Pro Hac Vice
Esther H. Sung, Pro Hac Vice
National Immigration Law Center
3450 Wilshire Blvd, #108-62
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 639-3900
Fax: (213) 639-3911
tumlin@nilc.org
keaney@nilc.org
sung@nilc.org
Lauren E. Aguiar, Pro Hac Vice
Mollie M. Kornreich, Pro Hac Vice
Abigail E. Davis, Pro Hac Vice
Four Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Tel: (212) 735-3000
Fax: (212) 735-2000
lauren.aguiar@probonolaw.com
mollie.kornreich@probonolaw.com
abigail.sheehan@probonolaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs Jewish Family Service,
et al.

20
21
22
23
24
25

26
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION
(No. C17-0178JLR) – 3

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 26 of 223

1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION
By: /s/ Emily Chiang
/s/ Lisa Nowlin
Emily Chiang, WSBA # 50517
Lisa Nowlin, WSBA # 51512
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630
Seattle, WA 98164
Telephone: (206) 624-2184
Email: echiang@aclu-wa.org
lnowlin@aclu-wa.org
Counsel for Plaintiffs Doe, et al.

9
10
11

12

KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
By: /s/ Lynn Lincoln Sarko
By: /s/ Tana Lin
By: /s/ Amy Williams-Derry
By: /s/ Derek W. Loeser
By: /s/ Alison S. Gaffney
Lynn Lincoln Sarko, WSBA # 16569
Tana Lin, WSBA # 35271
Amy Williams-Derry, WSBA # 28711
Derek W. Loeser, WSBA # 24274
Alison S. Gaffney, WSBA # 45565
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
tlin@kellerrohrback.com
awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
agaffney@kellerrohrback.com
By: /s/ Laurie B. Ashton
Laurie B. Ashton (admitted pro hac vice)
3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600
Telephone: (602) 248-0088
Facsimile: (602) 248-2822
Email: lashton@kellerrohrback.com

13
14
15
16

By: /s/ Alison Chase
Alison Chase (admitted pro hac vice)
1129 State Street, Suite 8
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com

17
18

19
20

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Doe, et al./Cooperating
Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties
Union Of Washington Foundation

21
22
23
24
25

26
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION
(No. C17-0178JLR) – 4

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 27 of 223

1

EXHIBIT A

2

DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

3
4

The following definitions and instructions shall apply:
1.

The term “Agency Memo” refers to the memorandum from Defendants then

5

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, then Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke, and

6

Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats to Defendant President Donald Trump dated

7

October 23, 2017, but released on October 24, 2017, which was issued with Executive Order

8

13,815, 82 Fed. Reg. 50,055 (Oct. 27, 2017).

9
10
11

2.

The word “all” shall be construed to include and encompass the words “each,”

“every,” and “any.”
3.

The term “BFR Status” refers to whether refugees have a bona fide relationship

12

with a person or entity in the United States, as defined by Trump v. International Refugee

13

Assistance Project, —— U.S. ——, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017), and its progeny.

14

4.

The words “Defendants,” “You,” and “Your” refer to President Donald Trump,

15

the White House Office, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of Homeland

16

Security Kirstjen Nielsen, U.S. Department of State, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, Office

17

of the Director of National Intelligence, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, their

18

officers, agents, assigns, employees, insurers, attorneys, subsidiaries, successors, and

19

predecessors, and anyone acting on their behalf.

20

5.

The term “DHS” refers to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, a federal

21

agency that is headed by a Secretary, currently Kirstjen Nielsen, and includes, but is not limited

22

to, any predecessor or successor agencies, and any divisions, departments, affiliates, agents,

23

attorneys, representatives, employees, and/or other persons acting on its behalf.

24
25

6.

The term “Digital Stamp Queue” refers to those cases that have been submitted to

USCIS for digital approval of the I-590 Form.

26
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION
(No. C17-0178JLR) – 5

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 28 of 223

1

7.

The term “DOS” refers to the U.S. Department of State, a federal agency that is

2

headed by a Secretary, currently Michael Pompeo, and includes, but is not limited to, any

3

predecessor or successor agencies, and any divisions, departments, affiliates, agents, attorneys,

4

representatives, employees, and/or other persons or entities acting on its behalf, including the

5

RSCs.

6

8.

The term “Follow-to-Join Refugees” refers to the beneficiaries (i.e., the

7

petitioners’ spouses and unmarried children under age 21) of Form I-730 petitions filed by

8

refugees residing in the United States seeking to reunite with their families pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

9

§ 1157(c)(2)(A).

10

9.

11

12
13
14

The term “I-590 Form” refers to the DHS and/or USCIS Form entitled

“Registration for Classification as Refugee.”
10.

The words “including” and “includes” shall be construed to mean “including, but

not limited to” and “includes, but is not limited to” respectively.
11.

The term “IV-Processing Posts” refers to posts to which NIV-only embassies and

15

consulates were instructed to transfer all pending and new Follow-to-Join Refugee cases, as

16

described in Doe-JFS_State_00000184-185.

17
18

19

12.

The term “Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Stay” refers to the Court’s order

denying Defendants’ motion for stay pending appeal, issued on January 9, 2018 (ECF No. 106).
13.

The term “Preliminary Injunction” refers to the Court’s Findings of Fact,

20

Conclusions of Law, and Order Issuing a Preliminary Injunction issued on December 23, 2017

21

(ECF No. 92).

22

14.

The term “Processing of Applications” refers to all stages of processing in the

23

USRAP by Agencies Involved in the USRAP, including referring cases to the USRAP, preparing

24

and storing files, collecting data, conducting pre-interviews and interviews, adjudicating

25

applications, reviewing case decisions, conducting security checks and medical clearances,

26

obtaining assurances, providing cultural orientation, and arranging travel to the United States.
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION
(No. C17-0178JLR) – 6

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 29 of 223

1

2
3

15.

The term “Refugees from SAO Countries” refers to refugees who are nationals of

or stateless persons who last habitually resided in the SAO Countries.
16.

The terms “relate to” and “relating to” shall be construed in the broadest sense

4

and shall mean, without limitation, anything that, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly,

5

analyzes, comments upon, comprises, concerns, constitutes, contains, discusses, embodies,

6

evidences, explains, identifies, manifests, mentions, reflects, refers to, relates to, states,

7

summarizes, or is in any way relevant to the particular subject matter identified.

8
9
10
11

12
13
14

17.

The term “RSCs” refers to Department of State-funded Resettlement Support

Centers involved in the USRAP.
18.

The term “SAO Cases” refers to refugee cases with at least one case member who

is subject to an SAO Check as part of Processing of Applications.
19.

The term “SAO Countries” refers to the particular countries designated on the

Security Advisory Opinion list.
20.

The term “SAO Check” refers to the security check currently required to be

15

performed for some nationals of the particular countries designated on the Security Advisory

16

Opinion list as part of Processing of Applications.

17

21.

The term “USCIS” means U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a federal

18

agency that is a component of DHS and is headed by a director, currently L. Francis Cissna, and

19

includes, but is not limited to, any predecessor or successor agencies, and any divisions,

20

departments, affiliates, agents, attorneys, representatives, employees, and/or other persons acting

21

on its behalf.

22

22.

The term “USRAP” refers to the United States Refugee Admissions Program.

23

23.

The term “WRAPS” refers to the Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing

24

System, a computer system used to process and track refugees as part of Processing of

25

Applications.

26
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION
(No. C17-0178JLR) – 7

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 30 of 223

1

24.

The connectives “and” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or

2

conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all responses that

3

might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope.

4
5

25.

Words used in the plural shall be construed to include the singular, and words

used in the singular shall be interpreted to include the plural.

6

26.

The use of a verb in any tense shall be construed as the use of the verb in all other

7

tenses, whenever necessary to bring into the scope of the specification all responses which might

8

otherwise be construed outside the scope.

9
10

27.

The use of any masculine or feminine pronoun shall be construed to include both

the masculine and feminine.

11

28.

These Topics are intended to elicit as much information as possible concerning

12

the issues, and to the extent any Topic could be interpreted in more than one way, you should

13

employ the interpretation of the Topic most likely to encompass and elicit the greatest amount of

14

information possible.

15

29.

Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement these Topics as necessary.

16

TOPICS FOR EXAMINATION1

17

In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), DOS shall identify,

18

designate, and produce for deposition one or more officers, directors, managing agents, or other

19

person(s) most knowledgeable to testify on its behalf regarding the following topics:

20
21

1.

The actions taken to implement the Agency Memo, including, for example, the

issuance of guidance, instructions, or other forms of directive:

22

(a)

to place holds on SAO Cases;

23

(b)

not to request new SAO Checks;

24

(c)

not to schedule interviews for Follow-to-Join Refugees or Refugees from

25

SAO Countries;

26
1

Terms defined in the Definitions and Instructions section are in bold.
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION
(No. C17-0178JLR) – 8

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 31 of 223

1

(d)

to hold processing of Follow-to-Join Refugees who were Refugees from

2

SAO Countries and of all Follow-to-Join Refugees whose applications were not

3

processed through RSCs in Kenya and Thailand;

4

(e)

not to present Refugees from SAO Countries to USCIS for adjudication;

5

(f)

not to review cases of Refugees from SAO Countries in the Digital

6

Stamp Queue or to adjudicate them as approved without evidence of case-by-case

7

waiver;

8

(g)

not to issue final approvals to Follow-to-Join Refugees;

9

(h)

not to schedule travel for Refugees from SAO Countries or Follow-to-

10

Join Refugees;

11

(i)

not to issue travel documents to Follow-to-Join Refugees; and

12

(j)

to remove BFR Status from WRAPS;

13

2.

The actions taken to implement the Preliminary Injunction and Order Denying

14

Defendants’ Motion to Stay, including, for example, all actions taken to undo, rescind, and/or

15

reverse each of the actions enumerated in or otherwise encompassed by item 1 above.

16

3.

The Pipeline for DHS Review, referred to in Program Announcement 2018-15.

17

4.

The decision to transfer Follow-to-Join Refugees to IV-Processing Posts.

18

5.

The decisions to limit the number of SAO Checks that RSCs could request each

19

month.

20
21
22
23
24
25

26
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION
(No. C17-0178JLR) – 9

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 32 of 223

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on October 17, 2018, I caused service of the foregoing,

3

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION, via email to all counsel of record

4

herein.

5

11

DANIEL BENSING
KEVIN SNELL
JOSEPH C. DUGAN
Senior Trial Counsel / Trial Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259
Fax: (202) 616-8470
Daniel.Bensing@usdoj.gov
Kevin.Snell@usdoj.gov
Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov

12

Counsel for Defendants

6
7
8
9
10

13
DATED this 17th day of October, 2018, at Atlanta, Georgia.
14
/s/
Justin B. Cox
International Refugee Assistance Project
PO Box 170208
Atlanta, GA 30317
Tel: (678) 404-9119
jcox@refugeerights.org

15
16
17
18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 33 of 223

EXHIBIT 3
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 34 of 223

Production::Begin Bates

Doe-JFS_State_00000009

Production::End Bates

Doe-JFS_State_00000063

Production::Begin Attachment

Doe-JFS_State_00000007

Production::End Attachment

TAG - Privilege

Doe-JFS_State_00000063

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

FROM

To

CC

DOCDATE

FILENAME

SOP-OP-RSC002-v1.34 4/13/2018 Pre-screening.pdf

Doe-JFS_State_00000078

Doe-JFS_State_00000081

Doe-JFS_State_00000078

Doe-JFS_State_00000159

Doe-JFS_State_00000083

Doe-JFS_State_00000132

Doe-JFS_State_00000078

Doe-JFS_State_00000159

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

SOP-OP-RSC002-v1.30 1/5/2018 Pre-screening.pdf

Doe-JFS_State_00000134

Doe-JFS_State_00000156

Doe-JFS_State_00000078

Doe-JFS_State_00000159

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

SOP-OP-RSC005-v2.7 1/5/2018 USCIS Interview.pdf

Doe-JFS_State_00000157

Doe-JFS_State_00000159

Doe-JFS_State_00000078

Doe-JFS_State_00000159

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_State_00000164

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_State_00000168

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_State_00000173

Doe-JFS_State_00000174

Doe-JFS_State_00000172

Doe-JFS_State_00000174

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_State_00000179

Doe-JFS_State_00000180

Doe-JFS_State_00000178

Doe-JFS_State_00000180

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_State_00000160

Doe-JFS_State_00000166

Doe-JFS_State_00000181

Doe-JFS_State_00000186

Doe-JFS_State_00000181

Doe-JFS_State_00000199

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_State_00000187

Doe-JFS_State_00000190

Doe-JFS_State_00000181

Doe-JFS_State_00000199

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000003

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000009

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000005

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000012

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Smith, Jennifer L

RSC Africa PRM Inquiries ; 'RSC Eurasia
Management' ; Havana - Refugee

PRM-Admissions Office ; PRM Admissions RefCoords ; Strack,
Barabara L.; Stone, Mary ; Chiorazzi, Anne ; Clough, Chelsea M

Message #4 FY 2018
Update on USRAP
1/11/2018 operations.msg

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Help

;
g
Damak' ; 'RSC Eurasia Management ; Anderson,
Todd D ; Gonzalez, Javier I (Havana) 'IT Africa' ;
'IT Amman' ; 'IT Austria' ; 'IT Damak' ; 'IT Eurasia'
; 'RSC Africa Ops' ; 'RSC MENA Data Integrity' ;

,
;
,
;
,
(
p );
Wingate, Patrick R ; Earl, MaryEileen (Kabul) ; Shaw, Gregory J
(Bangkok) ; Ave-Lallemant, Alex N ; Brown, Christopher J
(Amman) ; Garmize, Kristina X (Amman) ; Este, Stephen ;
Anderson, Todd D ; Kelley, Jennifer A ; Sen, Anjalina M ; Abdeen,

Gauger, Kelly A

Smith, Jennifer L ; RSC Africa PRM Inquiries ;
PRM-Admissions Office ; PRM Admissions RefCoords ; Stone,
'RSC Eurasia Management' ; Havana - Refugee ; Mary ; Chiorazzi, Anne ; Chelsea M; Ruppel, Joanna

Ingraham, Hilary E

Gauger, Kelly A ; Smith, Jennifer L ; RSC Africa
PRM Inquiries ; 'RSC Eurasia Management' ;
Havana - Refugee

PRM-Admissions Office ; PRM Admissions RefCoords ; Stone,
Mary ; Chiorazzi, Anne ; Clough, Chelsea M ; Ruppel, Joanna

RE_ Data Collection
Process and BFR job aid
1/8/2018 (UPDATED).msg
Message #5 FY 2018
Update on USRAP
1/29/2018 operations.msg
Message #6 of FY 2018
Update on USRAP
Operations -- Requesting
2/2/2018 SAOs.msg

2018-05 Changes to SAO
10/24/2017 Requirements.pdf

2018-17 Data Collection
4/13/2018 Changes for Refugees.pdf

SMART Core

Colyvas-McGinnis, Angela ; Whalen, Sean; Overman, Lisa I ;
Varnan, Beena M ; Howell, Loye E ; Scarlatelli, Adam W ; Walcott,
Naomi ; Plona, Katherine P ; Katula, Michael C ; McEvoy,
Meredith C ; Burnside, Sharon C ; Nantais, Joel D ; Earnest, Kevin
J ; Grewe, Brenda L ; Stein, Laura R ; Horner, Yoko J ; Dolce,
Michael R ; Lewis, Lorraine L ; Smith, Alan J ; Dancel, Jessica R ;
Fenzel, Andrew D ; Ferguson, Marisa ; Kelly, Claire C ; Krumm,
Sara M ; Keating, Kaitlin E ; Lo, Johnny ; Avsar, Melek ; Moore,
William K ; Szostak, Alexandra C ; Barth, William ; McNair, Jessica
M ; Ongjoco, Joanne ; Boquin, Lauren A

Revised Procedures for
Processing Follow-To-Join
1/30/2018 Refugee Applications.msg

1/30/2018 V93 Data Fields.pdf

DESCRIPTION
All of the material redacted in this document was done pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material on page 8
reveals detailed information about how and why identities and aliases are recorded in the World Wide Refugee Admissions
Processing System (WRAPS). The redacted material in in the section titled “Core Biodata Information” on page 9 would reveal what
information is considered core biodata information. The redacted material at the bottom of page 9 describes specific information
regarding limitations on identification documents and a security check procedure. The redacted material on page 10 describes when
information from identity documents does not need to be entered into WRAPS. The redacted material on page 11 contains
information about a required procedure for specific identity documents. The redacted material on page 12 reveals detailed
information about how aliases are treated in the prescreening interview. The redacted material on page 13 provides information on
how to address special circumstances that may arise while entering identity information into WRAPS during prescreening. The
redacted material on pages 22 and 23 describes what information is to be included on the applicant’s family tree in WRAPS in
different scenarios. Publication of any of this redacted material could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as it
could affect what information applicants provide, or applicants might answer questions evasively during interviews if they are seeking
to avoid detection and certain types of security screening.
The redacted material on pages 28-29 reveals information about a criterion that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant.
Publication of this criterion could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information
or answer questions evasively to avoid a possible SAO.

This document was partially redacted on page 1 pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal
information about a criterion that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of this criterion could compromise the
agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information, or might answer questions evasively to avoid a
possible SAO.
All of the material redacted in this document was done pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material on page 8
reveals detailed information about how and why identities and aliases are recorded in the World Wide Refugee Admissions
Processing System (WRAPS). Another portion of the redacted material would reveal what information is considered core biodata
information. Publication of which data are considered to fall within the “core” category could compromise the agencies’ law
enforcement missions. Publication of any of this material could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as it could
affect what information applicants provide, or applicants might answer questions evasively during interviews if they are seeking to
avoid detection or certain types of security screening. The redacted material at the top of page 9 reveals the quantity of what
information is considered core biodata information. The redacted material that carries over from pages 9 to10 describes when
information from identity documents does not need to be entered into WRAPS. The redacted material on page 10 (under the
“Passports and National IDs” heading) contains information about the handling of identity documents. The redacted material on
page 11 reveals detailed information about how aliases are treated in the prescreening interview. The redacted material on page 12
reveals information on how to address special circumstances that may arise while entering identity information into WRAPS during
prescreening. The redacted material on pages 20 and 21 describes what information is to be included on the applicant’s family tree
in WRAPS in different scenarios. Publication of any of this redacted material could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement
missions, as it could affect what information applicants might provide, or applicants might answer questions evasively during
interviews if they are seeking to avoid detection and certain types of security screening. The redacted material on pages 25 and 26
reveals information about a criterion that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of this criterion could
compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or might answer questions
evasively to avoid a possible SAO.

This document was partially redacted on pages 3, 8, 11, and 12 pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege because the redacted
material would reveal how derogatory information is considered and applied to a refugee applicant. Publication of this information
could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions evasively
to avoid detection. This document was partially redacted on pages 6, 7, and 9 pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The
redacted material would reveal specific criteria that may trigger additional screening for a refugee applicant. Publication of these
criteria could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions
evasively to avoid detection and possible additional screening. This document was partially redacted on pages 11 and 19 pursuant to
the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal information about the names of countries on a list that would
trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of this information could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as
applicants might not provide information or might answer questions evasively to avoid a possible SAO. This document was partially
redacted on page 18 pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal information about processing
that may result in a re-interview of the refugee applicant. Publication of this information could compromise the agencies’ law
enforcement missions, as it could affect what information applicants might provide, or applicants might answer questions evasively
during interviews if they are seeking to avoid detection and a possible re-interview. This document was partially redacted on page 20
pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal specific criteria that trigger security vetting for a
refugee applicant. Publication of these criteria could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might
withhold information or answer questions evasively to avoid detection and possible security vetting.

This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal information
about a criterion that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of this criterion could compromise the agencies’ law
enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information, or might answer questions evasively to avoid a possible SAO.
This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal information
about a criterion that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of this criterion could compromise the agencies’ law
enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information, or might answer questions evasively to avoid a possible SAO.
This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal information
about criteria that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of these criteria could compromise the agencies’ law
enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information, or might answer questions evasively to avoid a possible SAO.
This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal information
about criteria that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant, as well as a consequence of receiving an SAO. Publication of these
criteria could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or might answer
questions evasively to avoid a possible SAO.
This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal information
about a criterion that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of this criterion could compromise the agencies’ law
enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information, or might answer questions evasively to avoid a possible SAO.
All of the material redacted in this document was done pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material on pages 1
and 2 reveal information about criteria that would trigger an Enhanced FDNS Review (EFR) for a refugee applicant. Publication of
these criteria could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or might
answer questions evasively to avoid a possible EFR. The redacted material in the first bullet in paragraph 9 on page 3 reveal
information about a criterion that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of this criterion could compromise the
agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or might answer questions evasively to avoid a
possible SAO. The redactions in the ten places in the second bullet in paragraph 9 on pages 3 and 4 reveal which data elements for an
SAO are identified as critical, required, or optional. Publication of which data elements fall into which categories could compromise
the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as such publication could affect what information applicants might provide, or applicants
might answer questions evasively during interviews if they are seeking to avoid detection and security screening.

This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal particular data
elements used to initiate specific background checks. Publication of this information could compromise the agencies’ law
enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information, provide erroneous information, and/or answer questions evasively
so that derogatory information associated with those elements are not detected when screened.

This document was partially redacted on pages 2 and 3 pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would
reveal specific criteria that trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of these criteria could compromise the agencies’ law
2-Interim Guidance during enforcement missions, as applicants might answer questions evasively to avoid detection and a possible SAO.
11/13/2017 90-day Review Period.pdf
This document was partially redacted at pages 2 and 3 pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege because the redacted material
would reveal how derogatory information is considered and applied to a refugee applicant. Publication of this information could
compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions evasively to
avoid detection.
This document was partially redacted on page 4 pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal
specific national security indicators for a refugee applicant. Publication of these criteria could compromise the agencies’ law
4-Memo 90-day
Implementation Guidance enforcement missions, as applicants might answer questions evasively to avoid detection.
1/29/2018 1-29-18.pdf

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 35 of 223

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000013

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000014

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000017

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000022

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000015

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000056

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000023

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000024

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000015

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000056

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000025

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000028

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000015

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000056

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000038

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000043

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000015

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000056

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000044

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000056

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000015

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000056

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000057

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000059

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000057

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000076

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000060

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000076

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000057

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000076

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000096

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000098

Higgins, Jennifer B

5-Message from the RAIO
Associate Director Update
on 90-day USRAP
1/29/2018 Review.msg

This document was partially redacted on page 1 pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege because the redacted material would
reveal how derogatory information is considered and applied to a refugee applicant. Publication of this information could
compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions evasively to
avoid detection.
This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal specific criteria
Memo_Implementation of that trigger Interagency Checks (IACs), SAO checks, and EFRs for a refugee applicant, and attendant procedures. Publication of these
Enhanced Vetting
criteria could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions
Guidance for I-730
evasively to avoid detection and possible IACs, SAOs and EFRs.
1/31/2018 Refugee Cases....pdf
This document was redacted in full pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal specific criteria
that trigger a re-request for Interagency Checks for a refugee applicant. Publication of these criteria could compromise the agencies’
law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions evasively to avoid detection and a possible
1/8/2018 RSC_IAC Data Fields.docx IAC re-request.
This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal particular data
elements used to initiate specific background checks. Publication of this information could compromise the agencies’ law
enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information, provide erroneous information, and/or answer questions evasively
ALDAC_IAC_Data
so that derogatory information associated with those elements are not detected when screened.
1/31/2018 Fields_IVO and SAO.PDF
All of the material redacted in this document was done pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material on pages 12 reveals information about criteria that would trigger an Enhanced FDNS Review (EFR) for a refugee applicant, as well as information
about the names of countries on a list that would trigger an EFR. Publication of these criteria could compromise the agencies’ law
enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or might answer questions evasively to avoid a possible EFR. The
redacted material in the first bullet in paragraph 9 on page 3 reveal information about a criterion that would trigger an SAO for a
refugee applicant. Publication of this criterion could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not
provide information or might answer questions evasively to avoid a possible SAO. The redactions in the ten places in the second
bullet in paragraph 9 on pages 3 and 4 reveal which data elements for an SAO are identified as critical, required, or optional.
Publication of which data elements fall into which categories could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as such
publication could affect what information applicants might provide, or applicants might answer questions evasively during interviews
ALDAC_Revised
Procedures for Processing if they are seeking to avoid detection and security screening.

RAIO - ALL1

Follow-To-Join Refugee
1/31/2018 Applicati....pdf

CAMINO Quick
Guide_Submitting EFR
Checks for I-730 Refugee
1/18/2018 Cases Pending....docx

Nicholson, Maura J

RAIO - International Ops - ALL

Ruppel, Joanna

RAIO - Oversea USCs ; RAIO - International Ops HQ
Chiorazzi, Anne ; Stone, Mary M ; Refugeeaffairs_PAS

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Nicholson, Maura J

RAIO - Oversea Managers

Ginzburg, Roman ; Kliska, Jennifer R ; Ruppel, Joanna ; Swanson,
Trina M ; Peralta Mihalko, Maria P (Pilar) ; Mancuso, Deborah T ;
Leigh, Jessica K ; Jacobs, Alexander L

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000119

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Kliska, Jennifer R

Monica, Donald J

Nicholson, Maura J ; Benedict, Deborah L ; Spalter, Brian M

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000138

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000139

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Kliska, Jennifer R

Monica, Donald J

Nicholson, Maura J ; Benedict, Deborah L ; Ruppel, Joanna ;
Spalter, Brian M ; Bryan, Heide E

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000158

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000160

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Nicholson, Maura J

Swanson, Trina M

Kliska, Jennifer R ; Ginzburg, Roman

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000164

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Ruppel, Joanna

RAIO - International Ops - ALL

Stone, Mary M ; Villasenor, Eissa M ; Chiorazzi, Anne ;
Zengotitabengoa, Colleen R ; Whitney, Ronald W

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000102

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000119

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000163

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000107

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000207

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000209

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000220

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000255

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000257

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000264

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000102

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000107

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000219

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000256

Kliska, Jennifer R

Langlois, Joseph E ; Johnson, Bobbie L

Nicholson, Maura J

This document was partially redacted at page 1 pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal
7-Message from Acting IO specific criteria that trigger an SAO/IAC for a FTJ-refugee applicant. Publication of these criteria could compromise the agencies’ law
Chief_SAO Request Guide enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions evasively to avoid detection and a possible
3/20/2018 for Refugee FTJ cases.msg SAO/IAC.
This document was fully redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal data elements for
running SAO/IAC for a FTJ-refugee applicant. Publication of these criteria could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions,
Guide_SAO Request
as applicants might withhold information or answer questions evasively to avoid detection.
3/20/2018 Document_V1.0.pdf
This document was partially redacted at pages 2 and 3 pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would
Current Guidance on I-590 reveal information about the names of countries on a list that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of this
information could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or might answer
Refugee Processing -Update and Summary of questions evasively to avoid a possible SAO.
3/20/2018 Prior Guidance.msg
All of the material redacted in this document was done pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material on page 2
reveals information about a criterion that would trigger an Enhanced FDNS Review (EFR) for a refugee applicant, and the redacted
material on page 3 reveals information about the names of countries on a list that would trigger an EFR. Publication of these criteria
could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or might answer questions
evasively to avoid a possible EFR. The redacted material in paragraphs 7 and 8 on pages 3-4 reveals information about processing
that may result from an EFR. Publication of this information could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions: it could
affect what information applicants might provide, or applicants might answer questions evasively during interviews if they are
seeking to avoid detection and security screening. The redacted material in the first bullet in paragraph 9 on page 4 reveal
information about a criterion that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of this criterion could compromise the
agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or might answer questions evasively to avoid a
possible SAO. The redactions in the ten places in the second bullet in paragraph 9 on page 4 reveal which data elements for an SAO
are identified as critical, required, or optional. Publication of which data elements fall into which categories could compromise the
agencies’ law enforcement missions, as such publication could affect what information applicants might provide, or applicants might
answer questions evasively during interviews if they are seeking to avoid detection and security screening.
FW Revised Procedures
for Processing Follow-ToJoin Refugee
1/31/2018 Applications.msg
This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal information
about the names of countries on a list that would trigger an SAO/EFR for a refugee applicant. Publication of this information could
compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or might answer questions
2/15/2018 RE EFR SAO Question.msg evasively to avoid a possible SAO/EFR.
This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal information
about the names of countries on a list that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of this information could
compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or answer questions evasively to
RE Enhanced FDNS
avoid a possible SAO.
2/9/2018 Review.msg

RE State Cases w Travel
2/9/2018 Arrangements.msg

Updated Guidance on
3/23/2018 Refugee Processing.msg
FW Heads Up on URM
Submissions from
8/3/2018 Niger.msg

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000255

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000264

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

11/5/2015

11/5/2015

11/5/2015

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000266

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000274

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000265

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000274

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000277

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000286

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000275

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000286

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000353

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000359

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Pending I-730 FTJ Cases 12/26/2017 Updated.xlsx

Ruppel, Joanna

Bryan, Heide E ; Nicholson, Maura J ; Kliska,
Jennifer R

Monica, Donald J ; Spalter, Brian M ; Frank, Kathryn M (Katy)

This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material in the main text on pages 1,
10, and 11 reveals specific criteria on when Enhanced FDNS Review is required for a refugee applicant. Publication of these criteria
could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information, provide erroneous
information, and/or answer questions evasively to avoid enhanced screening through the EFR process. The redacted material at
footnote 1 reveals information regarding the nationalities that trigger an SAO/EFR for a refugee applicant. Publication of this
information could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might conceal information and/or provide
erroneous information to avoid enhanced screening through the SAO/EFR process. The redacted material under the General
Instructions on page 1, and on pages 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13, reveal the particular data elements used to conduct the EFR.
Publication of this information could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information,
provide erroneous information, and/or answer questions evasively so that derogatory information associated with those elements
are not detected when screened.

1/8/2018

This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal specific criteria
or information about the names of countries on a list that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of this
information could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or might answer
questions evasively to avoid a possible SAO.
This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal specific
national security indicators for a refugee applicant. Publication of these criteria could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement
missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions evasively to avoid detection.

This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal information
about the names of countries on a list that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of this information could
compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or answer questions evasively to
avoid a possible SAO.
This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal specific criteria
or the names of countries that trigger an SAO or other security checks for a refugee applicant. Publication of these criteria could
compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions evasively to
avoid detection and a possible SAO or other security checks.

This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal information
about the names of countries on a list that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of this information could
compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or answer questions evasively to
MASTER FY 18 Q3 CR
avoid a possible SAO.
Request - Feb 2018.xlsx
This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal information
about the names of countries on a list that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of this information could
FY18 Q3 CR Request - Feb compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or answer questions evasively to
avoid a possible SAO.
2018-FINAL.xlsx
This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal information
about the names of countries on a list that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of this information could
FY18 Q4 CR Request - Mar compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or answer questions evasively to
avoid a possible SAO.
2018 - FINAL.xlsx
The redacted material would reveal information about the names of countries on a list that would trigger an EFR for a refugee
applicant. Publication of this information could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide
information or might answer questions evasively to avoid a possible EFR.
RE Indonesia CR in Feb
2018.msg

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 36 of 223

8-Current Guidance on I590 Refugee Processing -Update and Summary of
8/8/2018 Prior Guidance.pdf

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000365

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000366

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000367

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000369

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000372

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000373

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000414

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000420

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000422

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000463

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000467

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000469

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Ruppel, Joanna

Monica, Donald J ; Nicholson, Maura J ; Kliska,
Jennifer R

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000473

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000473

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Higgins, Jennifer B

RAIO - ALL1

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000508

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000363

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000415

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000472

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000497

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000508

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000366

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000471

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000495

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000368

Ruppel, Joanna

RAIO - Refugee1

Zengotitabengoa, Colleen R ; Whitney, Ronald W

13-Pipeline DHS Review 8/8/2018 New Form.pdf

8/8/2018

Spalter, Brian M

2/8/2018

Peralta Mihalko, Maria P (Pilar)

Ginzburg, Roman ; Benedict, Deborah L

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000524

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000526

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Nantais, Joel D

Benedict, Deborah L ; Nicholson, Maura J

Nantais, Joel D

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000529

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000545

Doe-JFS_State_00000213

Doe-JFS_State_00000215

Doe-JFS_State_00000225

Doe-JFS_State_00000228

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000304

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000306

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000464

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000465

Doe-JFS_State_00000213

Doe-JFS_State_00000224

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000300

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000306

4/11/2018

This document was partially redacted on page 4 pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal
specific national security indicators for a refugee applicant. Publication of these criteria could compromise the agencies’ law
enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions evasively to avoid detection. This document
was partially redacted on pages 9-17 pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would also reveal specific
criteria that trigger a separate interview for a derivative refugee applicant. Publication of these criteria could compromise the
agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions evasively to avoid detection and a
possible separate interview. This document was partially redacted on page 25, 39, and 40 pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege
because the redacted material would reveal how derogatory information is considered and applied to a refugee applicant.
19-Updated Guidance for Publication of this information could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information
or answer questions evasively to avoid detection.
Refugee Adjudications
Resulting from the 90-Day
Review 7.9.2018.pdf
RE Message from the
This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege because the redacted material would reveal how
RAIO Associate Director
derogatory information is considered and applied to a refugee applicant. Publication of this information could compromise the
Update on 90-day USRAP agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions evasively to avoid detection.
Review.msg
Message from the RAIO
This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege because the redacted material would reveal how
Associate Director_
derogatory information is considered and applied to a refugee applicant. Publication of this information could compromise the
Update on 90-day USRAP agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions evasively to avoid detection.
Review.msg
This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal how
derogatory information is considered and applied to a refugee applicant. Publication of this information could compromise the
agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions evasively to avoid detection. The
redacted material would also reveal information about the names of countries on a list that would trigger an SAO for a refugee
applicant. Publication of these criteria could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold
IO Jurisdiction Cases -V93 information or answer questions evasively to avoid detection and a possible SAO.
transfer.xlsx
This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal information
about the names of countries on a list that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of this information could
compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or might answer questions
evasively to avoid a possible SAO. The redacted material would also reveal specific criteria that trigger an SAO for a refugee
applicant. Publication of these criteria could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold
information or answer questions evasively to avoid detection and a possible SAO.
RE EFR requests to date
2nd.msg
This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal information
about the names of countries on a list that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of this information could
compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or answer questions evasively to
avoid a possible SAO. The redacted material would also reveal specific criteria that trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant.
Publication of these criteria could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information or
answer questions evasively to avoid detection and a possible SAO.
RE EFR requests to

4/6/2018 date.msg

I-730 REF Change PPT for
2/1/2018 OLA 02092018.pptx

Help

PRM-Admissions Office ; Havana - Refugee ;
'RSC Damak' ; 'RSC Eurasia Management ;
Anderson, Todd D (Havana) ; Gonzalez, Javier I
(Havana) ; 'IT Africa' ; 'IT Amman' ; 'IT Austria' ;
'IT Damak' ; 'IT Eurasia' ; 'RSC Africa Ops' ; 'RSC
MENA Data Integrity' ; 'RSC QTO IT' ; 'RSC South
Asia ' ; 'RSC Southern Africa Ops CRs'

Lane, Nathan P ; Stalis, Emil R ; Schulze, DeMark F (Kampala) ;
MaryEileen ; Shaw, Gregory J (Bangkok) ; Ave-Lallemant, Alex N ;
Brown, Christopher J (Amman) ; Garmize, Kristina X (Amman) ;
Este, Stephen ; Anderson, Todd D (Havana) ; Kelley, Jennifer A ;
Sen, Anjalina M ; Abdeen, Deanna H ; Totilo, Matthew A ;
Dilworth, Christopher R ; Ingraham, Hilary E ; Jordan, John ; Dan
Scelsi ; Help

Ingraham, Hilary E

Gauger, Kelly A ; Smith, Jennifer L ;
RSCEastAsiaManagement ; RSCSAManagement ;
'RSC Africa PRM Inquiries' ; 'RSC Eurasia
Stone, Mary ; Chiorazzi, Anne ; Clough, Chelsea M ; Ruppel,
Management' ; Havana - Refugee ; PRMAdmissions Office ; PRM Admissions RefCoords Joanna ; Nicholson, Maura J ; Help ;

Update on Monthly
4/30/2018 Allocations for SAOs.msg

RAIO - Oversea Managers

FY 18 Q2 Updated CR
11/5/2015 Requests - EMEA.xlsx
FW Message from the
RAIO Associate Director
Update on 90-day USRAP
1/29/2018 Review.msg

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

1/29/2018

1/29/2018

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000523

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000551

This document was partially redacted on page 1 and 2 pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would
reveal specific types of security checks that trigger additional review of a refugee applicant. Publication of these checks could
compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions evasively to
avoid detection and a possible delay in the adjudication of the refugee application.

17-120-day and 90-day
4/27/2018 Review Enhancements.pdf

Nicholson, Maura J ; Kliska, Jennifer R ; Mancuso, Deborah T ;
Leigh, Jessica K ; Swanson, Trina M ; Pullen, Scott R

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000527

This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal specific
national security indicators for a refugee applicant. Publication of these criteria could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement
missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions evasively to avoid detection.

This document was partially redacted on page 4 pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal
specific national security indicators for a refugee applicant. Publication of these criteria could compromise the agencies’ law
enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions evasively to avoid detection. This document
was partially redacted on pages 9-17 pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would also reveal specific
criteria that trigger a separate interview for a derivative refugee applicant. Publication of these criteria could compromise the
agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions evasively to avoid detection and a
possible separate interview. This document was partially redacted on page 25, 39, and 40 pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege
because the redacted material would reveal how derogatory information is considered and applied to a refugee applicant.
15-Updated Guidance for Publication of this information could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information
or answer questions evasively to avoid detection.
Refugee Adjudications
Resulting from the 90-Day
4/11/2018 Review 4.12.2018.pdf
This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal specific
processes that may impact how a refugee applicant is interviewed. Publication of these processes could compromise the agencies’
law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions evasively to avoid detection. Some of the
redacted material would reveal specific national security indicators for a refugee applicant. Publication of these criteria could
compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions evasively to
avoid detection. Some of the redacted material would reveal how derogatory information is considered and applied to a refugee
applicant. Publication of this information could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold
information or answer questions evasively to avoid detection.

LE - Law Enforcement
Sensitive

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000520

9-Updated Guidance on
3/23/2018 Refugee Processing.msg

This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal specific criteria
that trigger an SAO and/or additional review for a refugee applicant. Publication of these criteria could compromise the agencies’ law
enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions evasively to avoid detection and a possible SAO
or additional scrutiny.

Ruppel, Joanna

Kliska, Jennifer R; Nicholson, Maura J

RE Process and BFR job
1/8/2018 aid (UPDATED).msg

This document was partially redacted on page 9 pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal
information about the names of countries on a list that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of this information
could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or answer questions
evasively to avoid a possible SAO.
This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material on page 2 reveals
information about a criterion that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of this criterion could compromise the
agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or answer questions evasively to avoid a possible
SAO.

This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material on pages 1 and 3 reveals
information about criteria that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of this criteria could compromise the
agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or answer questions evasively to avoid a possible
SAO.

This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege. The redacted material would reveal information
about the names of countries on a list that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant. Publication of this information could
compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or might answer questions
evasively to avoid a possible SAO.
This document was partially redacted pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege because the redacted material would reveal how
derogatory information is considered and applied to a refugee applicant. Publication of this information could compromise the
agencies’ law enforcement missions, as applicants might withhold information or answer questions evasively to avoid detection.

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 37 of 223

EXHIBIT 4
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 38 of 223

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

1
2
3

4 JOHN DOES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
5
6

V.

CASE NO. Cl7-0178JLR
JFS and DOE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS

7 DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
8

(RELATING TO BOTH CASES)

9

CASE NO. C17-1707JLR

JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE, et al.,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiffs,
V.

DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

17 Plaintiffs Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al., and Joseph Doe and Jeffrey Doe
18 ("Doe Plaintiffs"), through their undersigned counsel, hereby request that
19 Defendants President Donald Trump, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
20 Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, U.S. Department of State,
21 Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
22 and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats produce for inspection,
23 examination, copying and use all docmnents, including electronically stored
24 information, described below, within thirty (30) days of the service of these requests
25 to the offices of Abigail Davis, Four Times Square, New York, New York 10036.
26

The following Definitions and Instructions shall apply to each and every part

27 of this First Set ofRequests_for Production of Documents.
28
PLAJNTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 39 of 223

1
2

DEFINITIONS
1.

The term "Agencies fuvolved in the USRAP" refers to all

3 governmental agencies, nongovernmental agencies, and international organizations
4 involved in the US RAP.
5

2.

The term "Agency Memo" refers to the memorandum from Defendants

6 then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, then Acting Secretary of Homeland Security
7 Elaine Duke, and Director of National futelligence Daniel Coats to Defendant
8 President Donald Tnunp dated October 23, 2017, but released on October 24, 2017,
9 which was issued with Executive Order 13,815, 82 Fed. Reg. 50,055 (Oct. 27,
10 2017).

11

3.

The word "all" shall be constnied to include and encompass the words

12 "each," "every," and "any."
13

4.

The term ''Beneficiaries From SAO Countries" refers to Follow-to-Join

14 Refugees who are nationals of (or stateless persons who last habitually resided in)
15 SAO countries.
16

5.

The tenn "BFR Status" refers to whether refugees have a bona fide

17 relationship with a person or entity in the United States, as defined by Trump v.
18 International Refugee Assistance Project, - - U.S.--, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017),
19 and its progeny.
20

6.

The term "Circuit Ride" refers to travel by U.S. Citizenship and

21 Immigration Service officers to different locations worldwide to interview refugees.
22

7.

The word "Correspondence" refers to any communication, electronic or

23 otherwise, including but not limited to, e-mail (whether from an official or personal
24 account), phone logs, letters, postcards, faxes, text messages, voicemails, recorded
25 conversations, and complaints.
26

8.

The words ''Defendants," "You," and "Your" refer to President Donald

27 Tn1mp, the White House Office, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Secretary
28 of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, U.S. Department of State, Secretary of State
-2PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 40 of 223

1 Michael Pompeo, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Director of
2 National Intelligence Dan Coats, their officers, agents, assigns, employees, insurers,
3 attorneys, subsidiaries, successors, and predecessors, and anyone acting on their
4 behalf.
5

9.

The words "Document" and "Documents" shall be constn1ed to be

6 synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage of the terms in Federal Rule
7 of Civil Procedure 34(a), in its broadest sense, and shall mean and include all
8 written, printed, typed, recorded or graphic matter of every kind and description,
9 including Correspondence, both originals and copies, and all attachments and
10 appendices thereto, that are in Your possession, custody, or control, or in the
11 possession, custody, or control of Your attorney. A draft of a non-identical copy is a
12 separate Document within the meaning of this term. Without limiting the term
13 "control," a Document is deemed to be within Your control if You have ownership,
14 possession, or custody of the Document, or the right to secure the Document or copy
15 thereof from any persons or public or private entity having physical control thereof.
16

10.

The term ''Follow-to-Join Refugees" refers to the beneficiaries (i.e., the

17 petitioners' spouses and 1mmarried children under age 21) of Form I-730 petitions
18 filed by refugees residing in the United States seeking to reunite with their families
19 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c)(2)(A).
20

11.

The words "including" and "includes" shall be constnied to mean

21 "including, but not limited to" and "includes, but is not limited to" respectively.
22

12.

The term "January 29, 2018 Memorandum" refers to the Document that

23 Defendants referred to in their court filing of January 31, 2018 (ECF No. 119) as a
24 Memorandum signed by the Secretary of Homeland Security on January 29, 2018.
25

13.

The term "Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Stay" refers to the

26 Court's order denying Defendants' motion for stay pending appeal, issued on
27 January 9, 2018 (ECF No. 106).
28

-3-

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 41 of 223

1

14.

The word ''Plaintiffs" refers to Jewish Family Service of Seattle, Jewish

2 Family Services of Silicon Valley, Afkab Mohamed Hussein, Allen Vaught, John
3 Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe 6, and John Doe
4 7 as well as Joseph Doe and Jeffrey Doe of Doe v. Trump.
5

15.

The term ''Preliminary Injunction" refers to the Court's Findings of

6 Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Issuing a Preliminary Injunction issued on
7 December 23, 2017 (ECF No. 92).
8

16.

The term ''Processing of Applications" refers to all stages of processing

9 in the USRAP by Agencies Involved in the USRAP, including referring cases to the
10 USRAP, preparing and storing files, collecting data, conducting pre-interviews and
11 interviews, adjudicating applications, reviewing case decisions, conducting security
12 checks and medical clearances, obtaining assurances, providing cultural orientation,
13 and arranging travel to the United States.
14

17.

The term "RAIO Officers" refers to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

15 Services officers working within Refugee, Asylum and International Operations
16 who interview refugees during Circuit Rides in locations worldwide, as well as any
17 other government officers assigned to conduct refugee interviews during such
18 Circuit Rides.
19

18.

The term "Refugees from SAO Countries" refers to refugees who are

20 nationals of or stateless persons who last habitually resided in the SAO Countries.
21

19.

The terms "relates to" and "relating to" shall be construed in the

22 broadest sense and shall mean, without limitation, anything that, in whole or in part,
23 directly or indirectly, analyzes, comments upon, comprises, concerns, constitutes,
24 contains, discusses, embodies, evidences, explains, identifies, manifests, mentions,
25 reflects, refers to, relates to, states, summarizes, or is in any way relevant to the
26 particular subject matter identified.
27

20.

The term ''RSCs" refers to Department of State-funded Resettlement

28 Support Centers involved in the USRAP.

-4-

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 42 of 223

1

21.

The term "SAO Countries" refers to the particular countries designated

2 on the Security Advisory Opinion ("SAO") list.
3

22.

The term "USRAP" refers to the United States Refugee Admissions

4 Program.
5

23.

The term "White House Office" refers to the staff working directly for

6 and reporting to the President, including West Wing staff and the President's
7 advisors.
8

24.

The term "90-day Review" refers to the review and analysis of the U.S.

9 Refugee Admissions Program for Refugees from SAO Countries directed by the
10 AgencyMemo.
11

25.

The collllectives "and" and "or" shall be constn1ed either disjunctively

12 or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all
13 responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope.
14

26.

Words used in the plural shall be construed to include the singular, and

15 words used in the singular shall be interpreted to include the plural.
16

27.

The use of a verb in any tense shall be constnied as the use of the verb

17 in all other tenses, whenever necessary to bring into the scope of the specification all
18 responses which might otherwise be constn1ed outside the scope.
19

28.

The use of any masculine or feminine pronoun shall be constn1ed to

20 include both the masculine and feminine.
21
22

INSTRUCTIONS

1.

All Documents that are responsive, in whole or in part, to any portion

23 of the Request shall be produced in their entirety, including all attachments and
24 enclosures.
25

2.

If any responsive Document contains both privileged and non-

26 privileged material, produce the entire Document with the privileged material
27 redacted and the fact of the redaction clearly indicated.
28

-5-

PLAINTIFFS' FfilST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 43 of 223

1

3.

Regarding Documents called for by these requests as to which You

2 claim a privilege or which You contend are not subject to production, please
3 provide, at the time of production, a listing which describes each Document and
4 states with respect to each such Document:
5

a.

the type of Document (e.g., letter, memorandum, report, etc.);

6

b.

the date;

7

C.

the title;

8

d.

the number of pages;

9

e.

the author or addressor;

10

f.

the name and address or addresses of any persons who have

11 received and/or who have obtained a copy of the Document;
12

g.

the subject matter of the Document;

13

h.

the factual and legal basis for the claim or privilege or ground of

14 nonproduction asserted with respect to the Document; and
15

1.

any other information which, without revealing the information

16 which is itself privileged or protected, will enable Plaintiffs to assess the application
17 of the privilege asserted.
18

4.

If You contend that You are unable to produce fully and completely the

19 Documents requested herein, or any portion thereof, after exercising due diligence
20 to locate those Documents, please so state, specifying the basis for such limited
21 production, the reasons for the inability to produce the Docmnents requested,
22 whether said Documents have been destroyed and if so why, and whatever
23 information or knowledge You may have concerning the locations of such
24 Documents.
25

5.

Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, this request for

26 Documents includes all Documents within Your possession, custody or control,
27 those within the possession, custody or control of each of Your attorneys, agents,
28 associates, and/or employees, and those to which any of those persons has access.
-6PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 44 of 223

1

6.

A Document shall be deemed to be in Your possession, custody, or

2 control if it is in Your physical custody, if it is in the custody of Your attorneys,
3 employees or agents, or if it is in the physical custody of any other person and You
4 (a) own such Document in whole or in part, (b) have a right, by contract, statute or
5 otherwise, to use, inspect, examine or copy such Document on any terms, (c) have
6 an understanding, express or implied, that You may use, inspect, examine or copy
7 such Document on any terms, or (d) have, as a practical matter, been able to use,
8 inspect, examine, or copy such Document when You sought to do so.
9

7.

You are requested to produce all original Documents, and all duplicate

10 Documents which were altered in any manner or added to after being duplicated and
11 thus differ in some manner from the original.
12

8.

Where an objection is made to a Request, state with specificity all

13 grounds for the objection, and whether Plaintiffs are withholding any Documents as
14 a result of the objection. If the objection is to only part of a Request, provide
15 Docmnents as to the remainder of the Request.
16

9.

Electronically stored infonnation should be produced as Single Page

17 Images (in black and white tiff or color jpg format) with limited selected native files
18 (spreadsheets). Image load files should be produced along with data load files
19 providing delimited meta-data. Document-level text files containing the extracted
20 text from each _file, or OCR for files that are not text-extractable, should also be
21 produced.
22

10.

Documents produced in response to these Requests should be produced

23 in full, and should not be separated or disassembled from their attaclunents.
24 Documents should be labeled to reflect the particular Requests to which they are
25 Responsive or produced as they are kept in the ordinary course of business.
26 Documents should be produced in such a manner as to identify the file in the
27 Document was kept in the ordinary course of business.
28

-7-

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 45 of 223

11.

1

The obligation to provide the information sought by this Request is

2 continuing and shall be promptly supplemented in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P.
3 26(e) whenever You receive or discover additional responsive Documents.
4

12.

Electronically stored information should be produced with all relevant

5 metadata, including custodian, duplicate custodian, file name, file author, date last
6 modified, time last modified, bates start, bates stop, bates attach start, bates attach
7 stop, bates range, email subject, file title, to, from, cc, bee, date sent, time sent, date
8 received, and time received.
9

13.

Microsoft Access or Excels, or other spreadsheet or database files,

10 should be produced in native form. Placeholder TIFF images shall be produced with
11 each native file.

REQUESTS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1

12

13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
14

All policies, directives, instn1Ctions, guidelines, guidance, advisals, cables,

15 notices, training, memoranda and other similar Documents (collectively
16 "Implementation and Compliance Documents") issued or sent by Defendants and
17 Agencies Involved in the USRAP relating to the Processing of Applications and
18 admission to the United States of Refugees from SAO Countries and Follow-to19 Join Refugees that have been in effect at any time since October 23, 2017,
20 including those relating to:
1. Implementation of the Agency Memo with respect to Follow-to-Join

21
22

Refugees and Refugees from SAO Countries, including cancellation of any

23

Circuit Rides;

24

2. Compliance with the Court's Preliminary Injunction, including

25

reinstatement or scheduling of any Circuit Rides;

26
27

1

Bold typeface indicates words, phrases, and acronyms defined in the Definitions
28 section.
-8PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 46 of 223

1

2

3. Compliance with the Court's Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Stay,
including reinstatement or scheduling of any Circuit Rides;

3

4. Imple1nentation of the January 29, 2018 Memorandum;.

4

5. All actions taken as a result of the conclusions of the 90-day Review of SAO

5

Countries and the imple1nentation and modification of procedures for

6

Follow-to-Join Refugees, including the unredacted January 29, 2018

7

Memorandum, all Documents referenced therein, and all other memoranda

8

issued; and

9

6. All changes in the manner in and/or procedure by which embassies,

10

consulates, and field offices conduct the Processing of Applications for

11

Follow-to-Join Refugees, including embassies, consulates, and field offices

12

ceasing to process applications for Follow-to-Join Refugees.

13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
14

Documents sufficient to show the categories of personnel of the Agencies

15 Involved in the USRAP to whom the Implementation and Compliance Documents
16 have been distributed.
17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
18

For the time period since October 23, 2017, documents sufficient to show the

19 following data related to the Processing of Applications and admission of cases
20 and refugees to the United States:
21

A) For the following, data should be provided for each week within the time

22

period identified above:

23

1. Number of cases and refugees referred to the USRAP each week, broken

24

down into those from SAO Countries and other;

25

2. Number of cases and refugees for whom RSC pre-screening interviews were

26

completed each week, broken down into those from SAO Countries and

27

other;

28

-9-

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 47 of 223

1

2
3
4

5

6
7

8

3. Number of cases and Refugees from SAO Countries for whom security
checks were requested each week;
4. Number of cases and Refugees from SAO Countries for whom security
checks were completed each week;
5. Number ofl-730 petitions filed each week, and of those, number of petitions
corresponding to Beneficiaries From SAO Countries;
6. Number ofl-730 petitions approved each week, and of those, number of
petitions corresponding to Beneficiaries From SAO Countries;

9

7. Number ofl-730 petitions forwarded to overseas posts each week, and of

10

those, number of petitions corresponding to Beneficiaries From SAO

11

Countries;

12

8. Number ofl-730 petitions for whom security checks were requested each

13

week, and of those, number of petitions corresponding to Beneficiaries of

14

SAO Countries; and

15

9. Number ofl-730 petitions for whom security checks were completed each

16

week, and of those, number of petitions corresponding to Beneficiaries of

17

SAO Countries.

18

B) For the following, data should be provided for each week within the time

19

period identified above, broken down into Refugees from SAO Countries,

20

Follow-to-Join Refugees, and other, and should indicate any overlap between

21

the first two categories:

22

1. Number of refugee interviews completed by Defendants and number of

23
24

25

26
27

28

cases for which interviews were completed;
2. Number of refugee re-interviews requested by Defendants and number of
cases for which re-interviews were requested;
3. Number of refugee re-interviews completed by Defendants and number of
cases for which re-interviews were completed;
-10-

PLAJNTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 48 of 223

1

2
3

4
5
6
7

8
9

4. Number of cases and refugees contacted by RSCs relating to their BFR

Status;
5. Number of cases and refugees receiving decisions relating to their BFR

Status;
6. Number of cases and refugees conditionally approved for admission postinterview;

7. Number of denials of cases and refugees, and specifying the number of
security-related denials;

8. Number of cases and refugees who completed medical screenings;

10

9. Number of cases and refugees for whom assurances were issued;

11

10 .Number of cases and refugees who completed cultural orientation;

12

I I .Number of cases and refugees scheduled for travel to the United States; and

13

12.Number of cases and refugees who were admitted into the United States.

14

C) For the following, data should be provided for the total number on the first

15

day of each week (or another defined day of each week) within the time period

16

identified above, broken down into Refugees from SAO Countries, Follow-to-

17

J oin Refugees, and other, and should indicate any overlap between the first two

18

categories:

19

1. Total number of cases and refugees for whom security checks were or are

20

pending;

21

2. Total number of cases and refugees waiting for decision post-interview;

22

3. Total number of cases and refugees whose applications are on hold, and

23

specifying the number of short-tem1 holds and the number of long-tenn

24

holds;

25

4. Total nmnber of cases and refugees ready for departure;

26

5. Total number of cases and refugees with assurances;

27

6. Total number of cases and refugees for whom SAO checks have expired; and

28

-11-

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 49 of 223

1

2

7. Total number of cases and refugees for whom medical clearances have
expired.

3

D) For the following, data should be broken down into Refugees from SAO

4

Countries, Follow-to-join Refugees, and other, and should indicate any

5

overlap between the first two categories:

6

1. For each week beginning with October 24, 2017 to present, the nmnber of

7

cases and refugees in the USRAP who had not or have not yet been interviewed,

8

broken down by their countries of current residence;

9

2. For the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2018, the number of Circuit Rides

10

scheduled prior to the issuance of the Agency Memo, as well as their planned

11

locations, durations, number of RAIO Officers to be involved, and number of

12

interviews scheduled, broken down into cases and refugees;

13

3. For each fiscal quarter beginning with Fiscal Year 2016 to present, the number

14

of Circuit Rides held, as well as their locations, durations, number of RAIO

15

Officers involved, and number of interviews scheduled per location, broken

16

down into cases and refugees; and

17

4. For the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2018, the number of Circuit Rides

18

scheduled, as well as their locations, durations, number of RAIO Officers

19

involved, and number of interviews scheduled per location, broken down into

20

cases and refugees.

21

22
23
24

25
26
27
28

-12-

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 50 of 223

1 Dated: August 1, 2018
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

L

By:~
Lauren E. Aguiar, Pro Hae Vice
Mollie M. Kornreich, Pro Hae Vice
Abigail E. Davis, Pro Hae Vice
Four Tunes Square
New York, NY 10036
Tel: (212) 735-3000
Fax: (212) 735-2000
lauren.aguiar@probonolaw.com
mollie.kornreich@probonolaw.com
abigail. sheehan@probonolaw.com

Justin B. Cox, Pro Hae Vice
National Immigration Law Center
PO Box 170208
Atlanta, GA 30317
Tel: (678) 279-5441
Fax: (213) 639-3911
cox@nilc.org

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Deepa Alagesan, Pro Hae Vice
Mariko Hirose, Pro Hae Vice
Linda Evarts, Pro Hae Vice
Kathryn C. Meyer, Pro Hae Vice
International Refugee Assistance Project
40 Rector Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (646) 459-3044
mhirose@refugeerights.org
dalagesan@refugeerights.org
levarts@refugeerights.org
kmeyer@refugeerights.org
David Burman, WSBA No. 10611
Lauren Watts Staniar, WSBA No. 48741
Tyler Roberts, WSBA No. 52688
Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: 206.359.8000
Facsiinile: 206.359.9000
db1mnan@perkinscoie.com
lstaniar@perkinscoie.com
troberts@perkinscoie.com

Karen C. Tumlin, Pro Hae Vice
Melissa S. Keaney, Pro Hae Vice
Esther H. Sung, Pro Hae Vice
National Immigration Law Center
3450 Wilshire Blvd, #108-62
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 639-3900
Fax: (213) 639-3911
tumlin@nilc.org
keaney@nilc.org
sung@nilc.org
Elizabeth Sweet, Pro Hae Vice
Mark Hetfield, Pro Hae Vice
RIAS, Inc.
1300 Spring Street, Suite 500
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tel: 301-844-7300
liz.sweet@hias.org
mark.hetfield@hias.org
Counsel for Plaintiffs Jewish Family
Sen,ice, et al.

27
28

-13-

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 51 of 223

1 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION
2 OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

By: Isl Emily Chiang
Isl Lisa Nowlin
Emily Chiang, WSBA # 50517
Lisa Nowlin, WSBA # 51512
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630
Seattle, WA 98164
Telephone: (206) 624-2184
Email: echiang@aclu-wa.org
lnowlin@aclu-wa.org

10 Counsel for Plaintiffs Doe, et al.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
By: Isl Lynn Lincoln Sarko
By: Isl Tana Lin
By: Isl Amy Williams-Deny
By: Isl Derek W. Loeser
By: Isl Alison S. Gaffuey
Lynn Lincoln Sarko, WSBA # 16569
Tana Lin, WSBA # 35271
Amy Williams-Deny, WSBA # 28711
Derek W. Loeser, WSBA # 24274
Alison S. Gaffney, WSBA # 45565
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
tlin@kellerrohrback.com
awilliamsdeny@kellerrohrback.com
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
agaffney@kellerrohrback.com
By: Isl Laurie B. Ashton
Laurie B. Ashton, Pro Hae Vice
3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600
Telephone: (602) 248-0088
Facsitnile: (602) 248-2822
Email: lashton@kellerrohrback.com
By: Isl Alison Chase
Alison Chase, Pro Hae Vice
1129 State Street, Suite 8
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
Facsitnile: (805) 456-1497
Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cooperating
Attorneys for the American Civil
Liberties Union Of Washington
-lf~undation

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 52 of 223

EXHIBIT 5
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 53 of 223

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

1
2

3

CASE NO. C17-0178JLR

JOHN DOE, et al.,

4

Plaintiffs,

5
V.

6

DONALD TRUMP, et al.,

7

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS JFS AND JOSEPH
DOE'S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES TO
DEFENDANTS

(RELATING TO BOTH CASES)

8

9 JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

CASE NO. C17-1707JLR

V.

12 DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
13

Defendants.

14H------------'
15
16

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

17 Plaintiffs Jewish Family Service of Seattle ("JFS") and Joseph Doe ("Doe"),
18 through their undersigned counsel, request that Defendants President Donald
19 Tn1mp, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of Homeland Security
20 Kirstjen Nielsen, U.S. Department of State, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo,
21 Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and Director of National Intelligence
22 Dan Coats answer in full and under oath the following interrogatories within thirty
23 (30) days of service, and thereafter supplement responses as required by Rule 26(e)
24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
25

The following Definitions and Instn1Ctions shall apply to each and every part

26 of this First Set of Interrogatories.
27

28
PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 - - - - -

Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 54 of 223

DEFINITIONS

I
2

1.

The term "Agencies Involved in the USRAP" refers to all

3 governmental agencies, nongovernmental agencies, and international organizations
4 involved in the USRAP.
5

2.

The term "Agency Memo" refers to the memorandum from Defendants

6 then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, then Acting Secretary of Homeland Security
7 Elaine Duke, and Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats to Defendant
8 President Donald Trump dated October 23, 2017, but released on October 24, 2017,
9 which was issued with Executive Order 13,815, 82 Fed. Reg. 50,055 (Oct. 27,
10 2017).
11

3.

The word "all" shall be construed to include and encompass the words

12 "each," "every," and "any."
13

4.

The term "Beneficiaries From SAO Countries" refers to Follow-to-Join

14 Refugees who are nationals of (or stateless persons who last habitually resided in)
15 SAO countries.
16

5.

The term "BFR Status" refers to whether refugees have a bona fide

17 relationship with a person or entity in the United States, as defined by Trump v.
18 International Refugee Assistance Project, --U.S.--, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017),
19 and its progeny.
20

6.

The term "Circuit Ride" refers to travel by U.S. Citizenship and

21 Immigration Service officers to different locations worldwide to interview refugees.
22

7.

The word "Correspondence" refers to any communication, electronic or

23 otherwise, including but not litnited to, e-mail (whether from an official or personal
24 account), phone logs, letters, postcards, faxes, text messages, voicemails, recorded
25 conversations, and complaints.
26

8.

The words ''Defendants," "You," and "Your" refer to President Donald

27 Tn1mp, the White House Office, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Secretary
28

-2PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 55 of 223

1 of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, U.S. Department of State, Secretary of State
2 Michael Pompeo, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Director of
3 National Intelligence Dan Coats, their officers, agents, assigns, employees, insurers,
4 attorneys, subsidiaries, successors, and predecessors, and anyone acting on their
5 behalf.
6

9.

The words ''Document" and ''Documents" shall be construed to be

7 synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage of the tenns in Federal Rule
8 of Civil Procedure 34(a), in its broadest sense, and shall mean and include all
9 written, printed, typed, recorded or graphic matter of every kind and description,
10 including Correspondence, both originals and copies, and all attachments and
11 appendices thereto, that are in Your possession, custody, or control, or in the
12 possession, custody, or control of Your attorney. A draft of a non-identical copy is a
13 separate Document within the meaning of this term. Without limiting the term
14 "control," a Document is deemed to be within Your control if You have ownership,
15 possession, or custody of the Document, or the right to secure the Document or copy
16 thereof from any persons or public or private entity having physical control thereof.
17

10.

The term "Follow-to-Join Refugees" refers to the beneficiaries (i.e., the

18 petitioners' spouses and tmmarried children under age 21) ofFonn I-730 petitions
19 filed by refugees residing in the United States seeking to reunite with their families
20 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § l 157(c)(2)(A).
21

11.

The words "including" and "includes" shall be construed to mean

22 "including, but not limited to" and "includes, but is not limited to" respectively.
23

12 .. The term "January 29, 2018 Memorandum" refers to the Document that

24 Defendants referred to in their court filing of January 31, 2018 (ECF No. 119) as a
25 Memorandum signed by the Secretary of Homeland Security on January 29, 2018.
26

27
28

-3PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 56 of 223

1

13.

The term "Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Stay" refers to the

2 Court's order denying Defendants' motion for stay pending appeal, issued on
3 January 9, 2018 (ECF No. 106).
4

14.

The tenn ''Preliminary Injunction" refers to the Court's Findings of

5 Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Issuing a Preliminary Injunction issued on
6 December 23, 2017 (ECF No. 92).
7

15.

The term ''Processing of Applications" refers to all stages of processing

8 in the USRAP by Agencies Involved in the USRAP, including referring cases to the
9 USRAP, preparing and storing files, collecting data, conducting pre-interviews and
10 interviews, adjudicating applications, reviewing case decisions, conducting security
11 checks and medical clearances, obtaining assurances, providing cultural orientation,
12 and arranging travel to the United States.
13

16.

The tenn ''RAIO Officers" refers to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

14 Services officers working within Refugee, Asylum and International Operations
15 who interview refugees during Circuit Rides in locations worldwide, as well as any
16 other government officers assigned to conduct refugee interviews during such
17 Circuit Rides.
18

17.

The term ''Refugees from SAO Countries" refers to refugees who are

19 nationals of or stateless persons who last habitually resided in the SAO Countries.
20

18.

The terms "relate to" and "relating to" shall be construed in the

21 broadest sense and shall mean, without limitation, anything that, in whole or in part,
22 directly or indirectly, analyzes, c01mnents upon, comprises, concerns, constitutes,
23 contains, discusses, embodies, evidences, explains, identifies, manifests, mentions,
24 reflects, refers to, relates to, states, summarizes, or is in any way relevant to the
25 particular subject matter identified.
26

19.

The tenn ''RSCs" refers to Department of State-funded Resettlement

27 Support Centers involved in the USRAP.
28

-4PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 57 of 223

1

20.

The term "SAO Countries" refers to the particular countries designated

2 on the Security Advisory Opinion ("SAO") list.
3

21.

The tenn "USRAP" refers to the United States Refugee Admissions

4 Progrrun.
5

22.

The term "White House Office" refers to the staff working directly for

6 and reporting to the President, including West Wing staff and the President's
7 advisors.
8

23.

The term "90-day Review" refers to the review ru1d analysis of the U.S.

9 Refugee Admissions Progrrun for Refugees from SAO Countries directed by the
10 AgencyMemo.
11

24.

The connectives "and" and "or" shall be constnied either disjunctively

12 or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all
13 responses that might otherwise be constn1ed to be outside the scope.
14

25.

Words used in the plural shall be constn1ed to include the singular, and

15 words used in the singular shall be interpreted to include the plural.
16

26.

The use of a verb in any tense shall be constn1ed as the use of the verb

17 in all other tenses, whenever necessary to bring into the scope of the specification all

18 responses which might otherwise be construed outside the scope.
19

27.

The use of any masculine or feminine pronoun shall be constn1ed to

20 include both the masculine and feminine.

INSTRUCTIONS

21

22 1. In answering these interrogatories, furnish all information, including but not
23

limited to information contained in or on any Document, that is known or

24

available to You, including all information in the possession of Your

25

attorneys or other persons acting on Your behalf or under Your attorney's

26

employment or direction.

27

28

-5PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 58 of 223

1 2. To the extent any objection is made to any of these interrogatories, You must
2

respond to so much of each such interrogatory as to which no objection is

3

made. State in full the part of the interrogatory objected to and set forth the

4

grounds for each objection. If any objection is made on the grounds of

5

vagueness, over-breadth, or any similar ground, You must respond to the

6

interrogatory as narrowed to conform to Your objection. If You contend that

7

any of the requested infonnation is protected by the attorney-client privilege,

8

work product doctrine, or any other privilege, please provide a concise

9

statement of the grounds upon which the claim of privilege is asserted.

10 3. You may not give lack of infonnation or lmowledge as a reason for any failure to
11

answer any of these interrogatories, unless You state that You have made

12

reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by

13

You is insufficient to allow You to answer the interrogatory or

14

interrogatories. If You cannot answer any interrogatory fully and completely

15

after exercising such due diligence, so state, and answer each such

16

interrogatory to the full extent You deem possible, specify the portion of such

17

interrogatory that You claim You are unable to answer fully and completely;

18

state the facts on which You rely to support Your contention that You are

19

unable to answer such interrogatory fully and completely; and state what

20

lmowledge, infonnation, and belief You have concen1ing the unanswered

21

portion of each such interrogatory.

22 4. If any interrogatory calls for infonnation that is not in Your possession, custody,
23

or subject to Your control or ascertainable by You, Your attorneys, or others

24

acting on Your behalf upon reasonable inquiry, then identify the custodian or

25

possessor of such information, if lmown.

26 5. Unless otherwise specified, each interrogatory refers to the time period since
27
28

October 23, 2017.

-6PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 59 of 223

1 6. The interrogatories herein are continuing in nature, and Def~ndants are required
2

to supplement their responses pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of

3

Civil Procedure in the event that Defendants or any person acting on their

4

behalf obtains additional information called for by the interrogatory herein

5

after the time of Defendants' original response.

6 7. For interrogatories 1 to 4, 7 to 9, and 11 to 25, identify the number requested and
7

specify how many relate to Refugees from SAO Countries, how many relate

8

to Follow-to-Join Refugees, and any overlap in these two groups.

'

INTERROGATORIES 1

9

10 INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
11

Identify the number of cases and refugees referred to the USRAP each week.

12 INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
13

Identify the number of cases and refugees for whom RSC pre-screening

14 interviews were completed each week.
15 INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
16

Identify the number of cases and refugees for whom security checks were

17 requested each week.
18 INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
19

Identify the number of cases and refugees for whom security checks were

20 completed each week.
21 INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
22

Identify the number of I-730 petitions filed each week, and of those, the

23 number of petitions corresponding to Beneficiaries From SAO Countries.
24
25
26
27

1

Bold typeface indicates words, phrases, and acronyms defined in the Definitions
section.
28
-?PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 60 of 223

1 INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
2

Identify the number of I-73 0 petitions f01warded to overseas posts each week,

3 and of those, the nmnber of petitions corresponding to Beneficiaries From SAO

4 Countries.
5 INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
6

Identify the nmnber of refugee interviews completed by Defendants and the

7 number of cases for which interviews were completed each week.
8 INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
9

Identify the number of refugee re-interviews requested by Defendants and

10 the number of cases for which re-interviews were requested each week.

11 INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
12

Identify the number of refugee re-interviews completed by Defendants and

13 the number of cases for which re-interviews were completed each week.
14 INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
15

For the time period since December 23, 2017, identify the number of

16 Refugees from SAO Countries and associated cases receiving decisions relating to
17 their BFR Status each week.
18 INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
19

Identify the nmnber of cases and refugees conditionally approved for

20 admission post-interview each week.
21 INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
22

Identify the number of denials of cases and refugees each week.

23 INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
24

Identify the number of cases and refugees for whom assurances were issued

25 each week.

26
27

28

-8PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE'S Fill.ST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 61 of 223

I INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
2

Identify the number of cases and refugees who were admitted into the United

3 States each week.

4 INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
5

Identify the total number of cases and refugees for whom security checks

6 were or are pending on the first day of each week (or another defined day of each
7 week).
8 INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
9

Identify the total number of cases and refugees waiting for decision post-

10 interview on the first day of each week (or another defined day of each week).

11 INTERROGATORY NO.17:
12

For each week, identify the total number of cases and refugees whose

13 applications were on hold on the first day of each week (or another defined day of
14 each week).

15 INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
16

For each week, identify the total number of cases and refugees ready for

17 departure on the first day of each week (or another defined day of each week).
18 INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
19

For each week, identify the total number of cases and refugees with

20 assurances on the first day of each week (or another defined day of each week).
21 INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
22

For each week, identify the total number of cases and refugees in the US RAP

23 who had not or have not yet been interviewed, broken down by their countries of
24 current residence.
25 INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
26

For the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2018, identify the number of Circuit

27 Rides scheduled each week prior to the issuance of the Agency Memo, as well as

28

-9PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 62 of 223

1 their planned locations, durations, number of RAIO Officers to be involved, and
2 number of interviews scheduled, broken down into cases and refugees.
3 INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
4

For each fiscal quarter beginning with Fiscal Year 2016 to present, identify

5 the number of Circuit Rides held, as well as their locations, durations, number of
6 RAIO Officers involved, and number of interviews scheduled per location, broken
7 down into cases and refugees.
8 INTERROGATORY NO. 23:

9

For the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2018, identify the number of Circuit

10 Rides scheduled, as well as their locations, durations, number of RAIO Officers
11 involved, and number of interviews scheduled per location, broken down into cases
12 and refugees.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-10PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 63 of 223

1 Dated: August 17, 2018

2
3

4
5
6

7
8
9

10
11
12

13
14
15

16
17

By:~/~
Lauren E. Aguiar, Pro Hae Vice
Mollie M. Kornreich, Pro Hae Vice
Abigail E. Davis, Pro Hae Vice
Four Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Tel: (212) 735-3000
Fax: (212) 735-2000
lauren.aguiar@probonolaw.com
mollie.kornreich@probonolaw.com
abigail. sheehan@probonolaw.com
Deepa Alagesan, Pro Hae Vice
Mariko Hirose, Pro Hae Vice
Linda Evarts, Pro Hae Vice
Kathryn C. Meyer, Pro Hae Vice
International Refugee Assistance Project
40 Rector Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (646) 459-3044
mhirose@refugeerights.org
dalagesan@refugeerights.org
levarts@refugeerights.org
kmeyer@refugeerights.org

18
19

20
21

22
23
24
25

Justin B. Cox, Pro Hae Vice
National Immigration Law Center
PO Box 170208
Atlanta, GA 30317
Tel: (678) 279-5441
Fax: (213) 639-3911
cox@nilc.org

David Burman, WSBA No. 10611
Lauren Watts Staniar, WSBA No. 48741
Tyler Roberts, WSBA No. 52688
Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: 206.359.8000
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
dburman@perkinscoie.com
lstaniar@perkinscoie.com
troberts@perkinscoie.com

Karen C. Tumlin, Pro Hae Vice
Melissa S. Keaney, Pro Hae Vice
Esther H. Sung, Pro Hae Vice
National Immigration Law Center
3450 Wilshire Blvd, #108-62
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 639-3900
Fax: (213) 639-3911
tumlin@nilc.org
keaney@nilc.org
sung@nilc.org
Elizabeth Sweet, Pro Hae Vice
Mark Hetfield, Pro Hae Vice
HIAS, Inc.
1300 Spring Street, Suite 500
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tel: 301-844-7300
liz.sweet@hias.org
mark.hetfield@hias.org
Counsel for PlaintiffJewish Family
Service ofSeattle

26
27

28

-11PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 64 of 223

l AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF WASHINGTON
2 FOUNDATION
3
4
5
6
7
8

By: Isl Emily Chiang
Isl Lisa Nowlin
Emily Chiang, WSBA # 50517
Lisa Nowlin, WSBA # 51512
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630
Seattle, WA 98164
Telephone: (206) 624-2184
Email: echiang@aclu-wa.org
lnowlin@aclu-wa.org

9
10 Counsel for PlaintiffJoseph Doe

11
12
13
14

KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
By: Isl Lynn Lincoln Sarko
By: Isl Tana Lin
By: Isl Amy Williams-Derry
By: Isl Derek W. Loeser
By: Isl Alison S. Gaffney
Lynn Lincoln Sarko, WSBA # 16569
Tana Lin, WSBA # 35271
Amy Williams-Deny, WSBA # 28711
Derek W. Loeser, WSBA # 24274
Alison S. Gaffney, WSBA # 45565
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
tlin@kellerrohrback.com
awilliamsdeny@kellerrohrback.com
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
agaffuey@kellerrohrback.com

15
16
17
18
19

By: Isl Laurie B. Ashton
Laurie B. Ashton, Pro Hae Vice
3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600
Telephone: (602) 248-0088
Facsiinile: (602) 248-2822
Email: lashton@kellerrohrback.com

20

21
22
23
24
25
26

By: Isl Alison Chase
Alison Chase, Pro Hae Vice
1129 State Street, Suite 8
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com
Counsel for PlaintiffJoseph Doe

27
28

-12PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 65 of 223

EXHIBIT 6
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 66 of 223

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

JOHN DOE, et al.,

CASE NO. C17-0178JLR
Plaintiffs,

v.
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

8

9 JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE, et al.,

(RELATING TO BOTH CASES)
CASE NO. C17-1707JLR

Plaintiffs,

10
11

PLAINTIFFS JFS AND JOSEPH
DOE’S THIRD SET OF
INTERROGATORIES TO
DEFENDANTS

v.

12 DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15
16

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

17 Plaintiffs Jewish Family Service of Seattle (“JFS”) and Joseph Doe (“Doe”),
18 through their undersigned counsel, request that Defendants President Donald
19 Trump, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of Homeland Security
20 Kirstjen Nielsen, U.S. Department of State, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo,
21 Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and Director of National Intelligence
22 Dan Coats answer in full and under oath the following interrogatories within thirty
23 (30) days of service, and thereafter supplement responses as required by Rule 26(e)
24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These Interrogatories are intended to strike
25 a compromise between the parties by replacing Interrogatories 15-20 from
26 Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants, in light of Defendants’
27 representation that responding to Interrogatories 15-20 would be overly
28 burdensome.
{00011200}

PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 67 of 223

1

The following Definitions and Instructions shall apply to each and every part

2 of this Third Set of Interrogatories.
3
4

DEFINITIONS
1.

The term “Agencies Involved in the USRAP” refers to all

5 governmental agencies, nongovernmental agencies, and international organizations
6 involved in the USRAP.
7

2.

The term “Agency Memo” refers to the memorandum from Defendants

8 then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, then Acting Secretary of Homeland Security
9 Elaine Duke, and Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats to Defendant
10 President Donald Trump dated October 23, 2017, but released on October 24, 2017,
11 which was issued with Executive Order 13,815, 82 Fed. Reg. 50,055 (Oct. 27,
12 2017).
13

3.

The word “all” shall be construed to include and encompass the words

14 “each,” “every,” and “any.”
15

4.

The term “Beneficiaries From SAO Countries” refers to Follow-to-Join

16 Refugees who are nationals of (or stateless persons who last habitually resided in)
17 SAO countries.
18

5.

The word “Correspondence” refers to any communication, electronic or

19 otherwise, including but not limited to, e-mail (whether from an official or personal
20 account), phone logs, letters, postcards, faxes, text messages, voicemails, recorded
21 conversations, and complaints.
22

6.

The words “Defendants,” “You,” and “Your” refer to President Donald

23 Trump, the White House Office, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Secretary
24 of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, U.S. Department of State, Secretary of State
25 Michael Pompeo, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Director of
26 National Intelligence Dan Coats, their officers, agents, assigns, employees, insurers,
27
28 {00011200}

-2PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 68 of 223

1 attorneys, subsidiaries, successors, and predecessors, and anyone acting on their
2 behalf.
3

7.

The words “Document” and “Documents” shall be construed to be

4 synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage of the terms in Federal Rule
5 of Civil Procedure 34(a), in its broadest sense, and shall mean and include all
6 written, printed, typed, recorded or graphic matter of every kind and description,
7 including Correspondence, both originals and copies, and all attachments and
8 appendices thereto, that are in Your possession, custody, or control, or in the
9 possession, custody, or control of Your attorney. A draft of a non-identical copy is a
10 separate Document within the meaning of this term. Without limiting the term
11 “control,” a Document is deemed to be within Your control if You have ownership,
12 possession, or custody of the Document, or the right to secure the Document or copy
13 thereof from any persons or public or private entity having physical control thereof.
14

8.

The term “Follow-to-Join Refugees” refers to the beneficiaries (i.e., the

15 petitioners’ spouses and unmarried children under age 21) of Form I-730 petitions
16 filed by refugees residing in the United States seeking to reunite with their families
17 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c)(2)(A).
18

9.

The words “including” and “includes” shall be construed to mean

19 “including, but not limited to” and “includes, but is not limited to” respectively.
20

10.

The term “Processing of Applications” refers to all stages of processing

21 in the USRAP by Agencies Involved in the USRAP, until the case is “Ready for
22 Departure,” including referring cases to the USRAP, preparing and storing files,
23 collecting data, conducting pre-interviews and interviews, adjudicating applications,
24 reviewing case decisions, conducting security checks and medical clearances,
25 obtaining assurances, providing cultural orientation, and arranging travel to the
26 United States.
27
28 {00011200}

-3PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 69 of 223

1

11.

The term “Ready for Departure” refers to the designation as used by the

2 Department of State, or if cases are not classified by that designation then the
3 designation for refugees whose cases are ready to begin travel booking or are in the
4 travel booking process, but have not yet traveled to the United States.
5

12.

The term “Refugees from SAO Countries” refers to refugees who are

6 nationals of or stateless persons who last habitually resided in the SAO Countries.
7

13.

The term “SAO Countries” refers to the particular countries designated

8 on the Security Advisory Opinion (“SAO”) list.
9

14.

The term “USRAP” refers to the United States Refugee Admissions

10 Program.
11

15.

The term “White House Office” refers to the staff working directly for

12 and reporting to the President, including West Wing staff and the President’s
13 advisors.
14

16.

The connectives “and” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively

15 or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all
16 responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope.
17

17.

Words used in the plural shall be construed to include the singular, and

18 words used in the singular shall be interpreted to include the plural.
19

18.

The use of a verb in any tense shall be construed as the use of the verb

20 in all other tenses, whenever necessary to bring into the scope of the specification all
21 responses which might otherwise be construed outside the scope.
22

19.

The use of any masculine or feminine pronoun shall be construed to

23 include both the masculine and feminine.
24

INSTRUCTIONS

25 1. In answering these interrogatories, furnish all information, including but not
26

limited to information contained in or on any Document, that is known or

27

available to You, including all information in the possession of Your

28 {00011200}

-4PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 70 of 223

1

attorneys or other persons acting on Your behalf or under Your attorney’s

2

employment or direction.

3 2. To the extent any objection is made to any of these interrogatories, You must
4

respond to so much of each such interrogatory as to which no objection is

5

made. State in full the part of the interrogatory objected to and set forth the

6

grounds for each objection. If any objection is made on the grounds of

7

vagueness, over-breadth, or any similar ground, You must respond to the

8

interrogatory as narrowed to conform to Your objection. If You contend that

9

any of the requested information is protected by the attorney-client privilege,

10

work product doctrine, or any other privilege, please provide a concise

11

statement of the grounds upon which the claim of privilege is asserted.

12 3. You may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for any failure to
13

answer any of these interrogatories, unless You state that You have made

14

reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by

15

You is insufficient to allow You to answer the interrogatory or

16

interrogatories. If You cannot answer any interrogatory fully and completely

17

after exercising such due diligence, so state, and answer each such

18

interrogatory to the full extent You deem possible, specify the portion of such

19

interrogatory that You claim You are unable to answer fully and completely;

20

state the facts on which You rely to support Your contention that You are

21

unable to answer such interrogatory fully and completely; and state what

22

knowledge, information, and belief You have concerning the unanswered

23

portion of each such interrogatory.

24 4. If any interrogatory calls for information that is not in Your possession, custody,
25

or subject to Your control or ascertainable by You, Your attorneys, or others

26

acting on Your behalf upon reasonable inquiry, then identify the custodian or

27

possessor of such information, if known.

28 {00011200}

-5PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 71 of 223

1 5. The interrogatories herein are continuing in nature, and Defendants are required
2

to supplement their responses pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of

3

Civil Procedure in the event that Defendants or any person acting on their

4

behalf obtains additional information called for by the interrogatory herein

5

after the time of Defendants’ original response.

6 6. For all interrogatories, identify the number requested and specify how many
7

relate to Refugees from SAO countries, how many relate to Follow-to-Join

8

Refugees, and any overlap in these two groups.
INTERROGATORIES1

9

10 INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
11

Identify the number of cases and refugees who were Ready for Departure

12 on the date of the Agency Memo.
13 INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
14

Identify the number of cases and refugees that were Ready for Departure on

15 the date of the Agency Memo but have been returned to Processing of
16 Applications since the date of the Agency Memo.
17 INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
18

Identify the number of cases and refugees that were Ready for Departure on

19 the date of the Agency Memo and have been admitted to the United States since the
20 date of the Agency Memo without additional Processing of Applications.
21 INTERROGATORY NO. 28:
22

Identify the total number of cases and refugees that were Ready for

23 Departure on the date of the Agency Memo and have been admitted to the United
24 States since the date of the Agency Memo after additional Processing of
25 Applications.
26
1

Bold typeface indicates words, phrases, and acronyms defined in the Definitions
section.
-628 {00011200}
27

PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 72 of 223

1 INTERROGATORY NO. 29:
2

Identify the number of cases and refugees that were not Ready for

3 Departure on the date of the Agency Memo and have been admitted to the United
4 States since the date of the Agency Memo after additional Processing of
5 Applications.
6 INTERROGATORY NO. 30:
7

Identify the current estimated processing time from time of referral or

8 application to the USRAP to admission to the United States, and the current
9 estimated processing time from time of interview to time of admission to the United
10 States.2
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The State Department has previously indicated the “worldwide average processing
time is about 18 to 24 months from time of referral or application until arrival in the
United States.” U.S. DEP’T OF STATE, BUREAU OF POPULATION, REFUGEES, AND
MIGRATION, U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) Syrian Processing –
Frequently Asked Questions (Mar. 11, 2016),
https://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/factsheets/2016/254651.htm; U.S. DEP’T OF
STATE, BUREAU OF POPULATION, REFUGEES, AND MIGRATION, U.S. Refugee
Admissions Program (USRAP) Iraqi Processing – Frequently Asked Questions
(Mar. 11, 2016), https://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/factsheets/2016/254652.htm.
{00011200}
-7PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 73 of 223

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Dated: September 6, 2018
By:
Melissa S. Keaney, Pro Hac Vice
Karen C. Tumlin, Pro Hac Vice
Esther H. Sung, Pro Hac Vice
National Immigration Law Center
3450 Wilshire Blvd, #108-62
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 639-3900
Fax: (213) 639-3911
tumlin@nilc.org
keaney@nilc.org
sung@nilc.org
Deepa Alagesan, Pro Hac Vice
Mariko Hirose, Pro Hac Vice
Linda Evarts, Pro Hac Vice
Kathryn C. Meyer, Pro Hac Vice
International Refugee Assistance Project
40 Rector Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (646) 459-3044
mhirose@refugeerights.org
dalagesan@refugeerights.org
levarts@refugeerights.org
kmeyer@refugeerights.org
David Burman, WSBA No. 10611
Lauren Watts Staniar, WSBA No. 48741
Tyler Roberts, WSBA No. 52688
Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: 206.359.8000
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
dburman@perkinscoie.com
lstaniar@perkinscoie.com
troberts@perkinscoie.com

28 {00011200}

Justin B. Cox, Pro Hac Vice
National Immigration Law Center
PO Box 170208
Atlanta, GA 30317
Tel: (678) 279-5441
Fax: (213) 639-3911
cox@nilc.org
Lauren E. Aguiar, Pro Hac Vice
Mollie M. Kornreich, Pro Hac Vice
Abigail E. Davis, Pro Hac Vice
Four Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Tel: (212) 735-3000
Fax: (212) 735-2000
lauren.aguiar@probonolaw.com
mollie.kornreich@probonolaw.com
abigail.sheehan@probonolaw.com
Elizabeth Sweet, Pro Hac Vice
Mark Hetfield, Pro Hac Vice
HIAS, Inc.
1300 Spring Street, Suite 500
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tel: 301-844-7300
liz.sweet@hias.org
mark.hetfield@hias.org
Counsel for Plaintiff Jewish Family
Service of Seattle

-8PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 74 of 223

1 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF WASHINGTON
2 FOUNDATION
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

By: /s/ Emily Chiang
/s/ Lisa Nowlin
Emily Chiang, WSBA # 50517
Lisa Nowlin, WSBA # 51512
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630
Seattle, WA 98164
Telephone: (206) 624-2184
Email: echiang@aclu-wa.org
lnowlin@aclu-wa.org

10 Counsel for Plaintiff Joseph Doe
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
By: /s/ Lynn Lincoln Sarko
By: /s/ Tana Lin
By: /s/ Amy Williams-Derry
By: /s/ Derek W. Loeser
By: /s/ Alison S. Gaffney
Lynn Lincoln Sarko, WSBA # 16569
Tana Lin, WSBA # 35271
Amy Williams-Derry, WSBA # 28711
Derek W. Loeser, WSBA # 24274
Alison S. Gaffney, WSBA # 45565
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
tlin@kellerrohrback.com
awilliamsderry@kellerrohrback.com
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
agaffney@kellerrohrback.com
By: /s/ Laurie B. Ashton
Laurie B. Ashton, Pro Hac Vice
3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600
Telephone: (602) 248-0088
Facsimile: (602) 248-2822
Email: lashton@kellerrohrback.com
By: /s/ Alison Chase
Alison Chase, Pro Hac Vice
1129 State Street, Suite 8
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com
Counsel for Plaintiff Joseph Doe

27
28 {00011200}

-9PLAINTIFFS JFS AND DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANTS

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 75 of 223

EXHIBIT 7
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 76 of 223
For Official Use Only (FOUO)

Interim Guidance for Decisions on Applications for Refugee Status
(November 9, 2017)
I.

Background

This guidance replaces and supersedes "Interim Guidance for Evaluating Credible Claims to Bona Fide
Relationships in Refugee Adjudications" (August 7, 2017).
In light of Executive Order (E.O.) 13815, Resuming the United States Refugee Admissions Program with

Enhanced Vetting Capabilities, dated October 24, 2017, United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) is adopting the following procedures for handling refugee cases now that the 120-day
review of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) pursuant to E.O. 13780 has been completed.
II.

Bona Fide Relationships

Cases that were not adjudicated between June 29, 2017 and October 24, 2017 because a case member
did not have a credible claim to a Bona Fide Relationship (BFR) may now be adjudicated, provided all
expanded requisite security checks are complete and clear and they are not subject to Section Ill of this
guidance (see below). During a refugee interview, it is no longer necessary for officers to elicit any
additional information about a BFR beyond testimony the officer may already elicit to analyze an
applicant's access to the USRAP (e.g. P-3 or 1-130 P-2s).
If an officer encounters a case placed on "HQ Review" or "Other" hold either for review of a claimed BFR
or because no member of a case claimed a BFR, the officer may lift the related hold, annotating in the
holds section "BFR not required as of 10/25/17". No cases should be on any hold solely for BFR review
or because no member claimed a BFR, unless the case is on hold for fraud concerns raised by the
claimed BFR.
The "BFR Status" will be removed from WRAPS and will no longer be collected by the RSCs. If the BFR
status is contained in a printed Class Name Check Results Report, the officer can disregard this code, as
it no longer has any impact on the ability to adjudicate a refugee application.
Ill.

Nationals of Security Advisory Opinion (SAO) Countries or Stateless Persons Who Last Habitually
Resided in an SAO Country

Section 3 of E.O. 13815 established a 90-day review period during which the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, will
examine actions taken pursuant to the Department's existing statutory authority to address the risks to
the security and welfare of the United States presented by permitting any category of refugees to enter
this country. While OHS may continue to interview some refugee applicants from SAO countries during
this 90-day review period, OHS and DOS will temporarily prioritize refugee applications from non-SAO
countries. Refugee Affairs Division HQ ("RAD HQ"), International Operations Headquarters (10 HQ), and
the Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) are discussing the circuit
ride request at this time. Once this request is agreed to, officers in the field may interview all cases

1

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000003

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 77 of 223
For Official Use Only (FOUO)

presented by the Resettlement Support Centers (RSC). Additional requests to add SAO nationality cases
to the schedule beyond this initial agreement should be directed to RAD or 10 HQ for approval prior to
interview.
It is anticipated that during the 90-day period, cases of SAO nationals will generally not be adjudicated
as approved because this category of cases will be a subject of the review. This includes add-on babies.
In limited circumstances, OHS and DOS may allow adjudication and travel if there is a case-by-case
determination that the travel is in the national interest and the individuals do not pose a threat to the
security or welfare of the United States. USCIS and PRM are currently developing this process. Officers
reviewing these cases for final hold lift will not stamp a case approved without evidence documenting
that the case has received a case-by-case determination.
Refugee admissions for nationals of SAO countries will likely occur at a slower pace compared to
nationals of non-SAO countries, as the implementation of additional screening and integrity measures
will lead to lengthier processing times.
E.O. 13815 does not prohibit denying cases at this time.
Non-SAO Populations

IV.

USCIS officers are authorized to interview and adjudicate applications for refugee status for all refugee
applicants from non-SAO populations. RSCs may schedule travel for non-SAO populations once all
processing of the case is complete.

V.

Expanded Criteria for SAOs

lifted 10/17

Effective October 25, 2017, an SAO is required for any refugee applicant, male or female, who is:
vears of age, and

•

l_Redacted

•

a national of a country requiring an SAO

There is no grandfather period for cases impacted by the new SAO criteria. Any applicants who have not
yet entered the U.S. but who now require an SAO will not be able to enter the U.S. through the USRAP
until they receive a clear SAO result.
PRM has instructed RSCs to cancel travel arrangements for all cases with any applicant who previously
did not require an SAO, but does now, until the SAO is processed and is clear ("CLR").
USCIS need not pre-emptively cancel or cover an approval stamp for any applicant who previously did
not require an SAO, but does now. If, after the newly required SAO has been processed, USCIS does not
need to take any additional adjudicative action (i.e. the SAO result code is "CLR"), the case will not be
presented to USCIS for review. If, after the newly required SAO has been processed, USCIS does need to
take additional adjudicative action (i.e. the SAO result code is "SAO" or "NCL"), the case will be brought
to the attention of USCIS and USCIS will follow normal procedures as outlined in the Holds SOP.

2

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000004

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 78 of 223
For Official Use Only (FOUO)

Additionally, effective October 25, 2017, an applicant cannot age out of the SAO requirement. If an
applicant ever required an SAO, he or she will always require one, even if the applicant turns older than
[;:]years of age throughout the course of processing.
Although RSCs should only present cases subject to the new SAO criteria for hold lift when all checks are
clear, the hold-lifting officer should ensure, in fact, that any individuals who fall within the expanded
SAO criteria have an SAO status of "CLR" before stamping a case approved. SAOs need not be

completed in order for officers to stamp SAO nationals' cases denied.
VI.

Administrative case work on cases of refugee applicants who are Nationals or Last Habitually
Resided in SAO countries:

The RSC may present, and OHS can complete, the following administrative casework, regardless of

whether or not there is case member from an SAO country and without requiring explicit approval
from OHS and State:
•

•

•

•

•
•

RAD HQ review of No Decision cases
o RAD HQ can continue to work and resolve holds for all cases (e.g. HQ TRIG Review,
CARRP, CLASS, RAVU, release of BFR holds, etc.).
1-590 stamp removal
o If a case was previously stamped approved or denied but was stamped in error, is
now on hold, or the case is being administratively closed, the officer can cancel the 1590 stamp.
Administrative case closures
o An officer can cancel stamps and complete case closure letters when a case is
being administratively closed (e.g. when an applicant is unable to locate, has
withdrawn his/her application, or is deceased, etc.).
"Not qualified" determinations and completion of "Not Qualified" letters
o If an officer determines an applicant is not qualified for access to the refugee
program, the officer may make a "not qualified" determination and complete a
"not qualified" letter.
Amendments/corrections to file document(s)
Requests for Review
o RFRs for SAO populations may be reviewed but, absent explicit instruction from
USCIS, decisions to re-interview or overturn should be held until the end of the
review period. Denials may proceed.

3

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000005

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 79 of 223

EXHIBIT 8
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 80 of 223

From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Villasenor, Eissa M
Friday, November 17, 2017 5:33 PM
Tender, Robert J II; Garivaltis, Leland
Chiorazzi, Anne; Refugeeaffairs_PAS
Digital Stamping - add'I guidance
Message from the RAIO Associate Director: Update on EO 13780 and New Executive
Order; Message from the RAIO Associate Director: Implementation of EO 13815;
Removing "Pending HQ Review" and "Other" holds solely based on BFR

Hello Officers,
I've been told you will be helping w/ digital stamping next week. Thanks for your help! I have a few updates before
you get started.
Please confirm that you reviewed Jennifer Higgins' emails sent out 10/24/17 and 11/13/17 and the referenced
guidance. Also, confirm that you received the RAD 1ST training offered October 25 and 26. If you have not received the
training, you cannot adjudicate refugee cases at this time.
If you have not digitally stamped cases recently, please review the recently revised Digital Approval SOP.
During your review of cases in the digital stamp queue, if you come across cases with nationals of Security Advisory
Opinion (SAO} Countries or Stateless Persons Who Last Habitually Resided in an SAO Country, please do not review those
cases at this time unless there is evidence of a case-by-case determination by State and OHS that allows the case to
proceed for final adjudication. This process is still being worked out so it's likely that there are no cases in the queue at
this time w/ evidence of that determination.

It is ant icipated that during the 90-day period, cases of SAO nationals w i ll generally not be adjudicated
as approved because this category of cases wil l be a subject oif the review. This includes add-on bab ies.
In limited circumstances, OHS and DOS may allow adjudkation and travel ifthere Is a case-by-case
determ ination that the trave l is in the nati,onal interest and the individuals do not pose a thr,eat to t he
security m welfar,e oHhe 1.Jnited State,s. l!.JSCIS and PRM are ,cu rrently developing th is process. Officers
eviewin g these case,s for fin aI hold Iilt will not stamp a case .approved w,itho ut evide nee d ocum e nti ng
that the ,case has received a cas·e-by-case,det,erm ination .

Cases with nationals of Security Advisory Opinion (SAO} Countries or Stateless Persons Who Last Habitually Resided in an
SAO Country that are in the queue at this time and that do not have a case-by-case determination should be marked as
"Unable to Stamp: Evidence documenting a case-by-case determination by OHS and State required for further
processing."
Finally, please review the attached email regarding BFRs. You do not need to see Chelsea's 11/15/17 email in
WRAPS. There may be previous correspondence from her or someone else at RAD HQ that lifts the BFR related
hold. Those older emails are sufficient.
Thanks again for your help and please let me know if you have any questions.
Eissa

Doe-JFS_ USCIS_00000172

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 81 of 223

EXHIBIT 9
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 82 of 223

Villasenor, Eissa M
Thursday, January 11, 2018 6:17 PM
Osborne, Michael; Grossman, Ruth H
Chiorazzi, Anne
Digital Stamping

From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Hello Ruth and Michael,
If you see any cases in the digital stamp queue with refugee applicants from SAO countries (or those who last habitually
resided in an SAO country), will you please hold off on stamping them?
Thank you,
Eissa

Eissa M. Villasenor
Refugee Officer (Policy)
Refugee Affairs Division
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 8000
Washington, DC 20529-2100

.·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·.

'

!i

'

Redacted!

i
i.-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-i

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000182

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 83 of 223

EXHIBIT 10
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 84 of 223

Villasenor, Eissa M
Friday, January 12, 2018 5:34 PM
Matusick, Nathan D (Nate); Johnson, Grace E; Jacobowitz, Matthew W
Chiorazzi, Anne; Refugee Affairs-DutySRO
Digital Stamping

From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Hello Nate, Grace, and Matt,
You have been assigned to help Policy with digital stamping next week. I will be out of the office next Tuesday so I am
sending out a few reminders today.
The Digital Approval SOP can be found here. If it has been some time since you've stamped cases digitally, please review
it prior to getting started.
Please confirm that you have received 1ST training given in October. If you have not, you cannot stamp cases at this
time.
If you see any cases in the digital stamp queue with refugee applicants from SAO countries (or those who last habitually
resided in an SAO country), please hold off on stamping them until we receive some clarification on the cases.
If you have any questions regarding security checks, please email Jen Micker and cc me. Please direct other urgent
questions to Anne Chiorazzi. I'll respond to other questions on Wednesday. For those cases that you review and you're
unable to stamp approved or mark as unable to stamp because you have a question pending w/ Jen, Anne or me, please
let the other two officers working on digital stamping know that they shou ld not work on that case. Please work with
one another if you have any questions.
Many thanks,
Eissa

Eissa M. Villasenor
Refugee Officer (Policy)
Refugee Affairs Division
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
111 Massachusett s Avenue, NW Suite 8000
. Washington, .DC 20529-2100_·-·-·-·,

i
i

Redacted

i
i

i--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-j

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000171

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 85 of 223

EXHIBIT 11
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18U.S.Page
86 of 223
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Refugee, Asylum and International
Operations Directorate
Washington, DC 20529

U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services

January 29, 2018

Memorandum
TO:

Mary Margaret Stone
Acting Chief, Refugee Affairs Division
Joanna Ruppel
Chief, International Operations Division

FROM:

Jennifer B. Higgins /s/
Associate Director
Refugee, Asylum and International Operations Directorate

SUBJECT: New Procedures and Revised Guidelines for Refugee Adjudications as a Result of
the 90-Day Review
On October 24, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 13815, Resuming the
United States Refugee Admissions Program with Enhanced Vetting Capabilities, which
concluded that the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) could generally resume subject
to the conditions set forth in section 3 of the EO. That section, entitled "Addressing the Risks
Presented by Certain Categories of Refugees," required that the DHS Secretary determine within
90 days, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, whether to modify or terminate any
actions taken to address the security risks posed by refugee admissions, in consultation with the
Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.
To inform this decision, DHS, the Department of State (DOS), and our law enforcement and
intelligence community partners conducted a review to assess whether additional safeguards
were necessary to ensure that the admission of nationals of (and certain stateless persons who
last habitually resided in) countries subject to a Security Advisory Opinion (SAO) does not pose
a threat to the security and welfare of the United States.
As part of this process, USC IS conducted an adjudicative review of the cases of refugees who
entered the U.S. and subsequently became of interest to law enforcement based on a possible
terrorism nexus. The purpose of the review was to determine (1) whether these cases would
have been denied if they were adjudicated under today's vetting regime and adjudication

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000009

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 87 of 223
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
New Procedures and Revised Guidelines for Refugee Adjudications as a Result of the 90-Day
Review
standards, and (2) whether there are any demographic trends or patterns from which to derive
lessons regarding enhancements to the interview and adjudication process.
On January 29, 2018, DHS Secretary Nielsen issued a memorandum entitled 90-Day Refugee
Review, instructing USCIS to implement additional screening and vetting enhancements to more
effectively reduce risk with regard to processing nationals from SAO countries. As a result of
this 90-day review and in accordance with the Secretary's determinations, I am instructing the
Refugee Affairs Division (RAD) and International Operations Division (IO) to implement the
following actions, consistent with all judicial orders in effect, in advance of third-quarter refugee
processmg.
1. Provide officers with additional training and guidance on specific national security

indicators. RAD will issue updated operational guidance for 1-590 adjudications on
!

national security indicators, including L___·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·- Red acted-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·
j
!

i

Redacted

i

i·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·---·-·-·--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·~-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-j

C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!i~~<i.•i.ti.L~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~J IO

will refer to this guidance in future I-730 guidance materials.
Implementation date: Quarter 2.

2.

Provide for more in-depth refugee eligibility interviews. RAD and IO will examine
the default scheduling for SAO nationalities and extend the length of these interviews to
allow for further exploration of potential national security, inadmissibility, and credibility
issues at interview for 1-590 refugee adjudications and similarly ensure that sufficient
time is provided for interviews of I-730 refugee beneficiaries to fully explore these
issues. This may result in fewer interviews being conducted per day per officer.
Implementation date: Evaluate metrics in Quarter 2, implement prior to Quarter 3.

3. Issue new requirements for interviewing derivative applicants: RAD will issue
guidance emphasizing the importance of eliciting testimony from derivative 1-590
applicants, including certain RE-3 applicants (unmarried, under 21, derivative children)
apart from the principal refugee applicant (his or her parent) to further explore potential
national security, identity, inadmissibility, and credibility issues and make scheduling
adjustments as needed. Implementation date: Evaluate metrics in Quarter 2,
implement prior to Quarter 3.

4. Clarify the use of discretion within adjudications. RAD will issue supplementary
guidance and train officers on additional circumstances that would warrant a denial of the
1-590 application as a matter of discretion based on the totality of the circumstances.
Implementation date: Prior to Quarter 3.
While these enhancements will be applied to refugee interviews and adjudications prospectively,
RAD shall immediately institute a process and issue guidance to evaluate whether 1-590
2

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000010

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 88 of 223
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
New Procedures and Revised Guidelines for Refugee Adjudications as a Result of the 90-Day
Review
"pipeline" cases (i.e., cases already interviewed by a USCIS officer but that are pending final
approval) involving SAO nationals 1 require a re-interview in light of these new protocols. 2
In addition, RAIO will work with other USCIS and DHS components and collaborate with
USRAP partners to make the following modifications:

5. Update SAO adjudication thresholds. SAO adjudication thresholds were last reviewed
in 2016 as part of an interagency working group involving all screening and vetting
agencies, the Department of State (DOS), and USCIS. These thresholds should be
reviewed and updated for 1-590 and 1-730 refugee adjudications, to ensure they are in line
with thresholds applied for other security checks, most notably the IAC.
Implementation date: Start interagency consultations in Quarter 2.
6.

iL----·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-··
Redacted !SAO results. USCIS should apply a similar L--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·•
r·-Rec:ia-cteci°~pproach to I-

590 cases which receive SAO "not clear" results as is applied to cases which receive IAC

''not cl ear'' results. :·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· Redacted-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· i

i

l·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·- Redacted_·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· RAD and IO

shall also explore with DOS and the vetting partners the ability to apply similar
methodology for I-730 refugee cases. Implementation date: Collaborate with DOS to
establish manual process for I-590s in Quarter 2; By end of Quarter 3, develop with
DOS and vetting partners a plan for automation and an assessment of the plan (if
applicable) for expanding to 1-730 refugee cases.

7. Identify national security indicators that may require higher-level vetting. Working
with the Intelligence Community (IC) and FBI, RAIO will identify whether certain
indicators that may come to light at any point during adjudication should require a
"deeper dive" by vetting partners. Implementation date: Initiate discussions in
Quarter 2.

8. Develop a process to alert RAIO to undisclosed wounds/injuries. RAIO will work
with the State Department to ensure that any previously undisclosed wounds or injuries
identified by an International Organization for Migration (IOM) or other panel physician
during an applicant's medical examination documented on the appropriate State
Department medical form are reported back to RAIO or State Department consular
While the guidance outlined here addresses 1-590 cases of SAO nationals, adjudicators may consider any case for
re-interview, regardless of nationality and including 1-730 cases, in which derogatory information or a procedural
deficiency is discovered post-interview.
2 Refugee cases previously determined to be eligible for refugee status with valid security check results and that
have already been stamped approved are considered to have received a final USCIS adjudication. These cases, in
the absence of derogatory information being discovered post-interview, will be allowed to proceed with travel
without additional USCIS review.
1

3

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000011

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 89 of 223
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
New Procedures and Revised Guidelines for Refugee Adjudications as a Result of the 90-Day
Review
officers (for I-730 beneficiaries processed by State) to explore i
Redac._t_~-~---·-·-·-·-·-·___!
l_ ________________________________________________________________________ Re d_a cte d·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-' ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· !
r·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-···Reciactii1T·-·-·-·-·-·-···-·-·-um plementation date: Initiate discussions in Quarter 2.
L--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·•
9. Integrate United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) biometrics
into identity management process. Continue conversations with the State Department
and UNHCR to integrate biometrics collected by UNHCR into USRAP identity
management for those 1-590 cases referred by UNHCR. Implementation date: Finalize
concept of operations by Quarter 4.
The security and procedural enhancements outlined above are designed to further strengthen the
USRAP based on evaluated intelligence, the threat landscape, and the experience of RAIO
professionals responsible for adjudicating applications for refugee status. As always, we will
continue to review and improve USRAP protocols and procedures on an on-going basis to ensure
we can facilitate the admission of legitimate refugees while maintaining our national security.

4

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000012

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 90 of 223

EXHIBIT 12
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 91 of 223

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Innnigration Services
Refugee Affairs Division
Washington, DC 20529-2100

U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
April 2, 2018

Memorandum
TO:

All International Operations Division Staff
All Refugee Affairs Division Staff

FROM:

Joanna Ruppel /s/
Chief, Refugee Affairs Division

SUBJECT:

Pipeline DHS Review (PDR) Guidance

L

Background

On January 29, 2018, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen
issued a memorandum entitled 90-Day Refugee Review, instructing U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) to identify, outline, and implement additional screening and
vetting enhancements for Security Advisory Opinion (SAO) nationals. As a result of this 90-day
review, and in accordance with the Secretary's determinations, on January 29, 2018, Refugee,
Asylum , and International Operations Directorate (RAIO) Associate Director Jennifer B. Higgins
issued a memorandum entitled New Procedures and Revised Guidelines for Refugee
Adjudications as a Result of the 90-Day Review.
Associate Director Higgins ' s memo instructed the Refugee Affairs Division (RAD) and
International Operations Division (IO) to implement a number of actions, consistent with all
judicial orders in effect. While these enhancements will be applied prospectively, RAD was
instructed to immediately institute a process and issue guidance to evaluate whether
adjudications ofl-590 "pipeline" cases (i.e. cases already interviewed by a USCIS officer and
pending final approval) involving SAO nationals 1 are impacted by new protocols and, if so,
determine which cases require reinterview or change in outcome. In line with this directive, 2
RAD is adopting the following procedures, known as the Pipeline DHS Review (PDR), for SAO
nationals interviewed prior to April 1, 2018 if the case:
1) is pending final approval (has not been stamped approved); or

2) is a Requests for Review

(RFR) for which the adjudicating officer determines that the

underlying 1-590 should be reinterviewed and/or approved; or

1 While the guidance outlined here addresses I-590 cases of SAO nationals, adjudicators may consider any case for reinterview, regardless of
nationality and including I-730 cases, in which derogatory information or a procedural deficiency is discovered post-interview.
2 Note that RAD HQ began reviewing pipeline cases and piloting this process in Quarter 2.

1

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000111

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 92 of 223

involves adjudication of a form 1-602 which, if approved, would result in approval of
the underlying 1-590; or
4) was closed prior to final decision or after approval, but prior to travel, and is being
considered for reopening.
3)

For the time-being, only officers at RAD Headquarters (HQ) will conduct PDR, absent an
explicit, written exception from RAD HQ. 3 An officer may not stamp approved an 1-590 case
involving an SAO national interviewed prior to April 1, 2018, unless RAD HQ has completed
PDRand:
1) RAD HQ determined the case does not require a reinterview based on the integrity
enhancements put in place as a result of the 120-day and 90-day reviews, and all
necessary steps have been completed (i.e., all security checks have been completed
and cleared and no additional HQ review is required), or
2) RAD HQ determined the case requires a reinterview, an officer has completed the
reinterview and recommended approval, and all necessary steps have been completed
(i.e., all security checks have been completed and cleared and no additional HQ
review is required).
This guidance does not apply to 1-590 cases that do not include any SAO nationals or any 1-590
cases involving SAO nationals that are pending a denial stamp. Refugee cases previously
determined to be eligible for refugee status that have already been stamped approved are
considered to have received a final USCIS adjudication and do not require PDR. These cases, in
the absence of discovery of derogatory information post-interview, will be allowed to proceed
with travel without additional USCIS review. Furthermore, cases interviewed on or after April
1, 2018 do not require PDR as all enhancements will already have been incorporated into the
interview and routine processing.
II.

Identification of Cases Requiring RAD HQ Review

The Refugee Processing Center (RPC) has created Case Availability Reasons (CARs) to identify
1) cases requiring PDR and 2) cases for which RAD HQ has completed PDR. Starting on April
1, 2018, officers will see the CAR on the Case Summary Screen here in WRAPS :
Case
Case Overv iew

l!!l!llml
~

C.2:se Availab ility ; ":e.aison

[:JC]

The CAR for cases that require PDR is "Pending PDR." Once RAD HQ has completed PDR, it
will email the appropriate Resettlement Support Center (RSC) requesting the CAR be updated to
reflect PDR is complete. The CAR for cases where RAD HQ has completed PDR is "PDR
3 Initially, the SVPI Branch will manage the review and, based on a weekly report of cases pending PDR, will detennine the prioritization of
review of cases based on case status and other factors that may arise such as expedite requests from PRM. At a later date, RAD HQ may delegate
this authority to other RAD or IO officers.

2

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000112

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 93 of 223

Complete." If the case requires a reinterview, RAD HQ will instruct the RSC to update the
CAR to PDR Complete and to add the Re-Interview CAR to the case. RAD HQ will also
transmit the reinterview coversheet to the RSC through the Regional Desk Officer(s) according
to normal procedures. 4 Once an officer has reinterviewed the case, the RSC will remove the ReInterview CAR. The PDR Complete CAR will remain through travel.
III.

Case Handling

1-590 pipeline cases involving SAO nationals that require PDR may come to the attention of
RAD or IO through several different streams. Officers should follow the applicable instructions
below.
a. Digital Approval
The officer conducting digital approval must review WRAPS to check whether there is evidence
that PDR has been completed.
If the PDR Complete CAR is present on a case, the officer should verify in WRAPS that RAD
HQ correspondence indicating PDR is complete is in the file. If there is no correspondence
indicating that RAD HQ completed PDR, the officer should mark the case Unable to Stamp and
note in the Unable to Stamp box, "RAD HQ, PDR review required. Remove PDR Complete
CAR, add Pending PDR CAR." If correspondence confirms that PDR is complete and a
reinterview is not required, the officer should follow normal adjudicative procedures.
If correspondence indicates that RAD HQ completed PDR and determined a reinterview is
required, the officer should verify that the reinterview was conducted. The officer should review
the Refugee Application Assessment from the post-PDR reinterview in WRAPS to determine if
the case may now proceed through normal adjudicative procedures. If the documentation
confirms that the post-PDR reinterview was conducted, the officer should follow normal
adjudicative procedures.
If a reinterview is required, but has not been conducted, the officer should mark the case Unable
to Stamp and note in the Unable to Stamp box, "Per RAD HQ, case requires a reinterview based
on PDR." The officer should also instruct the RSD to add the Re-Interview CAR if not present.
The officer may not digitally approve the case at this time.

RSCs should not put in the digital approval queue any cases with a CAR of Pending PDR.
However, there may be some circumstances where a case with a CAR of Pending PDR is placed
in the queue in error. If the Pending PDR CAR is assigned to the case, the officer should review
the scanned documents for any RAD HQ correspondence regarding PDR. If correspondence
indicates that RAD HQ completed PDR and determined no reinterview is necessary or if
correspondence indicates that RAD HQ completed PDR, determined that reinterview is
necessary and documentation indicates that the post-PDR reinterview was conducted, the officer
should mark the case Unable to Stamp and note in the Unable to Stamp box, "Remove Pending
PDR CAR, add PDR Complete CAR, then return case to digital queue." If there is no
The reinterview requestor uploads the reinterview coversheet to the "Re-interview Tracking List" on the ECN.
Regional Operations distributes reinterview coversheets weekly to the RSCs.
4

3

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000113

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 94 of 223

correspondence indicating that RAD HQ completed PDR, the officer should mark the case
Unable to Stamp and note in the Unable to Stamp box, "RAD HQ, PDR review required." If
correspondence indicates that RAD HQ completed PDR and determined a reinterview is required
and the post-PDR reinterview has not been conducted, the officer should mark the case Unable to
Stamp and note in the Unable to Stamp box, "Remove Pending PDR CAR, add PDR Complete
and Re-Interview CARs."

b. Hold Lifts in the Field 5
The hold-lifting officer must review WRAPS to check whether there is evidence that PDR has
been completed. 6 RSCs should not present for hold lift any cases with a CAR of Pending PDR.
If the PDR Complete CAR is present, the officer should ensure that RAD HQ correspondence
indicates PDR is complete. If there is no correspondence indicating that RAD HQ completed
PDR, the officer should return the case to the RSC with instructions to add the Pending PDR
CAR. If the correspondence confirms that PDR is complete and a reinterview is not required, the
officer should follow normal adjudicative procedures.
If correspondence indicates that RAD HQ completed PDR and determined a reinterview is
required, the officer should verify that the reinterview was conducted. The officer should review
the Refugee Application Assessment from the post-PDR reinterview in the file to determine if
the case may now proceed through normal adjudicative procedures. If the documentation
confirms that the post-PDR reinterview was conducted, the officer should follow normal
adjudicative procedures.
If a reinterview is required, but has not been conducted, the Re-Interview CAR should be
assigned to the case. The officer should return the case to the RSC and inform the RSC that the
case requires a reinterview. The officer should also instruct the RSC to add the Re-Interview
CAR at this time if it is not already present. The officer may not stamp the case approved at this
time.

c. Case appears on RAD HQ's No Decision (NOD) list
The RAD HQ officer conducting PDR should coordinate with the RAD HQ officer who will
handle any applicable NOD hold. For example, if a case requires PDR and is on HQ TRIG
Review hold, the RAD HQ officer conducting PDR will reach out to the RAD HQ Policy officer
who reviews HQ TRIG Review holds. This is to ensure that if a reinterview is needed after the
case is reviewed by both officers, only one consolidated reinterview coversheet will be drafted
and only one consolidated reinterview will be conducted. This is also necessary to ensure they
coordinate on notification to the RSC to update the CARs related to PDR and NOD holds.

5 At the present time, cases subject to FDR will not be stamped approved in the field, but will be handled digitally at
HQ. This guidance does not apply to 1-590 pipeline cases that will be denied (e.g., case presented for issuance of
discretionary denial).
6 Should, in the future, FDR status appear on:
Redacted
! reviewing the printout of this report is
·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-'
sufficient.

4

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000114

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 95 of 223

d.

Request for Review (RFR) cases that could result in overturning the denial
or remanding for reinterview
i. RFR adjudication could result in overturning the denial

If the officer reviewing the RFR determines the denial should be overturned and the case is
approvable, the officer must review WRAPS to check whether there is evidence that PDR has
been completed. It is anticipated, that for most RFR cases, PDR will not have been completed.
However, there may be some RFRs for denials post-PDR.
The officer should review the correspondence in WRAPS to determine if PDR has been
completed. If the case has not undergone PDR, the officer must contact the RSC to add the PDR
Pending CAR. The officer should not approve the case at this time.
Once the PDR Complete CAR is present, the officer should verify that RAD HQ
correspondence indicating PDR is complete is in WRAPS. If the correspondence indicates a
reinterview is not required, the officer should follow normal adjudicative procedures.
IfRAD HQ completed PDR and determined a reinterview was required, the officer should verify
the reinterview was conducted. The officer should review the Refugee Application Assessment
from the post-PDR reinterview in the file or WRAPS and should follow normal RFR
adjudicative procedures. If the post-PDR reinterview was required, but has not been conducted,
the officer should not approve the case at this time and should ensure the Re-Interview CAR is
present.
If PDR results in denial, RAD HQ will coordinate with the officer to uphold the prior denial.
ii. RFR adjudication could result in remanding for reinterview

If the officer reviewing the RFR determines a reinterview is required, the officer must review
WRAPS to check whether there is evidence that PDR has been completed. If the case has not
undergone PDR, the officer must contact the RSC to add the PDR Pending CAR in addition to
the Re-Interview CAR. The officer should not proceed with the reinterview at this time. The
officer should _provide RAD HQ with the RFR reinterview coversheet. Send the coversheet to
[L--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-'
Redacted
!with the following subject line: "RSC Case Number [Add] -RFR
Reinterview Coversheet Consolidation."
If PDR results in a reinterview, RAD HQ will add its reinterview questions to the RFR
reinterview coversheet and return it to the RFR officer to proceed through normal adjudicative
procedures. At the same time, RAD HQ will also notify the RSC that PDR is complete and it
should update CAR to PDR Complete.
If PDR does not result in a reinterview, RAD HQ will notify the RSC that PDR is complete and
it should update CAR to PDR Complete. It will also notify the officer that the RFR reinterview
may proceed.
If PDR results in denial, RAD HQ will coordinate with the officer to uphold the prior denial.

5

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000115

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 96 of 223

e. 1-602 that appears approvable
If the officer decides the 1-602 is approvable, the officer must review WRAPS to check whether
there is evidence that PDR has been completed. If the case has not already undergone PDR, the

officer must contact RAD HQ at[·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· Redacted_·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-___ifor further guidance.
f.

Reopening cases previously interviewed by USCIS and closed prior to
receiving a final decision and reopening previously approved cases closed
prior to travel

The RSC should present to the appropriate Regional Operations Desk Officer any case involving
SAO nationals interviewed by USCIS prior to April 1, 2018 and 1) closed prior to receiving a
final decision or 2) approved and closed prior to travel where the principal applicant has
requested to reopen his/her case.
If the Regional Operations Desk Officer performs normal case reopening and passage of time
reviews and decides that the case may be reopened, the officer must check WRAPS to determine
whether there is evidence that PDR has been completed. If the PDR Complete CAR is present
and RAD HQ correspondence indicates PDR is complete, the officer should proceed with normal
adjudicative procedures.
If there is no correspondence indicating that RAD HQ has completed PDR, the Regional
Operations Desk Officer must contact the RSC to add the PDR Pending CAR.
If the routine case reopening review and/or case review for passage of time does not result in a
reinterview, the Regional Operations Desk Officer should inform the RSC that the case may be
reopened and allow the case to proceed through normal adjudicative procedures.
If the routine case reopening review and/or case review for passage of time results in the need for
a reinterview, the Regional Operations Desk Officer must also contact the RSC to add the ReInterview CAR. The officer should provide RAD HQ with the Regional Operations reinterview
coversheet. Send the coversheet to[.~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~i~-~~}~.f~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Jvith the following subject line:
"RSC Case Number [Add] -Reg Ops Reinterview Coversheet Consolidation."

6

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000116

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 97 of 223

EXHIBIT 13
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 98 of 223

Ingraham, Hilary E
Friday, February 2, 2018 6:52 PM
G,auq_er, Kelly A;_Smith,_Jennifer_L;__ RSC Africa _PRM __ lnquiries _______ .

From:
Sent:
To:

c~

Redacted

:

'·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-

C. __________________________________________________________ Redacted·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-___:
i

Redacted

i 'RSC

Eurasia Management';

(:.·:.·:.·:.·:.·:.·:.·:.·:."J~~~:~.~!~r:.·:.·:.·:.·:.·:.·:.·:.J Ha~a na - Refug ee[~~~~~~~~~~~~~r{~{fo~!if~~~~~~~~~~~J
i··-·-·-·-·-~·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-··
Redacted
i

Cc:

Subject:

Dear Colleagues,
Following the conclusion of the 90-day review period for the 11 SAO nationalities, Resettlement Support Centers (RSCs)
are now able to resume requesting Security Advisory Opinions (SAOs) via WRAPS, according to the guidelines set forth
below. RSCs should request SAOs only after all expanded data has been collected (in accordance with Program
Announcement 2018-04) and after the DataColl is updated in WRAPS (in accordance with message #4 sent on
1/11/2018). As a reminder, RSCs must adhere to the changes to SAO requirements listed in Program Announcement
2018-05 i
Redacted
:
i.·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·i

Based on the volume of cases that require an SAO, coupled with vetting partner capacity, each RSC will have a monthly
allocation capping the total number of individual SAO requests that can be submitted in WRAPS in order to ensure that
the most time sensitive cases are processed as quickly as possible. Each RSC is best positioned to determine which SAO
should be requested based on medical needs, security/protection concerns, minors who are at risk of aging out, or
individuals whose travel documents will soon expire. RSCs should focus on requesting SAOs for cases who are post OHS
interview and not on long-term holds in order to move these cases toward travel if the SAO comes back as clear. Please
note that the anticipated turnaround time for SAO responses may be 1-3 months.
Starting on February 3, 2018, and on the first day of every month (or following business day), RSCs will be able to initiate
monthly SAO requests via WRAPS. RSCs have the flexibility to request their entire monthly allocation on the first day of
every month or request SAOs throughout the month, as long as the individual SAO requests do not exceed the monthly
,_cap. __ As. a .rem in per, some SA Os L__·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·~~-~~-C..t~-~----·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·]
l_ ___ Redacted __ Jhese SAOs will not count against the RSC's monthly allocation. SAOs that need to be re-requested due
to Biodiffs will count against a monthly allocation. If an RSC is unable to meet the monthly allocation, please contact
your program officer as early as possible so the monthly allocation may be reapportioned as needed.
RSCs should contact their program officer if they encounter a particularly urgent case that needs an SAO after the
monthly allocation has been reached. PRM will be able to approve certain SAO requests that exceed monthly
allocations on a limited basis. PRM/A also has the ability to request SAO expedites in exceptional circumstances for a
limited number of cases. Please contact your program officer if you have such cases in your pipeline.
We will continue to assess partner capacity to determine whether we can increase the monthly allocation. Should the
monthly allocations change or should there be any change to the above-mentioned policy, we will provide additional
guidance as soon as possible.

Doe-JFS_State_00000166

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 99 of 223
For this month, please prioritize requesting SAOs as early as possible during the week of February 4 so that we can
work with vetting partners to process these SAOs and ensure all of the upgrades to the SAO interface are now
complete.
Maximum Number of
Resettlement

Individual SAO Requests

Support Center

by Month

RSC Africa

400

RSC Austria

20

RSC East Asia

170

RSC Eurasia

10

RSC MENA

1,200

RSC South Asia

10

RSC Tu ME

200

RSC Latin America

As required

RSC Cuba

As required

Many thanks, Hilary
Hilary Ingraham
Director, Refugee Processing Center, Refugee Admissions
1.JMn'.l!...1!.9lf.9p_yJ_~tJmt,_R_dµ.2.~~i!.,J!IHJJ\:Iigration, U.S. Department of State
l_ _________________________ Red a cte d ________________________ ___i

This email is UNCLASSIFIED.

From: Gauger, Kelly A
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 5: 22 PM
.---·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·To: Smith, Jennifer L; RSC Africa PRM Inquiries i
Redacted
i
i
Redacted
1RSC Eurasia
'Management';:.__ __________________ Redacted _____________________ !Havana - Refugee; i
Redacted
·--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·1
Cc: PRM-Ad missions Office; PRM Admissions _RefCoords; r-·-·-··R·;j;cteci-·-·-··'1 ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·Redacted-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·1~:--~---·-·-·----·-···-·-·-·1
-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·.
,
'-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·'·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·.........................................'Redacted
,
i
Redacted
rR;d;~t~d--ia. _______ ~~~-~~t~~----·-·j Stone, Mary; Chiorazzi, Annej
Redactea-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-T·-·-·-·, Clough, "Chelsea·-M i-·-·-•·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· Re-dacted-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-]Ru ppel, Joanna
'-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-'
Subject: Message' #5 FY 2018: Update on USRAP operations

Dear Colleagues,

2

Doe-JFS_State_00000167

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 100 of 223
The 90-day review of SAO nationalities ended on January 22. In addition to the processing that resumed pursuant to the
injunction issued in litigation, we want to clarify that processing of SAO nationals should now be conducted in
accordance with Program Announcement 2018-04 on expanded data collection and Program Announcement 2018-05 on
changes to SAO requirements. RSCs should re-request security checks where there is a biodiff, and move cases forward
for stamping as appropriate.
While manual requests are ongoing, automated SAO requests through WRAPS are scheduled to restart soon. More
specific guidance will be forthcoming. Instructions for putting together Q3 circuit ride/interview requests will also be
circulated shortly.
Regards, Kelly

Kelly Gauger
Deputy Director, Refugee Admissions • Bureau .of Population,_Refugees,_and _Migration_• _U.S._Department_of State
2025 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20520 l._·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·Redacted ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·___:

This email is UNCLASSIFIED.

3

Doe-JFS_State_00000168

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 101 of 223

EXHIBIT 14
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 102 of 223

!3:~-~~~!-~-~----·-·-·-·-·-·-J

From:
Sent:
To:

Ingraham, Hi Iary E [________________
Monday, April 30, 2018 4:02 PM
Gauger, Kelly A; Smith, Jennifer L; RSCEastAsiaManagement[·-·-·-·-·-·-·Red-a-c-teci-·-·-·-·-·-·1
RS CSAM an age me n(~~~_a_c._t~~_i l_ _______________________~~-c!~-~~~~----·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·j' RSC Africa PRM
__ _l_~g~_i_~_i_E:~:~-~-~_s_s__ ~-~:.~~~~--~~-~~-~~-~-~!l_t~;__

L ___________Re.d.~ cted

I;

Havana - Refugee;
fF'F<lvFAamTs·srdns Office; PRM
;Adm I ss IO n S RefCoo rd s·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-;

:
Cc:

Redacted

L.-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-~-=~~«:!e_d_______________________________________ JStan e, Mary; Chio razzi, Anne; CI o ugh,
Chelsea M; Ruppel, Joanna; Nicholson, Maura J; ~\R~di~t~d-~; Help;:_ ________ ~~-~~~!~<:! ______ __.!

:-·-·-·-·-·-R~;ii~t;d·-·-·-·-·-·1
Subject:

Update on Monthly Allocations for SAOs

Importance:

High

Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:

Flag for follow up
Flagged

'·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-··

Dear Colleagues,
This email updates and replaces Message #6 below on the Resumption of SAOs, sent on February 2, 2018.
Due to an increasing SAO backlog, the monthly SAO allocation cap will be reduced to a total of 500 SAO requests across
all RSCs. RSCs are requested to adhere to the following monthly allocation caps (listed below), starting on May 1. These
limited caps will remain in place until further notice.
Given the limited number of slots available, each RSC is best positioned to determine which SAO should be requested
based on medical needs, security/protection concerns, minors who are at risk of aging out, stage in pipeline or
individuals whose travel documents will soon expire. RSCs will continue to have the flexibility to request their entire
monthly allocation on the first day of every month or request SAOs throughout the month, as long as the individual SAO
requests do not exceed the month Iy cap. l__·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-~'=-~-~:!l:~.---·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-j
l_ _______________________________________Redacted -·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·j These SA Os wil I not count against the RSC' s monthly al location. SA Os

that need to be re-requested due to Biodiffs will count against a monthly allocation. At this time, RSCs should prioritize
post-USCIS cases that need an SAO. If an RSC does not have post-USCIS, time sensitive cases that need to be requested
towards the monthly allocation, please contact your program officer as early as possible so the monthly allocation may
be reapportioned as needed.
RSCs should contact their program officer if they encounter a particularly urgent case that needs an SAO after the
monthly allocation has been reached. PRM will be able to approve certain SAO requests that exceed monthly
allocations on a limited basis. PRM/A also has the ability to request SAO expedites in exceptional circumstances for a
limited number of cases. Please contact your program officer if you have such cases in your pipeline.
We will continue to assess this situation to determine whether we can increase the monthly allocation. Should the
monthly allocations change or should there be any change to the above-mentioned policy, we will provide additional
guidance as soon as possible.
Please reach out to your program officer with any questions.
Revised Monthly Allocation, Effective May 1

Doe-J FS _State_00000225

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 103 of 223
Maximum Number of
Resettlement

Individual SAO Requests

Support Center

by Month

RSC Africa

110

RSC Austria

5

RSC East Asia

81

RSC Eurasia

2

RSC MENA

250

RSC South Asia

2

RSC Tu ME

50

RSC Latin America

As required

RSC Cuba

As required

Best,
Hilary

Official
UNCLASSIFIED

From: Ingraham, Hilary E
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 6:52 PM
,·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·,
.TO:_ Gauger~ Ke II y Ar·-·-·-·-·-·Re-<ia-cte"d-·-·-·-·-·-·-"l Sm ithJ Jennifer_L. i·-·-·-·-·-·-Redacted·-·-·-·-·-·- !RSC_ Africa PR M In q U i ri es

:

Redacted

(

:

Redacted

:.Mao.ag_emeof.L ______________________________________________________ R.e._d_a_Gte.d _____________________________________________ ,

·
i'RSC Eurasia
[H av an a - Refugee i-R~-d~-~t~-d-i

Redacted
r·-·-·-·-·-·'
t--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·---------------·-·-·-·-·-·-·-j

!

Cc: PRM-Admissions Office!__

!

:PRM Admissions RefCoords

Redacted

i

~

Re daCt ed

\-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-~~i~a~~te-cf -·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·L·-·-·-·1

~-; ;r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l~~:: : : : : : : : : : :Jh)"6:r~:izT;)~~ii"ri~!j____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

~--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-Redacfii"cf-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·1c10ugh, Chelsea M

R-upp-e{Joa·nn-a·<:

Redact~d

L--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-'

.Redacmd. _______________________

:-·L-·-·-·-,

l1~~~-~

c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----·-·-·:.-._·_·_·,

Redacted

:

!L.~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~€,;-~t~~,r_~-~-:-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~,: -~-~-~-~-~-r-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·'

Subject: Messag~-#6-of FY 2018:-Update ·on·'usRAP Operations -- Requesting SAOs

Dear Colleagues,
2

Doe-J FS _State_00000226

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 104 of 223

EXHIBIT 15
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 105 of 223

From:
Sent:
To:

Siram, Sumitra
Sunday, December 24, 2017 12:55 PM
Gauger, Kelly A; 'RSC Africa PRM Inquiries'; 'RSC MENA PRM Inquiries'; 'RSC LA
Management'; 'RSC East Asia Management'; 'RSCSAManagement'; Havana - Refugee;
'PRMinquiries'; 'RSC Eurasia Management'; 'PRMgroup'; Lane, Nathan P; Stalis, Emil R;
Schulze, DeMark F (Kampala); Wingate, Patrick R; Munson, Jessica N; Shaw, Gregory J
(Bangkok); Garmize, Kristina X (Amman); Kalmbach, Heather E (Amman); Tikvart,
Daniel J; Sen, Anjalina M; Bongiovanni, Kristin; Abdeen, Deanna H (Baghdad); Totilo,
Matthew A (Erbil); Kyle, Susan F (Geneva);

·r--------:::::::::::::~:e~~~~eI:::::::::::::::::::::::::J

lfr~~:.~~~~Jb.ara-c.;··stone, Mary;

i::.::.::::::::::::::.::.::~ :~:d~~~~:::::::::::,::.::::.::::.::::.::1·- -·-·- - -·-·················-·J

L_ __·-·---·····~~~~~!~~...............}ickering, Margaret S; PRM-Admissions Office; 'RSC
Africa PRM Inquiries'; Naplan, Steven J; 'RSC MENA PRM Inquiries'; 'RSC LA
Management'; 'RSC East Asia Management'; 'RSCSAManagement'; Havana - Refugee;
'PRMinquiries'; 'RSC Eurasia Management'; 'PRMgroup'; Lane, Nathan P; Stalis, Emil R;
Wingate, Patrick R; Shaw, Gregory J (Bangkok); Anderson, Todd D; Garmize, Kristina X
(Amman); Kalmbach, Heather E (Amman); Tikvart, Daniel J; Sen, Anjalina M; O'Connor,
Margaret R; Este, Stephen; Bongiovanni, Kristin; Abdeen, Deanna H (Baghdad); Totilo,
Matthew A (Erbil); Kyle, Susan F (Geneva); '~··························Redacted························}I
·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·~·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·i.-.-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-''-·-·-:

i Redacted !

Strack, Barabara L.; Stone,

i

Redacted

r·······················Redacte<f········••-'••··········1

'

l._·······-·-···- ··-·-Redacted······-·-·- ·······...iPickering, Margaret S; PRM-Admissions Office;
'ECDC'; 'EMM'; 'HIAS '; 'IRC'; 'URS'; 'USCCB'; 'USCRI'; 'WR'; 'CWS'; Schulze, DeMark F
(Kampala); Cole, Jennifer X; Kelley, Jennifer A; Harris, Cheryl; Ave- Lallemant, Alex N;

Cc:
Subject:

Brown, Christopher J (Amman); Jennifer RUMBACH [
Jean T (Kampala)
'
PRM- Press- DL
Message #2 FY 2018 update on USRAP operations

Importance:

High

Redacted

~oynicki,

Dear Colleagues,
State/PRM is aware of the December 23, 2017 Seattle district court ruling enjoining the suspension of refugee
processing and admission into the US for all follow-to-join refugees (V93s), and the suspension or inhibiting of
refugee processing and admission into the US for those nationals of (and stateless persons who last habitually
resided in) the 11 countries on the SAO list who have a bona fide relationship to a person or entity within the
United States. The RSCs will resume processing of these refugees, in accordance with normal
procedures. PRM expects to issue further guidance in the near future.

Sumitra Siram
Program Officer, Refugee Admissions • Bureau of Population, Refugees, and M igration • U.S. Department of State
2025 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20520 ll.................. ................. ....Redacted ........................................... i

Doe-JFS_State_00000073

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 106 of 223

Officia l

UNCLASSIFIED

2

Doe-JFS_State_00000074

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 107 of 223

EXHIBIT 16
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 108 of 223

From:

Ingraham, Hilary E
Thursday, December 28, 2017 12:53 PM
Siram, Sumitra; Gauger, Kelly A; 'RSC Africa PRM Inquiries'; 'RSC MENA PRM Inquiries';
'RSC LA Management'; 'RSC East Asia Management'; 'RSCSAManagement'; Havana Refugee; 'PRMinquiries'; 'RSC Eurasia Management'; 'PRMgroup'; Lane, Nathan P;
Stalis, Emil R; Schulze, DeMark F (Kampala); Wingate, Patrick R; Munson, Jessica N;
Shaw, Gregory J (Bangkok); Garmize, Kristina X (Amman); Kalmbach, Heather E
(Amman); Tikvart, Daniel J; Sen, Anjalina M; Bongiovanni, Kristi_n~_AbdeenJ Deanna_~

Sent:
To:

Redacted !
·c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ti~a~~e~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l_ __________________________________ Redacted·_~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~---1

(Baghdad); Totilo, Matthew A (Erbil); Kyle, Susan F (Geneva);!

:·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-Reiiactecl-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·:strack, Barabara L.; Stone, Mary;

L.-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-Red acted-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· iP i ck e ri n g,

Margaret S; PRM-Admissions Office; 'RSC Africa PRM Inquiries'; Naplan, Steven J; 'RSC
MENA PRM Inquiries'; 'RSC LA Management'; 'RSC East Asia Management';
'RSCSAManagement'; Havana - Refugee; 'PRMinquiries'; 'RSC Eurasia Management';
'PRMgroup'; Lane, Nathan P; Stalis, Emil R; Wingate, Patrick R; Shaw, Gregory J
(Bangkok); Anderson, Todd D; Garmize, Kristina X (Amman); Kalmbach, Heather E
(Amman); Tikvart, Daniel J; Sen, Anjalina M; O'Connor, Margaret R; Este, Stephen;
Bongiovanni, Kristin; Abdeen, Deanna H (Baghdad); Totilo, Matthew A (Erbil); Kyle,
,_Susan _F_ (Geneva);_'l_________________________ Redacted

i

----------------------~---J

Redacted

~track,

' Barabara L.; Stan e, Ma ry{"-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·Re-cia·cted-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-i
:_______________________ Redacted ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·pickering, Marg aret S; PRM-Adm i ssi ans Office;
'ECDC'; 'EMM'; 'HIAS '; 'IRC'; 'LIRS'; 'USCCB'; 'USCRI'; 'WR'; 'CWS'; Schulze, DeMark F

(Kampala); Cole, Jennifer X; Kelley, Jennifer A; Harris, Cheryl; Ave-Lallemant, Alex N;
Brown, Christopher J (Amman); Jennifer RUMBACH
Jean T (Kamp aIa); :·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-Redacteci-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·:

Cc:
Subject:

L_ ________ Redacted __________ ~oynicki,

PRM-Press-DL
Message #3 FY 2018: Update on USRAP operations

Dear Colleagues,
Based on the December 23, 2017, ruling of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, and
in furtherance of Message #2 FY2018 sent on December 24, 2017, processing may immediately resume for nationals of
(and stateless persons who last habitually resided in) the 11 countries on the SAO list ("SAO nationalities") who have a
bona fide relationship (BFR) to a person or entity within the United States. Per the court's ruling, the BFR can be based
on:
■

■

■

Refugees who have received a formal assurance from a resettlement agency in the United States.
Individuals who have the following family relationships to an individual in the United States (regardless of lawful
status): grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and
cousins of persons in the United States. (These family relationships are in addition to the relationships
previously included in the definition of close family relationships, specifically: a parent (including parent-in-law),
spouse, fiance, fiancee, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sibling (whether whole or
half), including step relationships).
Individuals who have a bona fide relationship to an entity within the United States.

Doe-JFS_State_00000075

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 109 of 223
The RPC is in the process of adding the BFR status back into WRAPS. Once the status is added into WRAPS, RSCs can
proceed with requesting BFR verification for specific cases from SAO nationalities. Additional guidance on when to
request BFR verification will be forthcoming.
For SAO nationalities that have a BFR and do not have anyone on the case who has required an SAO, as specified in
Program Announcement 2018-05, RSCs can proceed with processing, including booking travel, once the BFR status is
verified. [Note: Program Announcement 2018-05 provides policy guidance, which is still current, implementing some of
the enhanced refugee screening protocols that were put in place as a result of the 120-day review process conducted
pursuant to EO 13780.] Please note, if the case is hard cross-referenced to any case with an individual who requires an
SAO, the case cannot proceed until the hard cross-referenced case receives a cleared SAO response.
For SAO nationalities that have a BFR and have someone on the case that requires an SAO, PRM will work directly with
each RSC to prioritize SAO requests to ensure timely SAO responses based on current technical and operational capacity.
For SAO nationalities that do not have a BFR and have an urgent and compelling need to travel, these cases may
continue to be considered for a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security on an individual, case-by-case
basis. RSCs should continue to flag these cases to their PRM program officer.
Best,
Hilary

Hilary Ingraham
Director, Refugee Processing Center, Refugee Admissions
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
U.S. Department of State

Official

UNCLASSIFIED

From: Siram, Sumitra
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2017 12:55 PM
To: Gauger, Kelly A; 'RSC Africa PRM Inquiries'; 'RSC MENA PRM Inquiries'; 'RSC LA Management'; 'RSC East Asia
Management'; 'RSCSAManagement'; Havana - Refugee; 'PRMinquiries'; 'RSC Eurasia Management'; 'PRMgroup'; Lane,
Nathan P; Stalis, Emil R; Schulze, DeMark F (Kampala); Wingate, Patrick R; Munson, Jessica N; Shaw, Gregory J
(Bangkok); Garmize, Kristina X (Amman); Kalmbach, Heather E (Amman); Tikvart, Daniel J; Sen, Anjalina M;
Bongiovanni, Kristin; Abdeen, Deanna H (Baghdad); Totilo, Matthew A (Erbil); Kyle, Susan F (Geneva); r-·-·-·-·Re-ciacteii-·-·-·7
':._ _____________________________ Redacted __ ____l,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:, Redacted ,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,,·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-•·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·Tstrack,
Barabara L.; Stone, Mary; l_ __________________________________________________________ Redacted·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· Pickering, Margaret S;
PRM-Admissions Office; 'RSC Africa PRM Inquiries'; Naplan, Steven J; 'RSC MENA PRM Inquiries'; 'RSC LA Management';
'RSC East Asia Management'; 'RSCSAManagement'; Havana - Refugee; 'PRMinquiries'; 'RSC Eurasia Management';
'PRMgroup'; Lane, Nathan P; Stalis, Emil R; Wingate, Patrick R; Shaw, Gregory J (Bangkok); Anderson, Todd D; Garmize,
Kristina X (Amman); Kalmbach, Heather E (Amman); Tikvart, Daniel J; Sen, Anjalina M; O'Connor, Margaret R; Este,
Stephen; Bongiovanni, Kristin; Abdeen, Deanna H (Baghdad); Totilo, Matthew A (Erbil); Kyle, Susan F (Geneva); [_ __Redacted __ !
L_ _____________________________________ Redacted-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·

u-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-Recfaciecr·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-=·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·1

Strack, Barabara L.; Stone, Mary; [_ _________________________________________________________ Redacted-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-! Pfckefrn-g~--Mar~j"~fref
S; PRM-Admissions Office; 'ECDC'; 'EMM'; 'HIAS '; 'IRC'; 'URS'; 'USCCB'; 'USCRI'; 'WR'; 'CWS'; Schulze, DeMark F
(Kampala); Cole, Jennifer X; Kelley, Jennifer A; Harris, Cheryl; Ave-Lallemant, Alex N; Brown, Christopher J (Amman);
Jennifer RUMBACH: ___________ Redacted ________ ___!Woynicki, Jean T (Kampala)
2

Doe-JFS_State_00000076

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 110 of 223

EXHIBIT 17
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 111 of 223

Smith, Jennifer L
Thursday, January 11, 2018 3:43 PM
RSC Africa p RM Inquiries q--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·R·edactecf"-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-i

From:

Sent:
To:

i_·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ---·-·-·-·Redacted _____________________________________________________________ ___:-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-!

i
L

Redacted

!'RSC Eurasia Management';
- Refugee; r·-·-·-·-·-·-·-Redacied·-·-·-·-·-·-·1

r--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-1 Ha~a n a

i

Red aCted

i

'-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-!

L--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-)

Cc:

PRM-Adm i ssi on_s _Office; __PRM_ Adm i ssi ans_ RefCoord s;

!

Redacted

L__·-·---~~~~-~!~~:y·---J----·-·-·-·-·-·-·:
ii Redacted!

[~~-~-~-~~-e~~~-i!~~~~-~::~~ck, _ Bara bar! ~1-~~~oh~~h~~~~ ~ ilorazzi.,An n~ed~cte(~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ·~~~J
Subject:
Attachments:

Message #4 FY 2018: Update on USRAP operations
RSC SOP 2: Pre-screening - v1 .30; RSC SOP 4: USCIS Interview v2.7; RE: Data
Collection Process and BFRjob aid (UPDATED)

Dear Colleagues,
The Bona Fide Relationship (BFR) status and expanded data collection status have both been implemented in
WRAPS. RSCs are to begin using these statuses immediately in conjunction with the recent RSC SOPs and Job Aid issued
by RPC (see attached).
In particular:
•
All post-OHS SAO nationality cases rn:-:;.1st have expand~d data collected (in accordance with Program
Announcement 2018-04) regardless ,pf age or whether they need an SAO. Biodiffs require IAC, SAO, and CLASS
security check re-requests as approp riate based on S6Ps before the case can travel. The DataColl status must be
updated in WRAPS before the case can travel.
•
All post-OHS SAO nationality cases will have categorical BFR status once they are assured through normal
processing procedures, even for new assurances put in place after the Dec. 23 court decision. Therefore, postOHS SAO nationality cases do not require individual PRM or OHS BFR review. When the case is assured, the RSC
should set the BFR status to NRQ at that time. USCIS can lift holds, address NODs, and stamp cases without a
BFR review.
•
All post-OHS non SAO nationality cases must have their BFR status and DataColl status set to NRQ by the RSC to
allow the case to get to RFD. Non-SAO nationality cases that have t._ ________________13:~~Ac..t~_d._ __________________ po not need a
BFR. The BFR status should be set to NRQ.
•
All pre-OHS refugees (all nationalities) must have expanded data collected and the DataColl status updated in
WRAPS before the case can move to interview.
•
All pre-OHS SAO nationality cases will need BFR information collected in order to be presented for USCIS
interview, unless they are otherwise approved by PRM and OHS on a case-by-case basis. RSCs should
immediately reach out to all SAO nationality cases scheduled for interview in Q2 to confirm whether they have a
BFR, and collect the BFR information using the template used during the 120-day review (except in the case of
categorical BFRs which should be set to NRQ). RSCs should set the BFR status to OHS, include the completed
template in the case file when BFR cases are presented for interview, and ensure the template is uploaded into
WRAPS afterwards. OHS will verify the BFR during interview and will change the BFR status to DVR (verified by
OHS) or DUV (DHS unable to verify).
•
All follow-to-join (V93) SAO nationality cases processed by RSCs can travel but must have updated security
checks completed based on the expanded data collection requirements in Program Announcement 2018-04.
•
V93s, Lautenberg, l-130s, and P3 cases all have categorical BFR status.
0

Doe-JFS_State_00000078

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 112 of 223
If you identify a discrepancy between the attached SOPs/Job Aid and these instructions, please notify your Program
Officer.
The 90-day review period for the 11 SAO nationalities ends on January 22. At that time, PRM will issue further guidance
on the status of SAO nationalities and the BFR requirement. In addition, we anticipate that RSCs will be able to resume
requesting SAOs through WRAPS during the week of January 22. Further guidance on when to begin SAO requests and
how to prioritize them will be forthcoming.
Many thanks,
Jen

Jennifer L. Smith
Overseas Section Chief, Refugee Admissions • Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration •
U.S. Department of State
,·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·,
2025 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20520 !._ _____________________________________________________ Red acted·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· i

Official

UNCLASSIFIED

From: Ingraham, Hilary E
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2017 12:53 PM
To: Siram, Sumitra; Gauger, Kelly A; 'RSC Africa PRM Inquiries'; 'RSC MENA PRM Inquiries'; 'RSC LA Management'; 'RSC
East Asia Management'; 'RSCSAManagement'; Havana - Refugee; 'PRMinquiries'; 'RSC Eurasia Management'; 'PRMgroup';
Lane, Nathan P; Stalis, Emil R; Schulze, DeMark F (Kampala); Wingate, Patrick R; Munson, Jessica N; Shaw, Gregory J
(Bangkok); Garmize, Kristina X (Amman); Kalmbach, Heather E (Amman); Tikvart, Daniel J; Sen, Anjalina M;
Bongiovanni, Kristin; Abdeen, Deanna H (Baghdad); Totilo, Matthew A (Erbil); Kyle, Susan F (Geneva);! Redacted i

LBarabara·-L.

;-·s~e:;,c~~

ry; -r-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-:_l_ ________________________________ Re-da"ctecT"-·-·-·-·-·-·~~-~~-c-t~~---·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-i. Pickeri n;, -Marga rei Stack,

PRM-Admissions Office; 'RSC Africa PRM Inquiries'; Naplan, Steven J; 'RSC MENA PRM Inquiries'; 'RSC LA Management';
'RSC East Asia Management'; 'RSCSAManagement'; Havana - Refugee; 'PRMinquiries'; 'RSC Eurasia Management';
'PRMgroup'; Lane, Nathan P; Stalis, Emil R; Wingate, Patrick R; Shaw, Gregory J (Bangkok); Anderson, Todd D; Garmize,
Kristina X (Amman); Kalmbach, Heather E (Amman); Tikvart, Daniel J; Sen, Anjalina M; O'Connor, Margaret R; Este,
Stephen; Bongiovanni, Kristin; Abdeen, Deanna H (Baghdad); Totilo, Matthew A (Erbil); Kyle, Susan F (Geneva);j Red~-~ted:

i-·-----------------------------------·-·Re·cia-cte-ei·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-r-·-·-·~----·--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-R;;-cfaciecf-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·--·-·-·-·-·-·-···-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-r-·'
'Strack,-·Ba ra ba ra-L.; ·Stone,· Mary; :==============_,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-Redacted_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i Picken ng, Margaret
S; PRM-Admissions Office; 'ECDC'; 'EMM'; 'HIAS '; 'IRC'; 'URS'; 'USCCB'; 'USCRI'; 'WR'; 'CWS'; Schulze, DeMark F
(Kampala); Cole, Jennifer X; Kelley, Jennifer A; Harris, Cheryl; Ave-Lallemant, Alex N; Brown, Christopher J (Amman);
Jennifer RUMBACH i
Redacted
: Woynicki, Jean T (Kampala); Paula Tipsword; Marlon Hite
Cc: PRM-Press-DL '·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-

Subject: Message #3 FY 2018: Update on USRAP operations

Dear Colleagues,
Based on the December 23, 2017, ruling of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, and
in furtherance of Message #2 FY2018 sent on December 24, 2017, processing may immediately resume for nationals of
(and stateless persons who last habitually resided in) the 11 countries on the SAO list ("SAO nationalities") who have a
bona fide relationship (BFR) to a person or entity within the United States. Per the court's ruling, the BFR can be based
on:

2

Doe-J FS _State_00000079

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 113 of 223
■

■

■

Refugees who have received a formal assurance from a resettlement agency in the United States.
Individuals who have the following family relationships to an individual in the United States (regardless of lawful
status): grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and
cousins of persons in the United States. (These family relationships are in addition to the relationships
previously included in the definition of close family relationships, specifically: a parent (including parent-in-law),
spouse, fiance, fiancee, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sibling (whether whole or
half), including step relationships).
Individuals who have a bona fide relationship to an entity within the United States.

The RPC is in the process of adding the BFR status back into WRAPS. Once the status is added into WRAPS, RSCs can
proceed with requesting BFR verification for specific cases from SAO nationalities. Additional guidance on when to
request BFR verification will be forthcoming.
For SAO nationalities that have a BFR and do not have anyone on the case who has required an SAO, as specified in
Program Announcement 2018-05, RSCs can proceed with processing, including booking travel, once the BFR status is
verified. [Note: Program Announcement 2018-05 provides policy guidance, which is still current, implementing some of
the enhanced refugee screening protocols that were put in place as a result of the 120-day review process conducted
pursuant to EO 13780.] Please note, if the case is hard cross-referenced to any case with an individual who requires an
SAO, the case cannot proceed until the hard cross-referenced case receives a cleared SAO response.
For SAO nationalities that have a BFR and have someone on the case that requires an SAO, PRM will work directly with
each RSC to prioritize SAO requests to ensure timely SAO responses based on current technical and operational capacity.
For SAO nationalities that do not have a BFR and have an urgent and compelling need to travel, these cases may
continue to be considered for a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security on an individual, case-by-case
basis. RSCs should continue to flag these cases to their PRM program officer.
Best,
Hilary

Hilary Ingraham
Director, Refugee Processing Center, Refugee Admissions
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
U.S. Department of State

Official

UNCLASSIFIED

From: Siram, Sumitra
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2017 12:55 PM
To: Gauger, Kelly A; 'RSC Africa PRM Inquiries'; 'RSC MENA PRM Inquiries'; 'RSC LA Management'; 'RSC East Asia
Management'; 'RSCSAManagement'; Havana - Refugee; 'PRMinquiries'; 'RSC Eurasia Management'; 'PRMgroup'; Lane,
Nathan P; Stalis, Emil R; Schulze, DeMark F (Kampala); Wingate, Patrick R; Munson, Jessica N; Shaw, Gregory J
(Bangkok); Garmize, Kristina X (Amman); Kalmbach, Heather E (Amman); Tikvart, Daniel J; Sen, Anjalina_ M; -·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·,._._(?.9D_g_i.Qy9_oni., __~_ri?.t.lo.~.A.t>g~~.O.,J.>~9_Q.O.i;l__ tJ (Baghdad); Totilo, Matthew A (Erbil); Kyle, Susan F (Geneva); '! _______13-_~~~-~~~~----___!
:_ ___ B~~~i;~-;~--L~;-·st~~~?!~!~~~T·-·-·--·-·-·----·,·r·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-;:·~:~t-~~---·-·-·-·-·Re·cfa-cfo(f-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·[~-i~-~:·;;~-~~--~-:~~~-r:is~~ack,
3

Doe-J FS _State_00000080

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 114 of 223

EXHIBIT 18
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 115 of 223

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Siram, Sumitra
Tuesday, December 26, 2017 4:34 PM
PRM-Admissions-Overseas DL
10 and RAD CRs
FY18 Q2 RAD and 10 CRs.xlsx

Importance:

High

Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:

Follow up
Flagged

Hi all - please go out to your RSCs and ask them if they have any compelling expedite cases that are SAO nationalities
that should be interviewed due to protection/medical issues? Please advise them that USCIS will not add to the current
interview schedule, but rather will replace an existing slot. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!
Sumi
APAC District
•
New Delhi: ongoing in-office processing will continue as needed
•
Bangkok (and Thai Immigration Centers): ongoing in-office and IDC processing will continue as needed
•
Indonesia: February 8- February 28
•
Pakistan (ISB):January 17 -January 24
•
Sri Lanka (Colombo): current request is for February 8 - February 15 but APAC is working with RSC to push dates
back to March
EMEA District (Note the number of cases for each CR. In many locations, we cannot complete the full request from
PRM. These numbers reflect what we expect to be able to do):
•
Guinea: March 1- March 13 (26 cases)
•
Ivory Coast: March 14 - March 22 (16 cases)
•
Dzaleka, Malawi: January 22- February 6 (74 cases)
•
Solwezi, Zambia: February 28 - March 15 (33 cases)
•
Otjiwarongo, Namibia: February 12 - February 22 (50 cases)
•
Durban, South Africa: March 19 - March 23 (20 cases)
•
Moscow, Russia: January 16 - February 9 (19 cases)
•
Moscow, Russia: February 12 - March 7 (80 cases)
•
Moscow, Russia: March 12 -April 6 (40 cases)
•
Kyiv, Ukraine: January 22 - March 6 (124 cases)

Official
UNCLASSIFIED
From: Strack, Barbara L

Sen,t.~.Ib.ursd_ay.<._Decernb.er 21, 2017 5:54 PM
To: L. ___________ R~-~aE_t~~---·-· ·-·-·,.iSmith, Jennifer L
Cc: Stone, Mary M; Anderson, Ross S; Bhalla, Amy D
Subject: FW: IO's "ask" for CR help

Doe-J FS _State_00000067

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 116 of 223
Kelly and Jen - Following up on our call today, I wanted to send you RAD's proposed Q2 circuit rides in writing. As I
mentioned, with the current MOA in place, Q2 trips have a reduced timeframe for circuit ride scheduling and availability
of staff. Additionally, since most Q2 trips will include new officers who require training, this will result in a reduced
interview schedule. In moving forward with these trips, RAD Desk Officers will be in touch with operational
counterparts.

Q2 Processing
location

Dates of Circuit Ride

CIS Team Size

Jan. 27-Feb. 22

8 (TL, SEN RO, 4
Officers, 1 Trainer)

Jan. 27-Feb. 22

9 (TL, SENRO, 6
Officers, 1 Trainer,
1 FP)

Jan. 27-Feb. 22

9 (TL, SENRO, 6
Officers, 1 Trainer,
1 FP)

Rwanda

Jan. 27-Feb. 22

8 (TL, SENRO, 5
Officers, 1 Trainer,
1 FP)

Thailand

Jan. 27-Feb. 22

5 (TL, 3 Officers, 1
Trainer)

Malaysia

Jan. 27-Feb. 22

10 (2 TLs, 6
Officers, 2
Trainers, 1 FP)

Nauru

Feb. 20-Mar. 13

4 (TL, 3 Officers)

Port Moresby/PNG

Mar. 18-Apr. 10

4 (TL, 3 Officers)

Burundi

Tanzania

Uganda

Thanks for your offer to help facilitate an RSO briefing for the Malaysia team in light of the Jan. 31 closure of the
embassy.
We will be sending you a consolidated list with the status of the lnt'I Op's circuit rides, as well, next week. I realized that
we are missing some information this evening, but didn't want to hold off on sharing what we have.
Hope you enjoy some time off for the holidays, and talk to you again Jan. 4.

2

Doe-J FS _State_00000068

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 117 of 223

EXHIBIT 19
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 118 of 223
U.S . Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Office ofthe Director (MS 2000)

Washington, DC 20529-2000

U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
_Services
September 4, 2018

The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr.
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 205 15
Dear Representative Pascrell:
Thank you for your May 1, 2018 letter to President Tmmp. The White House referred
your letter to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Secretary Nielsen asked that I
respond on her behalf.
DHS appreciates your interest and suppo1t of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program
(USRAP). We are proud of the USRAP's longstanding history of resettling some of the world's
most vulnerable refugees in the United States, while ensuring that, now and in the future, we
employ rigorous security measures to protect against national security threats. Please find
enclosed responses to your questions.
Thank you again for your letter and interest in this important matter. The co-signers of
your letter will receive separate, identical responses. Should you require additional assistance,
please have your staff contact the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office of
Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs at (202) 272- 1940.
Respectfully,

L. Francis Cissna
Director
Enclosure

www.uscis.gov

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 119 of 223
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
The Department of Homeland Security's Response to
Representative Pascrell's May 1, 2018 Letter
1. January 21, 2018, was the last day of the Administration's 90-day deadline to complete
the review of refugee screening procedures from the eleven countries who currently
require a Special Advisory Opinion (SAO), following the previous 120-day ban.
a) What steps has your administration taken to immediately resume processing
refugees from these eleven countries?

Following the 90-day review of screening procedures for SAO nationals, USCIS swiftly
implemented new requirements, including providing training and guidance to staff, in
order to resume full processing of SAO nationals.
b) Please detail any additional requirements and screening that will be added for
refugees from these countries.

The enhancements noted below are specific to SAO nationals.
USCIS has provided officers additional time to conduct interviews of SAO nationals to
allow for further exploration of potential national security, inadmissibility, and credibility
issues for principal and derivative refugee applicants, and similarly ensure that sufficient
time is provided for interviews of following-to-join derivative refugee beneficiaries to
fully explore these issues.
Interagency working groups are reviewing which nationals or categories of applicants
should be subject to additional vetting, as appropriate. Additional information may be
provided in a secure setting upon request.
Petitions filed on behalf of following-to-join refugee beneficiaries from SAO countries, or
if stateless, who last habitually resided in SAO countries, require enhanced review by the
USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) Directorate before approval. SAO
requirements for this population have been expanded in alignment with the expansion for
principal refugee applicants. To provide for more thorough screening of following-to-join
refugees, adjudicators now request that they provide additional information earlier in the
process.
USCIS instituted a process for evaluating whether pending refugee cases involving SAO
nationals that have already been interviewed by a USCIS officer require a re-interview in
light of new protocols instituted as a result of the 120- and 90-day reviews.
c) What assurances can your administration provide that these procedures will not
unduly prevent Muslim refugees, or nationalities with large Muslim refugee
populations, from passing the screening process?

The enhanced vetting measures apply to SAO nationals regardless of religion or ethnic
composition. The populations subject to the additional specialized screening were
September 2018

Page 1

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 120 of 223
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
identified through an interagency process first established after the tenorist attacks of
September 11, 2001. The current list of SAO countries was last updated in 2015 and is
cunently under review based on results of the 90-day review pursuant to Executive Order
13815, Resuming the U S. Refugee Admissions Program with Enhanced Vetting
Capabilities.
2. Refugees barred from resettlement by Executive Order 13815 and its accompanying
Memorandum allowed for individuals to be admitted based on national interest
waivers.
a) How many waivers have been issued since October 24, 2017?
No waivers have been issued since October 24, 2017. Starting on December 23, 2017,
the U.S. Govemment resumed processing refugees who could establish a bona fide
relationship to a person or entity in the United States. The U.S. Government resumed
full processing for all SAO nationals on January 29, 2018. Waivers were no longer
required or applicable after that date.
b) Please provide a breakdown of the nationality of individuals provided waivers.
Not applicable.
3. On December 23, 2017, the Western District of Washington imposed an injunction on
the terms of Executive Order 13815, and its accompanying Memorandum, requiring the
U.S. Refugee Admissions Program to continue processing and admitting refugees from
SAO countries or seeking admission as a follow-to-join refugee, if they have a bona fide
relationship with a person or entity in the United States.
a) What instruction has USCIS or the Department of State provided to refugee
resettlement agencies and/or resettlement support centers since December 23, 2017,
regarding processing of refugees in compliance with this in.junction?
USCIS does not issue guidance to Resettlement Agencies or Resettlement Support
Centers. We defer to DOS on any guidance they may have issued.
On January 29, 2018, DHS Secretary Nielsen announced additional security
enhancements and recommendations to strengthen the integrity of the USRAP in
addition to the enhancements already identified as patt ofE.O. 13780. DHS and DOS
are administering the USRAP in a manner consistent with these determinations and its
statutory authorities as well as applicable court orders.
In accordance with Secretary Nielsen's announcement, a bona fide relationship to a
person or entity in the United States is no longer required, and DHS and DOS are no
longer reviewing cases on a case-by-case basis for individual travel.

September 2018

Page 2

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 121 of 223
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
b) Refugees in the follow-to-join program are generally interviewed through U.S.
Embassies rather than by Refugee Officers. How has USCIS communicated
instructions to U.S. Embassies regarding processing of follow-to-join refugees in
compliance with the injunction?

On December 24, 2017, the Refugee, Asylum and International Operations Directorate
(RAIO) notified its officers of the District Court's injunction, instructing officers to
release all following-to-join refugee cases previously on hold and continue to process
them under procedures in effect prior to the Joint Memorandum. On January 29, RAIO
provided new procedures and revised guidelines to our officers for refugee adjudications,
including I-730 adjudications for following-to-join refugee beneficiaries, as a result of the
90-day review, consistent with Secretary Nielsen's announcement. USCIS worked
closely with DOS, Consular Affairs, to ensure that similar guidance was issued to its
consular officers on January 31, 2018, regarding revised procedures for processing
following-to-join refugee applications. We defer to DOS for further information.
c) Since December 23, 2017, how many refugees subject to SAO requirements have
been admitted to the United States?

DHS defers to DOS on admissions.
d) Since December 23, 2017, how many follow-to-join refugees have been admitted to
the United States? PI~ase provide a breakdown of the nationality of individuals
admitted through follow-to-join.

DHS defers to DOS on admissions.
e) Since December 23, 2017, how many interviews have been scheduled for refugees
subject to SAO requirements? How many have been conducted?

Between December 23, 2017 and July 31, 2018, USCIS interviewed approximately 824
cases comprising of 1,882 individuals for refugees subject to SAO requirements. In
Quaiter 4, USCIS is scheduled to interview approximately 359 cases comprising of 778
individuals for refugees subject to SAO requirements.
f) Since December 23, 2017, how many interviews have been scheduled for follow-tojoin refugees subject to SAO requirements? How many have been conducted?

Please refer to DOS for the number of following-to-join refugee interviews conducted by
consular staff abroad since December 23, 2017.
Since February 1, 2018, the USCIS International Adjudications Supp01t Branch (IASB)
has been working to operationalize the additional security measures for following-to-join
refugee cases. Although no following-to-join refugee cases for SAO nationals have yet
been interviewed by USCIS offices abroad, IASB has been actively processing cases, to
include issuing requests for evidence to the petitioner of the following-to-join refugee
petition for a completed Form I-590, Registration for Classification as Refugee,
September 2018

Page 3

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 122 of 223
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

completed on behalf of the beneficiary, in support of the enhanced security protocols.
Once the completed 1-590 is received and the enhanced FDNS review is completed, the
cases are then sent abroad for interview. IASB sends the cases via DOS's National Visa
Center to either a USCIS international field office for interview, or to a US
Embassy/Consulate in countries without a USCIS office and processing capability, for
DOS consular officers to interview on USCIS' behalf.
g) How many refugees subject to SAO requirements and follow-to-join refugees are
considered travel-ready? How many of them have travel scheduled?

DHS defers to DOS for these numbers.
h) What circuit rides are planned for the remainder of fiscal year 2018? Please
provide the planned dates, location, and number of Refugee Officers who will
participate.

Please note that we typically do not disclose team locations and other circuit ride
specifics for officer safety reasons. The schedule below is subject to change. Please
consider the information below FOUO and do not disclose further.

September 2018

Refugee Affairs Division
Locations

Number of People on
Team

Intemational Operations Division
Locations

Number of People
on Team

Page 4

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 123 of 223
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
International Operations Division
Locations (Continued)

Number of People
on Team

4. The resettlement oflraqis who aided the United States mission in Iraq has slowed to a
trickle. The Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program, established to facilitate a legal
pathway to safety for wartime partners, closed to new applications in 2014. They now
must apply through the Direct Access Program for U.S.-affiliated Iraqis.
a) What steps is the United States Refugee Admissions Program taking to ensure that
wartime partners who served alongside U.S. Armed Forces and other government
personnel continue to have access to a path to safety?

Refugee processing teams interviewed applicants in Iraq during Quarter 3 and are
interviewing applicants during Quaiter 4. USeIS and DOS have been working together
to identify U.S . affiliated Iraqis in the USRAP who may be able to travel this fiscal year.
To that end, users has been prioritizing review of cases that are post-DHS interview and
have cleared required security checks.
Please refer to DOS regarding the number oflraqis resettled in the United States and the
number of applications received for the Direct Access Program.
b) How many Iraqi allies remain in the Direct Access Program application pipeline?

DHS defers to DOS for a response to this question.
c) How many USCIS interviews of Iraqi allies have been held since January 27, 2017?

Between January 27, 2017 and July 31, 2018, users interviewed 852 cases comprising
2,524 individuals with access to the USRAP under the P-2 processing priority (Iraqis
associated with the United States).
5. Already midway through FY 2018, only 10,548 refugees have been resettled. This is far
from the more than 22,500 that should have been resettled in order to keep pace with
meeting the 45,000 cap for FY 2018. As a tragic example: Halfway through FY 2018,
only 44 Syrian refugees -a country whose humanitarian crisis only escalates -have been
admitted. From Aprill-15, 2018, zero were resettled.

September 2018

Page 5

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 124 of 223
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
a) Why is the number of resettled refugees so low, given that there are many refugees
who were approved for resettlement last year who were not able to enter?

In general, the timeframe for each refugee applicant's case is different. Processing times
can be impacted by a number of factors, including security checks, medical checks, and
the operational capacity of DHS.
A number of Executive Orders have impacted the USRAP. DHS has worked closely
with DOS, and the vetting agencies, over the past year to analyze the program and
introduce eff01ts to make security measures more robust. These new measures are part
of the Administration's ongoing effo11s to improve screening and vetting for all persons
seeking to travel to the United States, and they are designed to keep nefarious and
fraudulent actors from exploiting the refugee program to enter the United States. While
necessary, these reviews and enhancements have lengthened processing times for some
cases and slowed admissions. A slowdown in processing is not uncommon as we
implement new measures.
Another reason that refugee processing has slowed this year is that USCIS has placed a
greater emphasis on addressing the growing workload in the domestic asylum program.
Our Annual Report to Congress notes that the "United States has seen a substantial
increase in the number of individuals seeking protection domestically over the last few
years." This is the result of a very dramatic increase in newly filed asylum cases - up 200
percent in just 4 years, from about 45,400 receipts in FY 2013 to over 139,000 in
FY 2017- and our need to deploy asylum officers to the border in order to screen new
arrivals instead of adjudicating affirmative asylum cases. The backlog negatively impacts
applicants who deserve to have their legitimate asylum claims adjudicated in a timely
manner. It also affects the integrity of the program as a whole because it attracts nonmeritorious asylum applications from individuals who know they will receive work
authorization while they wait in the backlog for their interviews and decisions often years
later. The way for USCIS to quickly deploy resources to accommodate our critical
asylum priorities has been to reassign refugee officers to domestic duties with the asylum
program. This has necessarily meant that users has fewer officers available to conduct
refugee interviews overseas.
Nonetheless, users continues to conduct refugee processing circuit rides to interview
refugee applicants, and to interview refugee applicants in locations where USCIS has
staff posted abroad.
b) Are security clearances for refugees still being coordinated by the Department of
Homeland Security, or have those responsibilities been transferred to other
agencies? If other agencies are handling these decisions, which agencies, and how
are operations ensuring that cases are being processed efficiently?

USRAP screening is a shared responsibility. It includes both biometric and biographic
checks at multiple stages during the process, including immediately before a refugee
applicant's depmture to the United States and upon his or her arrival in the United States.
Biographic checks are initiated by the Resettlement Supp011 Centers which are managed
September 2018

Page 6

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 125 of 223
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
by DOS. Biometric checks are conducted by DHS. The results of all security checks are
reviewed and/or resolved by DHS.
For a detailed description of the biometric and biographic checks, please see
https ://www.uscis.gov/refugeescreeni ng.
c) How many additional refugees do you estimate will arrive because of the
December 23, 2017 court ruling than previously estimated?
DHS defers to DOS on the pace of admissions.
d) Has the U.S. requested that United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees limit
future referrals of individuals from specific regions or specific nationalities?
DHS defers to DOS on the issue of referrals.
e) How many Yazidi refugees have been resettled this fiscal year?
DHS defers to DOS on admission statistics for Yazidi refugees.
f) How many Syrian refugees overall does the administration plan to resettle this FY?

Are there any plans to make up for the shortfall in resettling Syrian refugees, as
successfully occurred in FY 2016, when more than 12,500 Syrians were resettled?
users defers to DOS on admission numbers. In FY2018, users has interviewed
approximately 408 Syrian applicants (111 cases) for refugee classification.
Approximately 203 Syrian applicants are scheduled to be interviewed in Quarter 4.
g) Are any plans being made to resettle a greater number of Rohingya refugees to the
United States?
USeIS currently interviews Rohingya refugee applicants, as weII as other refugee
applicants in Malaysia. DHS defers to DOS regarding future refen-als of Rohingyan
refugee applicants.
6. There have been many transitions and vacancies across the administration that have
impacted the refugee resettlement process. How have these staff issues impacted the
resettlement of refugees?
a) Are there any plans to appoint an Assistant Secretary of Bureau of Population,
Refugees, and Migration?
President Trump recently nominated Ronald Mortensen to serve as Assistant Secretary
of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration in April 2018. DHS defers to
DOS for a more detailed response to this question.

September 2018

Page 7

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 126 of 223
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
b) How does the Administration plan to address the lack of Refugee Affairs Division
officers dedicated to handling refugee resettlement cases abroad since USCIS
reassigned individuals to the border and to asylum offices in the interior? Does the
Administration plan to hire additional Refugee Affairs Division officers?
The U.S. Government humanitarian response must address refugee protection
domestically as well as abroad. To that end, DHS has had to allocate much of its limited
resources to addressing the growing asylum backlog and prioritizing the domestic
processing of asylum seekers. The Refugee Affairs Division will continue to support the
Asylum Division in its protection mission and efforts to address the backlog by detailing
staff to the Asylum Division for the remainder of the fiscal year. DHS is currently
assessing whether such assistance will continue for the upcoming fiscal year. In the
meantime, we continue to staff refugee circuit rides.
With regard to the hiring of additional Refugee Officers, we continuously review
staffing needs, along with attrition rates, taking into account the amount of time it
takes to hire and onboard an employee to project upcoming staffing needs.
The President's FYl 9 refugee resettlement ceiling will take into account operational
realities and users staffing will be allocated accordingly.
c) Please detail all plans the Administration has to screen refugees in other countries.
Are additional staff or resources needed to schedule more screenings to meet our
FY 2018 resettlement goals?
DHS defers to DOS for information regarding pre-screening activities in other countries.
As noted earlier, circuit rides are underway for Quarter 4. In addition, the users
Refugee Affairs Division is prioritizing cases that require headquarters review and may
otherwise be travel-ready, so that they may potentially travel in FY 2018.

September 2018

Page 8

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 127 of 223

EXHIBIT 20
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 128 of 223

FOUR TIMES SQUARE
NEW YORK 10036-6522
(212) 735-3000

DIRECT DIAL

!2 I 2J 735-2775
EMAIL ADDRESS

MOLLIE.KORNREICH@PROBONOLAW.COM

August I, 2018

BY MAIL AND E-MAIL
Joseph C. Dugan
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Rm. 7330
Washington, D.C. 20530

Re:

John Doe, etal. v. Trump, etal., Case No. Cl7-0178-JLRand
Jewish Family Service, etal. v. Trump, etal., Case No. Cl71707-JLR

Dear Mr. Dugan:
As you know, we represent Plaintiffs in Jewish Family Service, et al. v.
Trump, et al., Case No. Cl 7-1707-JLR. On behalf of Plaintiffs in both of the abovecaptioned matters, enclosed please find Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for the
Production of Documents (the "Requests") pursuant to the Court's July 27, 2018
Order Granting Motion for Discovery and Denying Motion to Dismiss Without
Prejudice, Dkt. #155 (the "Order"). Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement these
requests.
In light of the expedited 90-day discovery schedule set forth in the Order and
the Court's encouragement "to expeditiously complete the discovery authorized,"
Plaintiffs request that Defendants respond to the Requests within 15 days of service.
Particularly because the Requests are limited in number and narrowly tailored
pursuant to the Order, Plaintiffs submit that 15 days affords Defendants sufficient
time to respond. Plaintiffs also request that promptly following Defendants'
response, the parties meet and confer to address any objections to the Requests and
negotiate an ESI protocol, as contemplated by Local Rule 26(f)(l)(I). Accordingly,

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 129 of 223
Joseph C. Dugan
August 1, 2018
Page2
Plaintiffs suggest that the Patties meet and confer on August 16 or 17, or as soon as
the parties' schedules allow.

Sincerely,

~{L__
Mollie Kornreich

cc: counsel of record (via e-mail)

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 130 of 223

EXHIBIT 21
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 131 of 223
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

Joseph C. Dugan
Trial Attorney

Tel.: (202) 514-3259
E-mail: joseph.dugan@usdoj.gov

August 7, 2018
BYE-MAIL
Mollie Kornreich
4 Times Square
No. 41-408
New York, NY 10036

Re:

Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-00178 (W.D. Wash.); Jewish Family Service c~f Seattle v.
Trump, No. 2:17-01707 (W.D. Wash.)

Dear Ms. Kornreich:
Thank you for your letter dated August 1, 2018. Defendants have reviewed both the
contents of your letter and JFS and Doe Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production to
Defendants ("Plaintiffs' First Requests").
At this time, I write to advise you that we will not be in a position to respond to
Plaintiffs' First Requests within the accelerated 15-day period that you have suggested. Instead,
we intend to comply with Judge Robart's Order by responding to discovery per the following
schedule:
•
•
•

Written responses and objections to Plaintiffs' First Requests: within twenty-one (21)
days after service (8/22/18)
Document production responsive to Plaintiffs' First Requests: within forty-five (45) days
after service (9/14/18)
Privilege log: within seven (7) days following completion of production

These dates are good-faith estimates and are subject to change depending on the volume
of potentially responsive records and any unforeseen complications during processing and
production, as well as competing work demands.
In your August 1 letter, you suggested that the parties should meet and confer promptly
to, inter alia, "negotiate an ESI protocol." While Defendants will use appropriate search
parameters and produce materials through our document production lab, which subscribes to
current ESI best practices, we are happy to discuss with you any specific requests or conc~rns
you may have at a mutually agreeable time.

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 132 of 223
-2-

Finally, without waiving any objections we may identify in our forthcoming written
responses, we want to flag for you now that we do not intend to respond to "Request for
Production No. 3" as written. This purported RFP is clearly in the nature of an interrogatory,
and with 32 distinct subparts (some of which themselves include subdivisions), the interrogatory
substantially exceeds the default 25 interrogatories permitted under Rule 33(a)(l) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Given Judge Robart's admonition that Plaintiffs must "narrowly craft their requests so
that the requests are 'proportional to the needs of the case' in which discovery is limited to issues
pertaining to mootness," ECF No. 155 at 29, your 32-part request is neither necessary nor
appropriate. We are also confused by the granularity of some of the requests: we do not
understand, for example, how week-by-week data concerning cases and refugees who completed
cultural orientation or medical screenings is germane to the question whether the district court
retains jurisdiction over the subject matter of your lawsuit challenging aspects of the October 23,
2017, Memorandum to the President.
We suggest, therefore, that Plaintiffs reconsider the data that you think you may need in
order to litigate the mootness question, which is the only question for which discovery has been
authorized. Kevin and I are happy to meet and confer with you at a mutually agreeable time to
discuss an appropriately tailored interrogatory.

CC: Kevin Snell; all counsel of record

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 133 of 223

EXHIBIT 22
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 134 of 223

1

The Honorable James L. Robart

2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7
8
9

JOHN DOE, et al.,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF SEATTLE,
et al.,

17
18

No.: 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)

Plaintiffs,
v.

No.: 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO
JFS AND DOE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

DONALD TRUMP, et al.,

(Relating to Both Cases)

Defendants.
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 34 and the Local Rules of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Defendants, by and through counsel,
provide the following objections to JFS and Doe Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production

26

to Defendants (“Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests”). Defendants’ objections are based on

27

information known to Defendants at this time, and are made without prejudice to additional

28
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO JFS AND DOE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS - 1
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 135 of 223

1

objections should Defendants subsequently identify additional grounds for objection. These

2

objections have been formulated in contemplation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1),

3

which generally permits discovery of matters not privileged that may be relevant to the claims or

4
5

defenses in a civil action, as well as the limiting instructions set forth in the Court’s July 27,

6

2018, Order Granting Motion for Discovery and Denying Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice,

7

ECF No. 155 (“July 27 Order”). In presenting these objections, Defendants do not waive any

8

further objection in pretrial motions practice or at trial to the admissibility of evidence on the

9
10
11
12

grounds of relevance, materiality, privilege, competency, or any other appropriate ground.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS THAT APPLY TO ALL DISCOVERY REQUESTS
1. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek (a)

13

attorney work product; (b) communications protected by the attorney-client privilege; (c)

14

information protected by the deliberative-process privilege or law enforcement privilege;

15

(d) material the disclosure of which would violate legitimate privacy interests and

16
17
18
19

expectations of persons not party to this litigation; (e) information protected by any form
of executive privilege; or (f) information covered by any other applicable privilege or
protection. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests to the extent they

20

assume that certain types of information exist. By providing these objections, Defendants

21

do not imply that information exists that is responsive to Plaintiffs’ First Discovery

22

Requests.

23

2. Defendants object to the “Definitions” and “Instructions” that accompany Plaintiffs’ First

24
25

Discovery Requests to the extent that these sections attempt to impose obligations beyond

26

the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of the U.S.

27

District Court for the Western District of Washington.

28
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO JFS AND DOE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS - 2
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 136 of 223

1

3. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests to the extent that the requests

2

seek information that is already publicly available, is already in the custody or control of

3

Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ counsel, is readily accessible to Plaintiffs, or would otherwise be

4
5
6

less burdensome for Plaintiffs to obtain than Defendants.

See Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(2)(C)(i).

7

4. Defendants object to any requests or portions of requests contained within Plaintiffs’ First

8

Discovery Requests that are not narrowly crafted and proportional to the needs of this

9
10
11
12
13

case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining to mootness.
5. Defendants reserve the right to make further objections as necessary to the extent that
additional issues arise, whether as to the scope of Plaintiffs’ requests or otherwise.
OBJECTIONS TO INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL

14

1. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests insofar as Plaintiffs purport to

15

seek discovery from President Trump. Any such discovery is not narrowly crafted and

16
17
18
19

proportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining to
mootness, given that Plaintiffs’ lawsuits challenge agency-level action rather than
presidential action and given further that the issues Plaintiffs have raised in prior briefing

20

concern agency-level implementation of policy and the Court’s preliminary injunction.

21

Moreover, discovery propounded on the President and/or his advisers would create an

22

undue burden and distraction from their critical executive responsibilities. See, e.g.,

23

Cheney v. U.S. District Court, 542 U.S. 367, 385 (2004) (“This Court has held, on more

24
25

than one occasion, that ‘[t]he high respect that is owed to the office of the Chief Executive

26

. . . is a matter that should inform the conduct of the entire proceeding, including the

27

timing and scope of discovery,’ and that the Executive’s ‘constitutional responsibilities

28
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO JFS AND DOE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS - 3
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 137 of 223

1

and status [are] factors counseling judicial deference and restraint’ in the conduct of

2

litigation against it . . . .” (alterations in original) (citations omitted)).

3

2. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ request that Defendants produce documents responsive

4
5

to Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests within thirty (30) days after service of those

6

requests. Defendants will produce responsive materials within the timeframe set by the

7

Court and will aim to produce such materials within forty-five (45) days after service.

8

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) (providing that the responding party may specify “another

9
10
11
12
13

reasonable time” for production of documents, rather than the time listed in the requests).
In light of the broad scope of Plaintiffs’ requests, Defendants cannot reasonably locate,
review, and produce all responsive, non-privileged documents within thirty days.
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS

14

1. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Agencies Involved in the USRAP”

15

(paragraph 1) to the extent that definition, which encompasses “all governmental

16
17
18
19

agencies, nongovernmental agencies, and international organizations involved in the
USRAP,” could be construed to require Defendants to produce materials held in the
custody of nonparties. Defendants will respond to Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests

20

by producing material held by custodians that Defendants identify at the U.S. Department

21

of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of State, and the Office of the Director of

22

National Intelligence, to the extent that responsive material exists. See, e.g., In re Epipen,

23

MDL No. 2785, 2018 WL 1440923, at *2 (D. Kan. Mar. 15, 2018) (“[T]he party

24
25
26

responding to discovery requests is typically in the best position to know and identify
those individuals within its organization likely to have information relevant to the case.”).

27
28
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO JFS AND DOE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS - 4
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 138 of 223

1

2. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Agency Memo” (paragraph 2) insofar as

2

the definition states that the October 23, 2017, Memorandum to the President was “issued

3

with” Executive Order 13,815.

4
5

3. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Correspondence” (paragraph 7) insofar as

6

the definition encompasses any forms of communication that are not preserved in the

7

ordinary course.

8
9
10
11
12

4. Defendants object to the definitions of “Defendants,” “You,” and “Your” (paragraph 8),
as not proportional to the needs of resolving the mootness issue, as Plaintiffs’ expansive
definitions could require Defendants to search the records of all “officers, agents, assigns,
employees, insurers, attorneys, subsidiaries, successors, and predecessors, and anyone

13

acting on their behalf,” associated with the Defendant agencies, no matter how minor or

14

incidental their roles. Defendants further object to any implication that they are required

15

to search for records held by President Trump or other White House custodians, for the

16
17
18
19

reasons stated in item (1) under Objections to Introductory Material. Defendants will
identify any appropriate custodian(s) at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the
U.S. Department of State, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and will

20

conduct reasonable searches of records held by those appropriate custodians, keeping in

21

mind the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s admonition

22

in its July 27 Order that discovery should be narrowly crafted and proportional to the

23

needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining to mootness.

24
25

5. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Document” and “Documents” (paragraph

26

9) to the extent the definitions encompass attorney work product. Defendants further

27

object to the extent the definitions encompass drafts, which are paradigmatically

28
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO JFS AND DOE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS - 5
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 139 of 223

1

deliberative documents.

2

encompass records that are not preserved in the ordinary course. Defendants additionally

3

Defendants further object to the extent the definitions

object to Plaintiffs’ definition of “control” to the extent Plaintiffs purport to require

4
5

Defendants to search for and produce documents held in the custody of nonparties. Any

6

such expansive search would not be narrowly crafted and proportional to the needs of this

7

case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining to mootness.

8
9
10
11
12
13

6. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Plaintiffs” (paragraph 14) to the extent any
of the named Plaintiffs have been admitted to the United States as refugees (or, for those
Plaintiffs suing on behalf of third parties, to the extent those third parties have been so
admitted), because any such Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue this action and should be
dismissed forthwith from this case.

14

7. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Processing of Applications” (paragraph 16)

15

to the extent the definition could be construed to require Defendants to search the records

16
17
18
19

of entities other than the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of
State, or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS

20

1. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 1 that “[a]ll Documents that are

21

responsive . . . shall be produced in their entirety” to the extent that instruction could be

22

construed to require Defendants to produce privileged material.

23

2. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 2 that, for privileged material,

24
25

the “fact of the redaction” must be “clearly indicated.” That instruction is vague and

26

ambiguous, as it could require either that Defendants produce a redaction log or that

27

Defendants endorse the reason for the redaction on the text of the produced document

28
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO JFS AND DOE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS - 6
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 140 of 223

1

itself. As discussed in an e-mail from Defendants to Plaintiffs dated August 14, 2018,

2

and in an e-mail from Plaintiffs to Defendants dated August 20, 2018, Defendants

3

presently intend to produce any partially redacted documents with the reason for the

4
5

redaction endorsed on the text of the document, obviating the need for a redaction log.

6

3. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 3 that Defendants “provide, at

7

the time of production, a listing” that states the basis for withholding privileged

8

documents or documents otherwise not subject to production. Defendants intend to

9
10
11
12

provide a privilege log within seven (7) days following completion of the final production
in response to Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests, which is within the timeframe set by
the Court and will allow Defendants to focus on producing documents as expeditiously

13

as practicable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). Defendants further object to the

14

instruction in paragraph 3 insofar as it requires Defendants to identify (c) the “title” of a

15

privileged document, where the title could itself reveal privileged information; (f) the

16
17
18
19

“name and address or addresses of any persons who have received and/or who have
obtained a copy” of the document, where a search to identify such recipients would be
unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the mootness issue in this case;

20

and (i) “any other information which . . . will enable Plaintiffs to assess the application

21

of the privilege asserted,” as that sub-instruction (i) is ambiguous, and as the sub-

22

instructions in (a) through (h) subject to the above caveats would adequately apprise

23

Plaintiffs of any privilege assertions.

24
25

4. Defendants object to the instruction in paragraph 5 to search for documents “within the

26

possession, custody or control of each of Your attorneys, agents, associates, and/or

27

employees, and to those to which any of those persons has access,” as overly broad and

28
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO JFS AND DOE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS - 7
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 141 of 223

1

not proportional to the needs of the mootness issue in this case. Defendants will identify

2

appropriate custodians at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S.

3

Department of State, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and will

4
5

conduct reasonable searches of records held by those appropriate custodians, keeping in

6

mind the requirement of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s admonition

7

in its July 27 Order that discovery should be narrowly crafted and proportional to the

8

needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining to mootness.

9
10
11
12

5. Defendants object to the instruction in paragraph 6 to the extent it seeks privileged
materials or attorney work product. Defendants further object to the instruction to the
extent it would require an expansive search, to include a search of records held in the

13

custody of nonparties, that is disproportional to the needs of this case. Defendants

14

specifically object to any requirement that their search must encompass documents for

15

which they have “an understanding, express or implied,” that they may use the

16
17
18
19

documents, or “have, as a practical matter, been able to use” the documents, as such
expansive searches are not countenanced under controlling law. See, e.g., Otos v.
WHPacific, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-01623-RAJ, 2017 WL 2452008, at *2 (W.D. Wash. June

20

6, 2017) (“[A]s duly noted by district courts within the Ninth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit

21

has not expanded the definition of ‘control’ to include a practical ability to obtain

22

documents.”). Defendants will identify appropriate custodians at the U.S. Department of

23

Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of State, and the Office of the Director of

24
25

National Intelligence, and will conduct reasonable searches of records held by those

26

appropriate custodians, keeping in mind the requirement of the Federal Rules of Civil

27

Procedure and the Court’s admonition in its July 27 Order that discovery should be

28
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO JFS AND DOE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS - 8
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 142 of 223

1

narrowly crafted and proportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited

2

to issues pertaining to mootness.

3

6. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 7 to produce “all duplicate

4
5

Documents which were altered in any manner” as not proportional to the needs of

6

resolving the mootness issue, as the instruction could be read to include any duplicate

7

document that has some immaterial difference from a document already produced, no

8

matter how minor or incidental that difference may be.

9
10
11
12

Defendants will produce

duplicates with alterations to the extent those alterations are substantive. Defendants
further object to the instruction to the extent it would require Defendants to produce drafts
of documents, which are paradigmatically deliberative documents and thus privileged.

13

7. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 8 to the extent the instruction

14

would require Defendants to identify contemporaneously with these Objections those

15

documents Defendants intend to withhold in part or in full, as Defendants intend to

16
17
18
19

complete document review and production on a rolling basis, as set forth above. 1
8. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 11 to the extent the instruction
could be construed as imposing on Defendants an obligation to continually search their

20

records for responsive information. Defendants understand and will comply with their

21

duty of supplementation to the extent they become aware of additional responsive

22

documents. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

23

9. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 12 insofar as it seeks “bates

24
25

range” metadata, because “bates range” is redundant of “bates start” and “bates stop.”

26
27
28

1

Defendants note that the instruction in paragraph 8 appears to contain a clerical error in
the second line, as “Plaintiffs” should be substituted with “Defendants.”
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO JFS AND DOE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS - 9
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 143 of 223

1

Defendants further object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 12 insofar as it seeks “file

2

title” metadata, because “file title” is redundant of “file name.”

3

10. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 13 insofar as it would require the

4
5

production of a document or file in native format when producing it as such is not a

6

reasonable method for production. Defendants will produce documents in native formats

7

when reasonable, but should a Document or file that would otherwise be produced in

8

native format require redaction, Defendants will determine whether the Document or file

9
10
11

can be produced as an image file with redactions applied or some other reasonable method
to produce the Document or file with all applicable redactions.
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OBJECTIONS

12
13

The following responses are based upon information currently known to Defendants, and

14

Defendants reserve the right to amend, supplement, or alter these objections and responses to the

15

Requests for the Production of Documents at any time. A statement that Defendants will produce

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

documents in response to any of the Requests is not meant to imply that such documents exist,
but only that Defendants will produce them if they do exist and can be located based on a search
that is proportional to the needs of this case, and subject to any of the objections particular to the
Requests as well as the objections set forth above.
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS 2

23

Request for Production No. 1:

24

All policies, directives, instructions, guidelines, guidance, advisals, cables, notices, training,
memoranda and other similar Documents (collectively “Implementation and Compliance

25
26
27
28

2

Defendants have replicated Plaintiffs’ use of bolding in these objections, for consistency
and clarity. Such replication does not constitute any concession by Defendants that Plaintiffs’
definitions are proper or that the discovery Plaintiffs seek is appropriately tailored to the sole
question of mootness for which limited discovery has been authorized.
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO JFS AND DOE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS - 10
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 144 of 223

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Documents”) issued or sent by Defendants and Agencies Involved in the USRAP relating to
the Processing of Applications and admission to the United States of Refugees from SAO
Countries and Follow-to-Join Refugees that have been in effect at any time since October 23,
2017, including those relating to:
1. Implementation of the Agency Memo with respect to Follow-to-Join Refugees and
Refugees from SAO Countries, including cancellation of any Circuit Rides;
2. Compliance with the Court’s Preliminary Injunction, including reinstatement or
scheduling of any Circuit Rides;
3. Compliance with the Court’s Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Stay, including
reinstatement or scheduling of any Circuit Rides;
4. Implementation of the January 29, 2018 Memorandum;
5. All actions taken as a result of the conclusions of the 90-day Review of SAO Countries
and the implementation and modification of procedures for Follow-to-Join Refugees,
including the unredacted January 29, 2018 Memorandum, all Documents referenced
therein, and all other memoranda issued; and
6. All changes in the manner in and/or procedure by which embassies, consulates, and field
offices conduct the Processing of Applications for Follow-to-Join Refugees, including
embassies, consulates, and field offices ceasing to process applications for Follow-toJoin Refugees.
Objections to Request for Production No. 1:
1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to
Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions.
2. Defendants object to Request for Production No. 1 as overly broad and not proportional
to the needs of this case, particularly in that the request could be interpreted to require
Defendants to search for and produce drafts, deliberations, informal communications, or

20

case-specific communications.

21

encompassing guidance documents directed to the administration of the U.S. Refugee

22

Admissions Program generally, even if such documents only incidentally impact SAO or

23

Moreover, the request could be construed as

following-to-join refugee applicants. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing

24
25

objections, Defendants construe Request for Production No. 1 as requesting final, formal

26

guidance documents concerning the processing of SAO or following-to-join refugee

27

applicants, whether promulgated through e-mail or in some other fashion.

28
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO JFS AND DOE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS - 11
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 145 of 223

1

3. Defendants further object to subparts (4) through (6) of Request for Production No. 1 to

2

the extent Plaintiffs seek documents unrelated to the claims at issue in these consolidated

3

actions, which concern the SAO and following-to-join provisions of the October 23,

4
5

2017, Memorandum to the President.

6

4. Defendants further object to subpart (5) to the extent Plaintiffs request an unredacted

7

version of the January 29, 2018, Memorandum from Kirstjen M. Nielsen to L. Francis

8

Cissna, as Defendants have already informed Plaintiffs that the single, eleven-word

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

redaction in that memorandum is pursuant to the law enforcement privilege.
5. Defendants further object to subpart (6) insofar as it seeks documents relating to “field
offices ceasing to process applications for Follow-to-Join Refugees,” which is a
procedural issue peripheral to the challenged agency memorandum.
Response to Request for Production No. 1:
Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Defendants will produce nonprivileged material responsive to Request for Production No. 1, as explained above. Defendants
will aim to complete such production on or before September 14, 2018.
Request for Production No. 2:
Documents sufficient to show the categories of personnel of the Agencies Involved in the
USRAP to whom the Implementation and Compliance Documents have been distributed.
Objections to Request for Production No. 2:
1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to
Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions.
2. Defendants object to Request for Production No. 2 to the extent the request could be
construed to require Defendants to compile information from multiple sources or
otherwise create new documents, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 does not impose

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO JFS AND DOE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS - 12
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 146 of 223

1

such requirements on parties in responding to requests for production of documents. See,

2

e.g., Gallagher v. Dep’t of Corr., No. C16-5088 RBL-KLS, 2017 WL 347467, at *3

3

(W.D. Wash. Jan. 24, 2017) (“A party may serve on another party a request to produce

4
5

any designated documents that are in the responding party’s possession, custody, or

6

control. However, a party is not required to prepare new documents solely for their own

7

production.” (citations omitted)). Defendants construe Request for Production No. 2 as

8

requesting only existing documents that reflect the dissemination of documents that

9
10
11
12

Defendants collected in their search that are responsive to Request for Production No. 1,
including documents that are simultaneously responsive to both requests No. 1 and No. 2
(such as e-mails that contain distribution lists).

13

3. Defendants object to Request for Production No. 2 to the extent disclosure of the

14

requested information could violate the Government’s Privacy Act obligations or

15

otherwise infringe legitimate privacy interests, and to the extent that such disclosure could

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

implicate law enforcement sensitivities.
4. Defendants object to Request for Production No. 2 insofar as the phrase “sufficient to
show” is ambiguous, and Plaintiffs offer no standard by which such “sufficiency” could
be measured.
5. Defendants object to Request for Production No. 2 insofar as the phrase “categories of
personnel” is undefined and ambiguous.
Response to Request for Production No. 2:

24
25

Subject to the above objections, Defendants will produce non-privileged material

26

responsive to Request for Production No. 2, as explained above. Defendants will aim to complete

27

such production on or before September 14, 2018.

28
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO JFS AND DOE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS - 13
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 147 of 223

1

Request for Production No. 3:

2

For the time period since October 23, 2017, documents sufficient to show the following
data related to the Processing of Applications and admission of cases and refugees to the
United States:
A) For the following, data should be provided for each week within the time period identified
above:
1. Number of cases and refugees referred to the USRAP each week, broken down into
those from SAO Countries and other;
2. Number of cases and refugees for whom RSC pre-screening interviews were completed
each week, broken down into those from SAO Countries and other;
3. Number of cases and Refugees from SAO Countries for whom security checks
were requested each week;
4. Number of cases and Refugees from SAO Countries for whom security checks
were completed each week;
5. Number of I-730 petitions filed each week, and of those, number of petitions
corresponding to Beneficiaries From SAO Countries;
6. Number of I-730 petitions approved each week, and of those, number of
petitions corresponding to Beneficiaries From SAO Countries;
7. Number of I-730 petitions forwarded to overseas posts each week, and of those,
number of petitions corresponding to Beneficiaries From SAO Countries;
8. Number of I-730 petitions for whom security checks were requested each week,
and of those, number of petitions corresponding to Beneficiaries of SAO
Countries; and
9. Number of I-730 petitions for whom security checks were completed each week,
and of those, number of petitions corresponding to Beneficiaries of SAO
Countries.
B) For the following, data should be provided for each week within the time period
identified above, broken down into Refugees from SAO Countries, Follow-to-Join
Refugees, and other, and should indicate any overlap between the first two categories:
1. Number of refugee interviews completed by Defendants and number of cases for
which interviews were completed;
2. Number of refugee re-interviews requested by Defendants and number of cases
for which re-interviews were requested;
3. Number of refugee re-interviews completed by Defendants and number of cases
for which re-interviews were completed;
4. Number of cases and refugees contacted by RSCs relating to their BFR Status;
5. Number of cases and refugees receiving decisions relating to their BFR Status;
6. Number of cases and refugees conditionally approved for admission post-interview;
7. Number of denials of cases and refugees, and specifying the number of security-related
denials;
8. Number of cases and refugees who completed medical screenings;
9. Number of cases and refugees for whom assurances were issued;
10. Number of cases and refugees who completed cultural orientation;
11. Number of cases and refugees scheduled for travel to the United States; and
12. Number of cases and refugees who were admitted into the United States.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO JFS AND DOE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS - 14
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 148 of 223

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

C) For the following, data should be provided for the total number on the first day of each week
(or another defined day of each week) within the time period identified above, broken down into
Refugees from SAO Countries, Follow-to-Join Refugees, and other, and should indicate any
overlap between the first two categories:
1. Total number of cases and refugees for whom security checks were or are pending;
2. Total number of cases and refugees waiting for decision post-interview;
3. Total number of cases and refugees whose applications are on hold, and specifying the
number of short-term holds and the number of long-term holds;
4. Total number of cases and refugees ready for departure;
5. Total number of cases and refugees with assurances;
6. Total number of cases and refugees for whom SAO checks have expired; and
7. Total number of cases and refugees for whom medical clearances have expired.
D) For the following, data should be broken down into Refugees from SAO Countries,
Follow-to-join Refugees, and other, and should indicate any overlap between the first
two categories:
1. For each week beginning with October 24, 2017 to present, the number of cases
and refugees in the USRAP who had not or have not yet been interviewed, broken
down by their countries of current residence;
2. For the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2018, the number of Circuit Rides scheduled
prior to the issuance of the Agency Memo, as well as their planned locations,
durations, number of RAIO Officers to be involved, and number of interviews
scheduled, broken down into cases and refugees;
3. For each fiscal quarter beginning with Fiscal Year 2016 to present, the number of
Circuit Rides held, as well as their locations, durations, number of RAIO Officers
involved, and number of interviews scheduled per location, broken down into cases
and refugees; and
4. For the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2018, the number of Circuit Rides scheduled,
as well as their locations, durations, number of RAIO Officers involved, and
number of interviews scheduled per location, broken down into cases and refugees.
Objections to Request for Production No. 3:
1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to
Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions.
2. Defendants object to Request for Production No. 3, as it is not a proper request for
production but instead a 32-part interrogatory requesting that Defendants supply

24
25

exhaustive, week-by-week data applicable to multiple categories of refugee applicants.

26

3. Defendants object to Request for Production No. 3 to the extent that the request could be

27

construed as an interrogatory, as the request contains thirty-two (32) subparts (some of

28
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO JFS AND DOE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS - 15
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 149 of 223

1

which contain subdivisions), thus substantially exceeding the twenty-five (25)

2

interrogatories that a party may propound on any other party pursuant to Rule 33(a)(1) of

3

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

4
5

4. Defendants object to Request for Production No. 3, as the data requests in this purported

6

request for production are vastly overbroad and disproportional to the needs of this case

7

in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining to mootness.

8
9
10
11
12

5. Defendants object to Request for Production No. 3 insofar as the phrase “sufficient to
show” is ambiguous, and Plaintiffs offer no standard by which such “sufficiency” could
be measured.
6. Defendants object to Request for Production No. 3 to the extent that the subparts

13

requesting information about “I-730 petitions” could be read to encompass such petitions

14

filed by applicants for asylum, as asylum is not at issue in this litigation.

15
16
17
18
19

Response to Request for Production No. 3:
Defendants will not respond to Request for Production No. 3, as the request in present
form is not a proper request for production and, even if construed as an interrogatory, is excessive
and grossly disproportional to the needs of the case. In an August 20, 2018 e-mail, while stating

20

that “RFP 3 is still pending,” Plaintiffs nonetheless “agree[d] that [D]efendants can respond to

21

the interrogatories” they sent on August 17, 2018, “in lieu of searching for documents” in

22

response to Request for Production No. 3. Pursuant to the parties’ telephonic meet-and-confer

23

of Friday, August 10, 2018, and in a showing of good faith, Defendants will communicate with

24
25
26

Plaintiffs by separate cover to propose categories of data that are relevant to the mootness
question for which jurisdictional discovery has been authorized and that are reasonably

27
28
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO JFS AND DOE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS - 16
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 150 of 223

1

accessible and producible, and will respond in due course to reasonable and proportional

2

interrogatories.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

DATED: August 22, 2018

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
AUGUST E. FLENTJE
Special Counsel
JENNIFER D. RICKETTS
Director, Federal Programs Branch
JOHN R. TYLER
Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch
/s/ Joseph C. Dugan
KEVIN SNELL
JOSEPH C. DUGAN
DANIEL BENSING
Trial Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259
Fax: (202) 616-8470
Email: joseph.dugan@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO JFS AND DOE PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS - 17
Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR)
Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-3259

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 151 of 223

EXHIBIT 23
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 152 of 223

FOUR TIMES SQUARE
24TH FLOOR
NEW YORK 10036-6522
(212) 735-3000

DIRECT DIAL

(2 I 2J 735-2775
EMAIL ADDRESS

MOLLIE,KORNREICH@PROBONOLAW.COM

August 30, 2018

BYE-MAIL
Joseph C. Dugan
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Rm. 7330
Washington, D.C. 20530

Re:

John Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. Cl 7-0178-JLR and Jewish Family
Service. eta!. v. Tnm1p. eta!., Case No. C17-1707-JLR

Dear Mr. Dugan:
We write on behalf of Plaintiffs in the above-captioned actions ("Plaintiffs")
regarding Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production to
Defendants (the "Objections" or "Obj."). As set forth in detail below, a number of
Defendants' objections are problematic, particularly in light of the Court's July 27, 2018
Order (the "July 27 Order").
Throughout the Objections, Defendants assert that they will produce responsive
material held by custodians at three agencies, and that they are under no obligation to
produce material held by non-parties. (See, e.g., Obj. 4 ,r 1; 5 ,r 4; 6 ,r,r 5, 7; 7-8 ,r 4; 8 ,r 5.)
All Defendants, however, are required to conduct a reasonable search for any responsive
documents in their possession, custody or control, even if responsive materials are held by
individuals at sub-agencies or by third parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(l). Indeed, as the
Court noted in Otos v. WHPacific, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-01623-RAJ, 2017 WL 2452008, at *1
(W.D. Wash. June 6,2017)-cited in Defendants' Objections-"Production of documents

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 153 of 223
Joseph C. Dugan
August 30, 2018
Page 2 of 6
or items possessed by related non-parties is warranted as long as the party to the litigation
has custody or control of those documents or items."
Objections to Introductory Material
Contrary to Defendants' contention, Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery from "the
President and/or his advisers." To the extent that Defendants intend to claim executive
privilege, they must "expressly make the claim" and provide a privilege log "describ[ing]
the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or
disclosed-and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or
protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(i)-(ii); see
also United States v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600, 609 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting that "blanket
claims of privilege are generally disfavored") (citations omitted). The Court can then
"evaluate whether the privilege applies and if so, whether Plaintiffs have established a
showing of need sufficient to overcome it." Karnoski v. Trump, No. Cl?-1297-MJP, 2018
WL 3608401, at *5 (W.D. Wash. July 27, 2018). To the extent President Trump or others
who work in the White House have responsive material, Defendants are therefore required
to produce it or provide a privilege log explaining why it is b~ing withheld.
With respect to Defendants' position that they will produce material held by
custodians that they identify at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), the
U.S. Department of State ("DOS"), and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
("DNI''), we would appreciate if you could confirm that Defendants are identifying
appropriate custodians at the relevant sub-agencies, such as the Bureau of Population,
Refugees, and Migration of DOS, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS")1
and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol ofDHS, and the National Counterterrorism Center of
DNI. To facilitate timely completion of mootness discovery, we would also appreciate if
you could identify these custodians for us as soon as possible and include each custodian's
name, title and agency.
Further, please clarify whether Defendants will be producing documents held by
the international and nongovernmental organizations with which Defendants contract to
process applications, transport refugees, and resettle refugees as part of the U.S. Refugee
Admissions Program ("USRAP"). These include the Resettlement Support Centers, the
International Organization for Migration, and the domestic resettlement agencies. As
discussed above, Defendants are required to search for responsive documents in their
possession, custody or control, even if responsive materials are held by sub-agencies or
third parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(l).

1

Various components ofUSCIS are involved in refugee processing, including the Refugee, Asylum and
International Operations Directorate, the Field Operations Directorate, and the Fraud Detection and
National Security Directorate.

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 154 of 223
Joseph C. Dugan
August 30, 2018
Page 3 of 6
Objections to Definitions

Objection Paragraph Nos. 3 and 5: We do not understand Defendants' objections
to the definitions of "Correspondence" and "Documents" to the extent they encompass
material "not preserved in the ordinary course." Plaintiffs anticipate that Defendants will
produce responsive documents regardless of whether such documents were preserved in
the ordinary course or otherwise. Further, regardless of what documents Defendants save
in the ordinary course, they have presumably been saving material relating to this litigation
pursuant to their document preservation obligations at least since the JFS complaint was
filed and the Doe complaint was amended to add claims regarding the October 2017
Memorandum at issue (the "Agency Memo"). We would therefore appreciate if
Defendants could clarify the meaning of this objection and confirm that appropriate
document preservation steps have been and continue to be taken. To the extent any
responsive information has been lost or has not been preserved for any reason, please
explain what information is no longer available and the reasons for such unavailability.
Objection Paragraph No. 4: We would also appreciate further detail on
Defendants' refusal to produce "drafts" on the grounds that they are "paradigmatically
deliberative." Please clarify what privilege(s) you are asserting categorically shields all
drafts from discovery. Pending receipt of further clarification from you, our view is that
while certain drafts may be properly withheld pursuant to some applicable privilege, that
determination necessarily depends on the specific document, including the nature and
content of the document, who drafted it, the context in which it was drafted, the
recipient(s) and whether any relevant privilege was waived. Moreover, as discussed
above, Defendants are required to search for responsive documents held by "White House
custodians."
Objection Paragraph No. 5: With respect to Defendants' objection to the
requirement that they produce documents held by non-parties, as discussed above,
Defendants are required to produce such documents to the extent they are under
Defendants' possession, custody and control. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(l).
Objection Paragraph No. 6: Plaintiffs disagree with Defendants' position that any
Plaintiffs who have been admitted (or have had family members for whom they filed
petitions admitted) to the United States lack standing to pursue this action, for several
reasons. These cases are putative class actions, and the Doe Plaintiffs have a pending
motion for class certification. See Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1090 (9th
Cir. 2011) (noting that "even if the district court has not yet addressed the class
certification issue, mooting the putative class representative's ·claims will not necessarily
moot the class action"). In addition, Defendants took affirmative, voluntary steps to
ascertain Joseph Doe's identity and brought his family to the United States. We believe
that, under these circumstances, his class action claims are not moot, and the inherently
transitory claim exception applies. See, e.g., County ofRiverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S.

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 155 of 223
Joseph C. Dugan
August 30, 2018
Page 4 of 6
44 (1991); Wagcife v. Trump, No. C17-0094-RAJ, 2017 WL 2671254, at *15 (W.D. Wash.
June 21, 2017).
Objections to Instructions

Objection Paragraph No. 2: Plaintiffs' instruction that the "fact of redaction" must
be "clearly indicated" is not ambiguous; where a document is redacted, the redacted
portion should be evident from the face of the document. In any event, as noted in the
Objections and in our August 20, 2018, correspondence, Plaintiffs agree that any redacted
document may state the reason(s) for the redaction on the document itself, rather than on a
separate redaction log. If, however, Plaintiffs are unable to adequately assess the
applicability of any privilege for any particular redacted document based on the
information provided, Plaintiffs reserve the right to request additional information,
including information that would typically be reflected on a redaction log.
Objection Paragraph No. 3: With respect to Defendants' objection to stating on
their privilege log in all circumstances the name and address of any persons who received
or obtained a copy of the relevant document, that information is necessary to assess an
assertion of privilege, including whether privilege was waived_, and is therefore required
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b )(5)(A). To the extent Defendants believe
that this is an unduly burdensome requirement for any particular document, Plaintiffs are
willing to meet and confer to discuss alternative means of conveying the necessary
information.

Objection Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5: As discussed above, Defendants are required
to produce responsive documents within their possession, custody and control. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 34(a)(l). To the extent this includes documents within the possession, custody or
control of Defendants' attorneys, agents, associates and/or employees, Plaintiffs expect
that Defendants will conduct a reasonable search for documents in the possession, custody
and control of these individuals.

Objection Paragraph No. 6: To the extent a copy of a document has been altered
in any respect, it should be produced. Plaintiffs, not Defendants, are entitled to determine
whether any differences between two documents are substantive.

Objection Paragraph No. 9: As discussed in Plaintiffs' August 17, 2018,
correspondence, file title and file name are not identical fields, and may vary for any given
document. Nevertheless, if Defendants are unwilling to produce both fields, in the interest
of compromise Plaintiffs are amenable to receiving only the "~le name" metadata for each
document.

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 156 of 223
Joseph C. Dugan
August 30, 2018
Page 5 of 6
Objections and Responses to Requests for Production

Request for Production No. 1
Contrary to the statement in Defendants' second paragraph of objections, this
Request is not properly limited to "final, formal guidance documents." To the extent any
documents sought by this request-including, most notably, policies, directives,
instructions, and guidance-are not considered by Defendants to be "final" or "formal,"
they may still be highly relevant to how the Agency Memo was implemented, what actions
were taken to comply with the Court's December 23, 2017 preliminary injunction, and
actions taken by Defendants as a result of the end of the 90-day SAO review and
implementation of additional vetting procedures for follow-to-join refugees. For example,
the Request includes any instructions that Defendants may co~sider "informal." It also
includes any policies and other similar documents that were issued even if Defendants do
not consider them to be "final" because they were later revised.
Further, this Request properly seeks guidance documents directed to the
administration of the USRAP generally, to the extent such documents relate to processing
of applications and admission to the United States of refuges from SAO countries and
follow-to-join refugees that have been in effect at any time since October 23, 2017. Such
documents are necessary to evaluate how the Agency Memo was implemented,
Defendants' compliance with the Court's injunction, and what actions Defendants' have
taken regarding follow-to-join and SAO refugees since the Agency Memo purportedly
expired or was supplanted.
Contrary to Defendants' objection in paragraph three, the Court authorized
Plaintiffs to seek the documents requested in subparts (4) through (6) of this Request. The
July 27 Order authorized Plaintiffs to seek documents "relating to actions taken by
Defendants as a result of the end of the 90-day review for SAO countries and as a result of
the implementation of the additional vetting procedures for follow-to-join refugees," which
plainly encompasses subparts (4) and (5). And this authorization, in conjunction with
Plaintiffs' ability to seek documents relating to implementation of the Agency Memo and
"relating to actions taken by Defendants to comply" with the preliminary injunction,
permits Plaintiffs to seek the documents requested in subpart (6). Because the Court has
expressly permitted this discovery, Defendants cannot refuse to produce documents on the
basis that these aspects of the Request are "unrelated to the claims at issue."
With respect to Defendants' objection in paragraph four, Plaintiffs reserve the right
to seek production of the redacted portion of the January 29, 2018 Memorandum.
Moreover, contrary to Defendants' contention in objection paragraph five, subpart
(6) does not seek documents on a "peripheral" issue, but rather on the key question of how
follow-to-join applications have been processed during the relevant period.

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 157 of 223
Joseph C. Dugan
August 30, 2018
Page 6 of 6

Request for Production No. 2
With respect to Defendants' statement in objection paragraph two that they intend
to produce "only existing documents that reflect the dissemination of documents that
Defendants collected in their search that are responsive to Request for Production No. 1,"
Plaintiffs anticipate that this will include documents sufficient to show all categories of
personnel who received the materials produced in response to Request No. 1, even if that
requires producing documents in response to Request No. 2 that are not responsive to
Request No. 1. Moreover, this Request seeks information regarding recipients of all the
categories of documents requested by Request No. 1, not merely "final, formal guidance
documents."

Request for Production No. 3
As discussed during the parties' August 10, 2018, meet-and-confer and in
subsequent correspondence, Request No. 3 is a proper request for production. Further,
even it if were read as a 32-part interrogatory, it was propounded by multiple plaintiffs
against multiple defendants in two separate cases, and therefore would not exceed the
twenty-five interrogatories that each party may presumptively propound on any other party
pursuant to Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In any event, as
Defendants note, Plaintiffs-in response to Defendants' objection that this Request was
properly framed as interrogatories rather than a request for production-served a modified
version of this Request in the form of 23 interrogatories.
Whether styled as a request for production or interrogatories, the data sought by
Request No. 3 is relevant and proportional to the needs of mootness discovery here.
Plaintiffs are permitted to seek "data relating to the processing of refugee applications and
admission" from October 23, 2017, to the date of production, and that is precisely what is
sought. As noted in our August 17, 2018, correspondence, if Defendants have objections
to specific data requests or detail regarding what, if any, aspects of the interrogatories are
burdensome, Plaintiffs are willing to confer regarding Defendants' responses.

*

*

*

Plaintiffs are available to meet and confer with Defendants regarding the issues
raised in this letter. Please let us know your availability for a call on Friday, August 31 or
Tuesday, September 4.
Sincerely,
/~

~

Mollie Kornreich
cc: counsel of record (via e-mail)

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 158 of 223

EXHIBIT 24
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 159 of 223
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

Joseph C. Dugan
Trial Attorney

Tel. : (202) 514-3259
E-mail : joseph.dugan@ usdoj .gov

September 5, 2018

BY E-MAIL
Mollie Kornreich
4 Times Square
No . 41-408
New York, NY 10036
Re :

Doe v. Trump, No. 2: 17-00178 (W.D. Wash.) ; Jewish Family Service of Seattle v.
Trump, No. 2:17-01707 (W.D. Wash .)

Dear Ms. Kornreich:
Thank you for your letter dated August 30, 2018 ("August 30 Letter"). Defendants
respectfully remind Plaintiffs of Judge Robart's directive that discovery in this matter should be
"narrowly craft[ed]" so that all requests are '"proportional to the needs of the case ' in which
discovery is limited to issues pertaining to mootness." Order Granting Mot. for Disc. & Denying
Mot. to Dismiss Without Prejudice at 29, ECF No. 155 ("July 27 Order'}
Your letter reflects a misapprehension of not only the narrow jurisdictional discovery that
Judge Robart authorized but also the practical constraints on Defendants' time and resources.
Some of Plaintiffs' requests- such as for Defendants to conduct searches of documents held by
third-party nongovernmental organizations or to produce drafts or documents that only incidentally
relate to the SAO and FTJ refugee applicant populations- would dramatically increase the time
and effort it would take for Defendants to complete our production. Given the national security
sensitivities associated with the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and the SAO population in
particular, each and every document that Defendants identify as potentially responsive must be
scrutinized by agency counsel, litigation counsel at the Department of Justice, and potentially one
or more vetting partners to ensure that privileged or otherwise protected information is not
inadvertently disclosed. And, as you can imagine, the more agencies and third parties involved in
this discovery effort, the longer it will take to conduct the necessary review.
Your insistence that White House custodians must search for and produce or withhold as
privileged potentially responsive material is more problematic still , given the separation-of-powers
concerns that arise when the President and his closest advisers are distracted from their Article II
responsibilities by the demands of civil litigation.

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 160 of 223
-2While Judge Robart authorized limited jurisdictional discovery for a narrow three-month
period (and, for practical purposes, a shorter period than that given the current October 9 deadline
for any discovery motions), your requests are commensurate with the type of merits discovery
requests one might anticipate in complex civil litigation, where fact discovery typically continues
far longer than the timeframe set by the Court here. To make matters worse, you have requested
a substantial amount of data in your First Set of Interrogatories that Defendants' subject-matter
experts are now scrambling to compile. Indeed, Defendants worked throughout the Labor Day
holiday weekend in an effort to stay on track with respect to our discovery obligations while also
reviewing Plaintiffs' August 30 Letter and preparing this response to that letter. Of course, every
hour that we spend debating the parameters of discovery is another hour not devoted to document
review and production.
Defendants are not attempting to stonewall or shortchange you on the limited jurisdictional
discovery that Judge Robart has authorized. On the contrary, we have already identified over 1300
pages of material potentially responsive to RFPs 1 and 2. And as noted in our letter of September
1, 2018, we expect to respond substantively to many (though not all) of your interrogatories.
Plaintiffs, by contrast, have refused to answer our nan-ow inten-ogatories, and of course Defendants
have not even asked for document production from Plaintiffs.
Those preliminary matters aside, Defendants remain committed to working with Plaintiffs
in good faith, and it is our hope in this letter to address a few points of confusion, identify those
points about which the parties may be able to reach at least tentative agreement (or deferral). and
also identify those points about which the parties plainly disagree. Defendants would be pleased
to meet and confer with Plaintiffs by telephonic conference at a mutually convenient time to
discuss outstanding items. In the event that Plaintiffs wish to bring one or more of these items to
the Court' s attention, Defendants suggest that the parties an-ange to call chambers at a mutually
convenient time and ask Judge Robart's permission to submit letter briefs not to exceed five (5)
pages, as it seems unlikely that most of these technical disputes could be resolved through
telephonic argument without written submissions. During any such call and/or in any such briefs,
Defendants anticipate raising the issue of our inten-ogatories to which you have refused to respond .
For ease of reference, Defendants have organized our responses below into numbered
paragraphs:
Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendants' Objections to Introductory Material
1. Defendants disagree that Plaintiffs are entitled to "discovery from ' the President and/or his
advisers,"' for at least three reasons. First, Defendants have moved to dismiss President Trump
as a named Defendant on jurisdictional grounds, and Judge Robart has not yet addressed the
substance of Defendants' argument. See July 27 Order at 19 n.17. If, as Defendants maintain,
the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to enter equitable relief as against the President,
then the President necessarily was improperly named in this action and should be dismissed .
The President certainly should not be subject to Plaintiffs' onerous discovery requests .
Compare Newdow v. Roberts, 603 F.3d 1002, 1013 (D.C . Cir. 2010) (" With regard to the
President, courts do not have jurisdiction to enjoin him . .. ."'), with In re United States, 138 S.
Ct. 443 , 445 (2017) (per curiam) (district court was required to resolve threshold jurisdictional

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 161 of 223
-3-

arguments before ordering supplementation of administrative record). Second, the Supreme
Court has recognized that discovery sought against the White House raises significant
separation-of-powers concerns, such that the "high respect that is owed to the ofiice of the
Chief Executive .. . is a matter that should inform the conduct of the entire proceeding,
including the timing and scope of discovery, and . . . the Executive's constitutional
responsibilities and status [are] factors counseling judicial deference and restraint in the
conduct of litigation against it." Cheney v. US District Court , 542 U.S. 367, 385 (2004)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Third, the time and effort it would take for
the White House to conduct a search of potential White House custodians (a complex and
sensitive undertaking for any Administration), and the fmiher time and effort it would take for
the White House to review documents on a line-by-line basis to protect executive privileges,
would vastly outweigh whatever marginal advantage Plaintiffs may hope to gain from the fruits
of such a search, given that the challenged policy in this case is an agency policy implemented
by DHS, the State Department, and their sub-agencies. See id. at 383 , 388 (expressly rejecting
the notion that the Executive Branch at its highest level shall bear the initial burden --of
invoking executive privilege with sufficient specificity and of making particularized
objections" to discovery on a line-by-line basis in order to safeguard executive functions and
maintain the separation of powers). Defendants accordingly will not conduct searches of
White House custodians, and should Plaintiffs persist in this unwa,i-anted demand , the parties
will need to bring this matter to Judge Robart' s attention.
2. Defendants do not intend to search for "documents held by the international and
nongovernmental organizations with which Defendants contract ... as part of the U.S. Refugee
Admissions Program." It is not clear how Defendants would even conduct such a search, as
these third-party organizations are not named Defendants in this action. Moreover, to the
extent these third parties received guidance from the Defendant agencies (which is presumabl y
what Plaintiffs are most interested in), such guidance should be included among those
documents held by agency custodians. Thus, even if there were some mechanism by which
Defendants might extract documents from third parties, any such effort would be unnecessary,
and out of proportion to the limited discovery authorized in this case. See also Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(l) ("Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issue at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties ' relative
access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expenses of the proposed discovery outweighs
its likely benefit."). Notably, Plaintiffs cite only one case supposedly in support of the
proposition that Defendants are required to search the records of our partners in the field. See
Otos v. WHPac(fic, Inc., No. 2: 16-cv-01623-RAJ, 2017 WL 2452008 (W.D. Wash. June 6,
2017). Yet in Otos, the district court found that production of documents by related nonparties (i.e., a parent and a subsidiary) may be warranted but that the "party seeking production
bears the burden of demonstrating actual control." Id. at * 1. Plaintiffs here certainly have not
carried that burden (nor, for that matter, did the plaintiff in Otos).
3. Unless Plaintiffs can point to some binding authority requiring Defendants to identify the
"name, title and agency" of each custodian that Defendants have selected, Defendants do not
intend to provide such information at this time. Defendants are not aware of any such authority,

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 162 of 223
-4and Plaintiffs' request would further divert the agencies' and litigation counsel's limited
resources away from processing the approximately 1300 pages that are potentially responsive
to Plaintiffs' RFPs 1 and 2 and compiling the substantial amount of data requested by
Plaintiffs' interrogatories. However, Defendants can confirm that we are conducting
appropriate searches with respect to records held by custodians at applicable subagencies, to
include U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; the State Department' s Bureau of
Population, Refugees, and Migration; the State Department' s Bureau of Consular Affairs; and
the National Counterterrorism Center at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Plaintiffs ' Responses to Defendants ' Objections to Definitions
1. With regard to objection paragraphs 3 and 5, Defendants are unaware of any '·responsive
information [that] has been lost or has not been preserved for any reason ," and anticipate
producing all responsive, non-privileged documents that Defendants locate through our
reasonable search efforts.
2. With regard to objection paragraph 4, Defendants assert that most if not all draft documents
potentially responsive to RFPs 1 and 2 would be protected by the deliberative process privilege.
See, e.g. , Sec. of Labor v. Kazu Constr .. LLC, No. 16-00077 ACK-KSC, 2017 WL 628455, at
*7 (D. Haw. Feb. 15, 2017) ("The deliberative process privilege covers recommendations,
draft documents, proposals, suggestions, and other subjective documents which reflect the
personal opinions of the writer rather than the policy of the agency." (emphasis added) (quoting
Nat 'l Wildlife Fed 'n v. U.S. Forest Serv. , 861 F.2d 1114, 1118-19 (9th Cir. 1988))). Some
drafts may also be protected as attorney work product or pursuant to the attorney-cli ent
privilege or other commonly recognized privileges, including executive privileges. More
fundamentally, it is eminently unclear how production of drafts could possibly infotm
Plaintiffs on the sole mootness question pending before the Court, and such production could
significantly hamper Defendants' overall discovery efforts, given the additional time required
to collect and review such paradigmatically deliberative documents and complete the necessary
entries on Defendants' privilege log. In light of the narrow parameters that Judge Robart fixed
for this jurisdictional discovery, Defendants object to any requirement that we produce or
otherwise account for drafts.
3. With regard to objection paragraph 5, Defendants' position on this matter is discussed above .
4. With regard to objection paragraph 6, Defendants strenuously disagree that any named
Plaintiffs who have been admitted as refugees ( or, for those Plaintiffs suing on behalf of
third-party associates, whose associates have been so admitted) remain entitled to seek
equitable relief in this challenge to two long-superseded provisions of the October 23 , 2017,
Memorandum to the President. Defendants anticipate moving to dismiss any such Plaintiffs
from this action, apart from our general mootness motion. However, this disagreement
between the parties does not obviously map onto Defendants ' discovery obligations, so
Defendants suggest tabling this disagreement for the time being. 1

That said, Plaintiffs fail to cite any authority for the proposition that a pending class
certification motion somehow precludes Defendants from moving to dismiss particular named
1

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 163 of 223
-5-

Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendants' Objections to Instructions
l. With regard to objection paragraph 2, the parties appear to have reached an understanding. We
thank Plaintiffs for their cooperation.
2. With regard to objection paragraph 3, we suggest that the most efficient approach at this point
would be for Defendants to compile a privilege log that Defendants consider adequate and for
Plaintiffs to thereafter review the log and apprise Defendants if there are any outstanding
disagreements. As Defendants expect to produce the log on or about September 21 , Plaintiffs
should have ample time to raise any further concerns in advance of the October 9 motions
deadline.
3. With regard to objection paragraphs 4 and 5, Defendants are indeed conducting a "reasonable
search" for documents held by appropriately identified custodians.
4. With regard to objection paragraph 6, Defendants stand by our objection, as Defendants cannot
understand how production of near-duplicates would be necessary or even helpful to Plaintiffs'
response to Defendants' anticipated mootness motion, pm1icularly given that Defendants are
collecting and processing the agencies' final guidance.
5. With regard to objection paragraph 9, the parties appear to have reached an understanding. We
thank Plaintiffs for their cooperation.
Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendants' Objections and Responses to Requests for the Production
of Documents
1. With regard to RFPl , Defendants disagree that a request for production of"policies, directives.
instructions, guidelines, guidance, advisals, cables, notices, training, memoranda," and similar
documents is not appropriately construed as a request for final , formal guidance documents.
To whatever extent Plaintiffs intended the request to encompass deliberative documents (which
are presumptively privileged) or informal communications about SAO and FTJ refugee
admissions, any such requests would be unduly burdensome and utterly irrelevant to the
question of whether Plaintiffs' challenges to the October 23, 2017, memorandum are now moot
(the only question for which discovery has been authorized). Moreover, Defendants
strenuously disagree with Plaintiffs' assertion that the request "seeks guidance documents
directed to the administration of the US RAP generally, to the extent such documents relate to

Plaintiffs whose claims have been mooted out by subsequent events. And given Plaintiffs"
allegations and statements in declarations to the effect that some named Plaintiffs or their famil y
members have waited years for admission under the USRAP, it is puzzling that Plaintiffs would
attempt to invoke the "transitory claim exception" to avoid dismissal on mootness grounds. See
Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081 , 1090 (9th Cir. 2011) ("[S]ome claims are so
inherently transitory that the trial court will not have even enough time to rule on a motion for
class certification before the proposed representative's individual interest expires." (citation
omitted)).

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 164 of 223
-6-

processing of applications and admission to the United States from SAO countries and followto-join refugees that have been in effect at any time since October 23, 2017." Plaintiffs appear
to be asking for any and all paper that concerns refugee processing so long as SAO and FTJ
refugee applicants are among the affected populations. But Plaintiffs did not challenge the
administration of the USRAP generally; Plaintiffs challenged portions of the October 23 , 2017,
memorandum. And Defendants' mootness argument is appropriately targeted to the policies
that Plaintiffs challenged, such that jurisdictional discovery Iikewise should be keyed to those
policies (as well as the preliminary injunction Order enjoining them). Moreover, it is
unrealistic to expect Defendants to collect, process, and produce or denote as privileged all
documents that incidentally impact the SAO and FTJ populations and that were generated over
the last year, given the narrow window for jurisdictional discovery. Accordingly, Defendants
will not accommodate Plaintiffs' vast and burdensome request but will instead produce final.
formal guidance documents concerning the processing of SAO or FTJ refugee applicants. As
noted above, Defendants have preliminarily identified over 1300 pages of material potentially
responsive to this request and RFP2. 2
2. With regard to RFP2, Defendants expect to produce documents responsive to this RFP that we
have located through our searches of appropriately identified custodians. Defendants
anticipate substantial overlap between those documents responsive to RFP2 and those
responsive to RFP I, and are tagging documents accordi ngly. Defendants wil I not create any
new documents to itemize or characterize the recipients of documents responsive to RFP I .
3. With regard to RFP3 , Defendants' letter of September I , 2018, discusses those interrogatories
to which Defendants are and are not able to respond without undue burden.

Jose
CC: Kevin Snell; Daniel Bensing; all counsel ofrecord

2

Defendants understand that Judge Robart has permitted discovery with respect to actions
taken by Defendants as a result of the 90-day SAO review and the FTJ implementation period, and
Defendants will produce responsive documents, notwithstanding Defendants' position that
Plaintiffs' claims, by their obvious terms, are directed to portions of the October 23, 2017,
memorandum only. However, nothing in Judge Robart ' s Order requires Defendants to produce
documents concerning purely peripheral matters, such as changes earlier this year affecting which
overseas locations are technologically equipped to process FTJ applications. That said,
Defendants anticipate that our responses to Plaintiffs' interrogatories will amply inform Plaintiffs
"on the key question of how follow-to-join applications have been processed during the relevant
period."

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 165 of 223

EXHIBIT 25
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 166 of 223

From:
Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Sheehan Davis, Abigail <Abigail.Sheehan@skadden.com>
Friday, September 28, 2018 9:14 AM
'Snell, Kevin (CIV)'; Dugan, Joseph (CIV); Melissa Keaney; Kornreich, Mollie; Aguiar, Lauren E;
'mhirose@refugeerights.org'; Linda Evarts; 'Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie)
(DBurman@perkinscoie.com)'; 'Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie) (CSepe@perkinscoie.com)'; 'Tana Lin
(tlin@KellerRohrback.com)'; 'Emily Chiang (echiang@aclu-wa.org)'; 'Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@acluwa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)'; 'Deepa Alagesan'; 'Liz.Sweet@hias.Org'; 'Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org';
'Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)'; 'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org'; 'Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)'; 'Alison
Gaffney'; MacNeil, Madeleine P; jcox@refugeerights.org
Bensing, Daniel (CIV); DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com
RE: [Ext] RE: Doe, JFS: privilege log

Dear Joe and Kevin, 
  
We write in connection with your September 14, 2018 document production and the updated privilege log that we 
received Tuesday.    
  
In reviewing the privilege log, we noticed that no documents are listed as being withheld entirely based on 
privilege.  Defendants have raised multiple times in the past the fact that, for example, they planned to assert the 
executive privilege and had a robust internal vetting process for doing so to withhold documents from production.  For 
instance, in Defendants' General Objection 1 to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production ("RFPs"), Defendants 
objected to producing documents based on, among other things, "any form of executive privilege."  Defendants also 
highlighted in their September 5 letter to Plaintiffs' counsel that they had a significant internal vetting process "to 
ensure that privileged or otherwise protected information is not inadvertently disclosed."  In light of these comments, 
we are concerned that there are no documents on the privilege log that are listed as being entirely withheld based the 
executive privilege.  As you are aware, Defendants have an obligation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A) to include in 
their privilege log not only redacted documents, but also documents that have been fully withheld based on an assertion 
of privilege.  Please confirm whether any documents were in fact withheld in their entirety, and if so, please provide an 
additional, supplemental log promptly, reflecting any such documents and the basis upon which they were withheld, 
including (but not limited to) those based on a claim of executive privilege, attorney‐client privilege, or as attorney work 
product. 
  
Relatedly, please confirm that Defendants did not rely on the executive privilege—or any other privilege—as a basis to 
avoid collecting and/or reviewing any potentially responsive documents. 
  
Separately, in Defendants' first objection to the definitions in Plaintiffs' first set of RFPs, Defendants stated that they 
would respond to our RFPs "by producing material held by custodians that Defendants identify at the U.S. Department 
of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of State, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."  To date, we 
have received no documents from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; moreover, it is unclear which 
components of DHS and the State Department were searched.  As Mollie Kornreich noted in a letter to Defendants' 
counsel on August 30, 2018, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, "[a]ll Defendants . . . are required to conduct a reasonable 
search for any responsive documents in their possession, custody or control" (emphasis added).  Ms. Kornreich also 
asked that Defendants "confirm that Defendants are identifying appropriate custodians at the relevant sub‐
agencies."  To allow Plaintiffs to determine whether Defendants have complied with their duties pursuant to the Federal 
Rules, please provide the names of all custodians whose documents were searched, along with the agencies or sub‐
agencies with which they are affiliated, as well as any potential custodians who were considered and omitted as 
custodians.   
  
1

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 167 of 223
We are available to meet and confer about any of the above, but based on the expedited nature of discovery in this 
case, we request that we do so by Monday, October 1. 
  
Regards, 
Abby 
 
Abigail Sheehan Davis  
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Four Times Square   New York   10036-6522
T: 212.735.3579   F: 917.777.3579
abigail.sheehan@skadden.com 

2

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 168 of 223

EXHIBIT 26
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 169 of 223

From:
Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Dugan, Joseph (CIV) <Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov>
Tuesday, October 2, 2018 5:00 PM
Sheehan Davis, Abigail; Melissa Keaney; Kornreich, Mollie; Aguiar, Lauren E;
'mhirose@refugeerights.org'; Linda Evarts; 'Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie)
(DBurman@perkinscoie.com)'; 'Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie) (CSepe@perkinscoie.com)'; 'Tana Lin
(tlin@KellerRohrback.com)'; 'Emily Chiang (echiang@aclu-wa.org)'; 'Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@acluwa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)'; 'Deepa Alagesan'; 'Liz.Sweet@hias.Org'; 'Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org';
'Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)'; 'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org'; 'Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)'; 'Alison
Gaffney'; MacNeil, Madeleine P; jcox@refugeerights.org; DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com
Bensing, Daniel (CIV); Dugan, Joseph (CIV); Snell, Kevin (CIV)
RE: [Ext] RE: Doe, JFS: privilege log

Dear Abby, et al., 
 
Thanks for your e‐mail of Friday 9/28. 
 
Regarding your first question about the privilege log, I can confirm that, with one exception (an audio/visual file that we 
will address in a separate e‐mail), Defendants have produced, with appropriate redactions, all documents responsive to 
RFPs 1‐2 that Defendants located through our reasonable search efforts.  As we indicated in our objections (served 8/22) 
and reiterated in our letter of 9/5, we have not searched for records held by White House custodians, and we likewise 
have not searched for draft documents or deliberative materials.  Rather, as we made clear in our previous 
communications, we searched for and produced final, formal guidance documents concerning the processing of SAO and 
FTJ refugee applicants.  The approach we have taken is consistent with the plain language of RFP1, which seeks “policies, 
directives, instructions, guidelines, guidance, advisals, cables, notices, training, memoranda and other similar 
Documents,” rather than draft or deliberative communications.  
 
Judge Robart’s July 27, 2018, Order did not authorize the vast and open‐ended discovery to which Plaintiffs have alluded 
on several occasions.  And it would be utterly impracticable and unduly burdensome for Defendants to conduct such a 
sweeping search during the narrow three‐month window that Judge Robart opened for limited jurisdictional 
discovery.  Moreover, internal, deliberative materials are unlikely to bear on the questions pending before the Court, 
i.e., whether Plaintiffs’ challenges to long‐defunct policies are moot and whether Defendants have complied with the 
Court’s preliminary injunction Order.  The only documents that are likely to bear on those questions are the documents 
we have produced—the final, formal guidance documents that show unequivocally that we complied with the injunction 
and no longer maintain any semblance of a “ban” on processing/admissions of SAO and FTJ refugee applicants.  If the 
documents left any doubt (which they do not), our responses to Plaintiffs’ first round of interrogatories demonstrate 
that we have continued processing these refugee applicants throughout the past year.  We note that compilation of 
those interrogatory responses required a tremendous lift by our agency partners:  the State Department’s Bureau of 
Population, Refugees, and Migration alone spent nearly 200 hours gathering and compiling that data. 
 
Regarding your second question about custodians, we note first our disagreement that Plaintiffs are entitled to 
“determine whether Defendants have complied with their duties pursuant to the Federal Rules.”  Respectfully, it is for 
the Court alone to determine (in the event of a dispute) whether Defendants have complied with our obligations.  That 
disagreement aside, you will recall that Plaintiffs previously requested information about the identities of Defendants’ 
custodians, and Defendants invited Plaintiffs in our 9/5 letter to provide some binding authority that would require us to 
disclose this information.  Plaintiffs have not done so.  Nevertheless, in our continued effort to resolve discovery 
disputes amicably, Defendants voluntarily provide the following information about the three agencies (and their 
components) that participated in the search: 
 
1

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 170 of 223
ODNI 
Attorneys at ODNI and subject‐matter experts at ODNI’s National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) studied Plaintiffs’ 
discovery requests and determined that no individual or office at ODNI likely possesses responsive 
materials.  Accordingly, ODNI has not produced any materials. 
 
State Department 
Because refugee‐related guidance is disseminated in specific ways to the State Department’s implementing agencies 
(i.e., the Resettlement Support Centers) and consular posts, subject‐matter experts at the Bureau of Population, 
Refugees, and Migration (“PRM”) and the Bureau of Consular Affairs (“CA”) were able to accurately identify the locations 
of final and formal guidance disseminated during the relevant period.  At PRM, the personnel involved in the search for 
such guidance materials were Jennifer Smith, Overseas Section Chief for Refugee Admissions, and Delicia Spruell, 
Program Officer for Refugee Admissions.  Also involved in the process of reviewing and responding to the request was 
Hilary Ingraham, Director of the Refugee Processing Center.  At CA, Adam Scarlatelli, Visa Policy Analyst with the Visa 
Office’s Office of Field Operations / Immigration and Employment Division, was involved in the search for guidance 
materials, and Joel Nantais, Director of the Visa Office’s Domestic Operations, was involved in the process of reviewing 
and responding to the request. 
 
DHS/USCIS 
The following personnel conducted targeted searches of e‐mail and other records based on their best judgment as to 
where potentially responsive materials were reasonably likely to be located: 
 Eissa Villasenor, HQ Policy Officer, Refugee Affairs Division 
 Sara Leary, HQ Policy Officer, Refugee Affairs Division 
 Jennifer Micker, HQ Policy Officer, Refugee Affairs Division 
 Maura Nicholson, Deputy Chief (and Acting Chief as of 2/5/18), International Operations 
 Deborah Benedict, Acting Deputy Chief as of 2/7/18, International Operations 
The following personnel did not provide documents after determining that any of their potentially responsive materials 
would have been duplicative of materials covered by the above: 
 Joanna Ruppel, Chief, Refugee Affairs Division 
 Mary Margaret Stone, Deputy Chief, Refugee Affairs Division 
 Anne Chiorazzi, Branch Chief for Policy, Refugee Affairs Division 
 
I believe this e‐mail addresses the concerns that you raised in your last communication.  If you would like to discuss 
further, please propose some dates/times, and we will see if we can find a mutually convenient time for a phone 
conversation. 
 
Best, 
Joe 
 
Joseph C. Dugan 
Trial Attorney 
United States Department of Justice 
Civil Division   Federal Programs Branch 
1100 L Street NW, Room 11212 
Washington, D.C. 20530 
(202) 514‐3259 (phone)   (202) 616‐8470 (fax) 
Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov 
 

2

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 171 of 223

EXHIBIT 27
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 172 of 223

DIRECT DIAL

(212) 735-3579
DIRECT FAX

(917) 777-3579
EMAIL ADDRESS

Abigail.sheehan@PROBONOLAW.COM

October 4, 2018

BY EMAIL
Joseph C. Dugan
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Bench
20 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Rm. 7330
Washington, D.C. 20530
Re: John Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. C17-0178-JLR and
Jewish Family Service, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. C17-1707-JLR
Dear Mr. Dugan:
We write on behalf of Plaintiffs in the above-captioned actions (“Plaintiffs”)
regarding Defendants’ emails dated October 2, 2018 concerning Defendants’ first
productions of documents (the “Production”) in response to JFS and Doe Plaintiffs’
First Set of Requests for Production to Defendants (the “First RFP”), as well as to
address several deficiencies in the Production.
Before getting to the particular issues, we wanted to register our
disagreement with the assertion in one of your emails of October 2 that the discovery
produced thus far establishes that these consolidated cases are moot. Indeed, while
our review is ongoing, we have significant concerns about what we have processed
thus far (including concerns about how the documents compare with representations
Defendants have made to the Court). We will surely continue the conversation about
mootness soon, but we wanted to preview our position.
As a related prefatory matter, and as we have said before, we understand and
appreciate that Defendants and their employees have expended resources, sometimes
on weekends, to comply with their discovery obligations. Our communications to
date strongly suggest that much of Defendants’ protestations about the appropriate
scope of discovery stem from an erroneously narrow view of the factual matters

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 173 of 223
Joseph C. Dugan
October 4, 2018
Page 2

relevant to the legal question of mootness, and it seems unlikely that we will reach a
shared understanding on that issue. Nonetheless, we did want to reiterate our
willingness to discuss ways in which we can get the jurisdictional discovery to which
we are entitled without imposing any undue burden on Defendants and their counsel.
1. Missing documents. First, as we reviewed Defendants’ Production, we
noticed that there are several documents referred to in certain produced documents
that were not themselves produced (the “Missing Documents”). The chart below
describes the Missing Documents and where they are referred to elsewhere in the
Production. Please either (1) produce the Missing Documents or (2) provide the
legal basis for their non-production.
Title of Missing Document

Response to Query: New
Requirements for Interviewing
Derivative Applicants
RAIO Combined Training
Course Discretion -- RAD
Supplement

Where Discussed (Bates #)
Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000163; DoeJFS_USCIS_00000366; DoeJFS_USCIS_00000368
Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000163; DoeJFS_USCIS_00000366; DoeJFS_USCIS_00000368
Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000163; DoeJFS_USCIS_00000366; DoeJFS_USCIS_00000368
Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000163; DoeJFS_USCIS_00000366; DoeJFS_USCIS_00000368

I-730 Adjudication SOP

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000021

Holds SOP

Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000004

USRAP Overseas Processing
Manual

Doe-JFS_State_00000007; DoeJFS_State_00000009
Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000171; DoeJFS_USCIS_00000172; DoeJFS_USCIS_00000180; DoeJFS_USCIS_00000182; DoeJFS_USCIS_00000202

CARRP SOP

CARRP Lines of Inquiry

Digital Approval SOP

attachment to email: Cleared
SAOs for Review (PTA).xlsx
attachment to email: Cleared
SAOs for Review (BGK).xlsx
attachment to email: Cleared
SAOs for Review (NEP).xlsx

Doe-JFS_State_00000206
Doe-JFS_State_00000207
Doe-JFS_State_00000208

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 174 of 223
Joseph C. Dugan
October 4, 2018
Page 3

attachment to email: Cleared
SAOs for Review (NRB).xlsx
attachment to email: Cleared
SAOs for Review (MOS).xlsx
attachment to email: Cleared
SAOs for Review (IST).xlsx
attachment to email: Cleared
SAOs for Review (VIE).xlsx
attachment to email: RE:
Enhanced FDNS Review [redacted]

Doe-JFS_State_00000209
Doe-JFS_State_00000210
Doe-JFS_State_00000211
Doe-JFS_State_00000212
Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000475

Relatedly, there appear to be multiple emails missing from Defendants’
production despite the fact that they would have been responsive to the First RFP.
For instance, Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000353 was produced, but it appears that none of
the lesser-included emails were produced. Yet, with regard to many other email
chains, Defendants chose to produce separately each message on that chain. The
inconsistent treatment of email chains is puzzling, and an explanation would be
helpful.
2. Documents with technical issues. Second, the pages listed below appear
to have technical issues, and we ask that they be re-produced in a format that permits
all of their contents to be seen.
Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000269
Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000277
Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000301
Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000315
Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000316
Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000317
Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000335
Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000350
3. Redactions not appearing on a privilege log. Third, we are concerned
about the number and nature of the redactions that are not reflected in a privilege log.
From our communications in late August, Plaintiffs understood that Defendants
would be redacting the following non-privileged information, subject to Plaintiffs’
right to object: email addresses and phone numbers; names of law enforcement and
other personnel employed by the agencies’ third-party implementing partners in the
field; and personally identifiable information PII protected by the Privacy Act.

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 175 of 223
Joseph C. Dugan
October 4, 2018
Page 4

A significant number of the redactions that do not appear on a privilege log
plainly do not fit it any of these categories. The email chain that starts at DoeJFS_USCIS_00000156, to pick one example, does not appear on a privilege log, yet
contains two large blocks of redacted text that seem exceedingly unlikely to fit any
of the aforementioned categories.
Several other documents make clear that Defendants redacted all or most
information relating to individual refugees, but without any claim of privilege. See,
e.g., Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000120. But that information does not fit any of the
categories Defendants said they would be redacting, either. As you likely know, as a
legal matter, the Privacy Act does not apply to refugees. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(2).
And while a past administration had extended some Privacy Act protections to
refugees as a policy matter, last year Defendants took a number of affirmative steps
to strip those protections from refugees and other non-citizens. On January 25, 2017,
President Trump signed Executive Order 13768, which ordered executive agencies to
“ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United States citizens
or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding
personally identifiable information.” Less than a month later, on February 20, thenSecretary John Kelly issued a memorandum implementing that directive for the
Department of Homeland Security. Setting aside the propriety of these decisions as
a policy matter, in light of them, we believe it would be particularly inappropriate for
Defendants to invoke the Privacy Act to justify redacting information related to
refugees, and so Plaintiffs request that Defendants re-produce the documents with
that information un-redacted.1
In addition, and in order to ensure that we understand the basis for all of the
redactions that are not listed on a privilege log, please explain the nature and basis of
all such redactions, including of email addresses, phone numbers, and names of law
enforcement and other personnel employed by the agencies’ third-party
implementing partners in the field.
4. Documents withheld or redacted as “law enforcement sensitive.”
Fourth, Defendants have claimed a law enforcement privilege, and withheld or
redacted documents on its basis, far more extensively than seems reasonably
justifiable, which has the effect of making the documents Defendants produced far
less comprehensible than they would otherwise be.

1

Plaintiffs are not insensitive to possible privacy concerns, and therefore are willing to commit to
redacting any personally identifying information of non-client refugees should Plaintiffs file any of
the documents with the Court, and Plaintiffs are willing to stipulate to a protective order to that effect.

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 176 of 223
Joseph C. Dugan
October 4, 2018
Page 5

As an initial matter, it is obvious that Defendants claimed the privilege for
information that is already in the public domain (such as, but not limited to, the
identity of the countries on the SAO list), typically on the asserted ground that
revealing the (already-public) information “could compromise the agencies’ law
enforcement missions, as applicants might not provide information or might answer
questions evasively.” With regard to the countries on the SAO list specifically, not
only has it been widely publicized in the news, but Defendants’ counsel publicly
conceded to the Court that it could rely on those public reports. We are unaware of
any precedent, binding or otherwise, that would support the application of the law
enforcement privilege in comparable circumstances. If Defendants are, we ask that
they bring it to our attention; otherwise, we ask that the documents be re-produced
without these redactions.
More generally, we are concerned that Defendants seem to have applied an
unduly broad understanding of the law enforcement privilege, using it to justify
redacting even trivial matters, like the names of particular security checks or
databases. The disclosure of such information cannot reasonably be expected to
compromise any law enforcement mission, and redacting it makes the documents
(and therefore Defendants’ actions) materially less comprehensible.
Compounding matters is that the privilege log provided by Defendants
generally lacks the kind of detail necessary for us to evaluate the claim of privilege2
or for Defendants to carry their burden of justifying it. See, e.g., Wagafe v. Trump,
No. 2:17-CV-00094-RAJ, 2017 WL 5989162, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 28, 2017)
(government’s justification “that releasing the identities of potential class members
could lead individuals to potentially alter their behavior, conceal evidence of
wrongdoing, or attempt to influence others in a way that could affect national
security interests” was “a vague, brief explanation that consists of mere speculation
and a hypothetical result is not sufficient to claim privilege.”).
In light of the foregoing, we respectfully request that Defendants take another
look at the documents and reconsider their claims of the law enforcement privilege.
After that reconsideration, we ask that Defendants re-produce those documents that
have redactions that Defendants are willing to remove, and, for those claims of
privilege they are willing to defend to Judge Robart, to supplement their privilege
log with a more detailed explanation of the nature of the withheld information and
why it merits the privilege. Moreover, to the extent Defendants are concerned about

2

In that regard, we note that the law enforcement privilege is qualified, not absolute, and “[t]he public
interest in nondisclosure must be balanced against the need of a particular litigant for access to the
privileged information.” Wagafe v. Trump, No. 2:17-CV-00094-RAJ, 2017 WL 5989162, at *2
(W.D. Wash. Nov. 28, 2017).

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 177 of 223
Joseph C. Dugan
October 4, 2018
Page 6

particular information being made public, Plaintiffs are willing to enter into an
appropriate protective order, which further militates against application of the
privilege. See, e.g., Bonds v. City of Lakewood, No. C11-5100BHS, 2012 WL
441158, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2012).
5. Documents redacted pursuant to the deliberative process privilege.
We are similarly concerned about Defendants’ application of the deliberative process
privilege to redact information from four documents listed on the privilege log (two
of which are wholly or entirely duplicative).
As I am sure you know, to be eligible for this privilege, “a document must be
both (1) ‘predecisional’ or ‘antecedent to the adoption of agency policy’ and
(2) ‘deliberative,’ meaning ‘it must actually be related to the process by which
policies are formulated.’” United States v. Fernandez, 231 F.3d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (citation omitted). Even if it meets this definition, a document loses its
deliberative quality to the extent that it reflects the “the agency’s effective law and
policy.” ACLU of N. Cal. v. DOJ, 880 F.3d 473, 490 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting NLRB
v. Sears, Roebuck & Co, 421 U.S. 132, 150 (1975)). Finally, even where it applies,
the deliberative process privilege is a qualified one. FTC v. Warner Comms., Inc.,
742 F.2d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 1984).
Based on the information provided in the privilege log, none of the
documents over which Defendants have claimed this privilege warrant its protection,
and for multiple reasons. Not only do they appear to be implementing previouslymade policy decisions by superiors—making them neither predecisional nor
deliberative—but it is also plain from their context that the redacted information
embodies what the agency actually did, thereby destroying any “deliberative” quality
it may have arguably had. See NLRB, 421 U.S. at 150; ACLU of N. Cal., 880 F.3d at
490; Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep’t of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 866 (D.C. Cir.
1980).
Relatedly, Plaintiffs do not agree that the deliberative process privilege
constitutes a basis to withhold the webinar referred to in your email sent October 2,
2018 at 5:05 PM. That said, to eliminate possible issues of burden or privilege
concerns, Plaintiffs are willing to accept in place of the webinar, a transcript of the
webinar, which Defendants could redact in accordance with any relevant privilege.
Plaintiffs of course reserve the right to object to any such privilege claim.
As with the law enforcement privilege, we respectfully request that
Defendants reconsider the redactions made pursuant to the deliberative process
privilege; to re-produce those documents that have redactions that Defendants are
willing to remove; and, for those claims of privilege they are willing to defend to

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 178 of 223
Joseph C. Dugan
October 4, 2018
Page 7

Judge Robart, to supplement their privilege log with a more detailed explanation of
the nature of the withheld information and why it merits protection of the privilege.
Here, too, if an appropriate protective order would allay Defendants’ concerns, we
are willing to consider it.
6. Scope of Defendants’ search. We also disagree with Defendants about
several matters relating to their search for records responsive to the First RFP.
We cannot agree to Defendants’ position, articulated in one of your emails of
October 2, that they can categorically refuse to search for what you referred to as
“deliberative materials.” As you are aware, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b)(5)(A) requires Defendants to include in a privilege log any documents that
have been fully withheld on the basis of any privilege. Defendants’ refusal to even
search for, let alone review and produce an appropriate privilege log for, documents
they assert are subject to privileged treatment (including pursuant to the deliberative
process privilege), violates their discovery obligations under the Federal Rules.
More fundamentally, we are baffled and concerned by your implicit assertion
that Defendants can somehow know that a document is entitled to the protections of
the deliberative process privilege before they have even searched for and reviewed it.
As explained supra, whether a document merits the privilege is a legal
determination, and one that turns on document-specific facts. The assertion that
Defendants can make such a legal determination on any type of categorical basis is
deeply concerning.
Similarly, we cannot agree to Defendants’ position that they need not
produce information from the heads of certain agencies, sub-agencies, and offices,
including Joanna Ruppel, Mary Margaret Stone, and Anne Chiorazzi, and others
responsible for actually making, communicating, and implementing the decisions at
issue in this case, on the basis that any potentially responsive materials would have
been duplicative of materials produced by other custodians. Without having searched
through these custodians’ documents and electronically-stored information (“ESI”),
it is difficult to understand how Defendants can state that they have no unique, nonduplicative potentially responsive material.
Plaintiffs also disagree that Defendants are not obligated to search the
documents and ESI of White House custodians for potentially responsive
information. However, Plaintiffs are willing to agree to forego document collection
and production from White House custodians if Defendants agree to produce
responsive documents and ESI from the individuals in the preceding paragraph; any
other official of the Defendant agencies involved in the implementation of the Joint
Memorandum, underlying executive order, and/or Judge Robart’s preliminary

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 179 of 223
Joseph C. Dugan
October 4, 2018
Page 8

injunction; and those agency officials who communicated with any White House
official regarding the Joint Memorandum, these consolidated lawsuits, or Judge
Robart’s preliminary injunction.
In light of the impending close of discovery in these actions, we look forward
to your prompt reply, and are available to meet and confer about any of the above.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Abigail E. Davis
Abigail E. Davis

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 180 of 223

EXHIBIT 28
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 181 of 223

Subject: no#ce of a claim under the s#pulated order pursuant Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) (ECF No. 160)
Date: Friday, October 12, 2018 at 11:37:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Snell, Kevin (CIV)
To:
jcox@refugeerights.org, Melissa Keaney, Snell, Kevin (CIV), 'Sepe, Cris#na (Perkins Coie)', Bensing,
Daniel (CIV), Dugan, Joseph (CIV)
CC:
'Aguiar, Lauren E', 'Sheehan Davis, Abigail', mhirose@refugeerights.org, Linda Evarts, 'Burman,
David J. (Perkins Coie)', 'Tana Lin', 'Emily Chiang', lnowlin@aclu-wa.org, 'Deepa Alagesan',
Liz.Sweet@hias.Org, Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org, 'Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)',
'Mark.He`ield@hias.Org', 'Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)', 'Alison Gaffney', 'MacNeil, Madeleine P',
DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com
Counsel,
We hereby provide you with a no#ce of a claim under the s#pulated order pursuant Federal Rule of Evidence
502(d) (ECF No. 160) over the following documents that were inadvertently produced to you without
appropriate redac#ons:    
Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000257-64
Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000266-74
Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000277-85
Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000369-72
Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000497-508
Defendants are re-producing the above-referenced documents today with appropriate redac#ons. 
Specifically, Defendants have redacted inadvertently released material in Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000257-64,
00000266-74, and 00000277-85 pursuant to the law-enforcement privilege because that material reveals
informa#on about the names of countries on a list that would trigger an SAO for a refugee applicant.  Also
pursuant to that privilege, Defendants have redacted inadvertently released material in DoeJFS_USCIS_00000369-72 because that material refers to sensi#ve procedures that the agency uses for vehng
refugees.  Publica#on of either set of informa#on could compromise the agencies’ law enforcement missions,
as refugee applicants might not provide informa#on or might answer ques#ons evasively to avoid screening
measures.  Finally, Defendants have redacted inadvertently released material in Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000497508 because that material is personally iden#fiable informa#on that is case specific to individual refugee
applicants.  Thus, it is not responsive and falls outside the scope of the discovery permiked by the Court’s
July 27, 2018, Order.
We request that you destroy all of the ini#ally released versions of the documents referenced herein, and
that you cer#fy to us that all of your copies have been destroyed.  We further request that you sequester and
destroy any notes taken about the material that is now redacted.  If you disclosed the informa#on specified
herein, we request that you take reasonable steps to retrieve it and destroy it, and that you no#fy us of that
disclosure and your efforts to retrieve and destroy the informa#on.    
 
Thank you,
 
Kevin Snell
Trial Akorney
U.S. Department of Department of Jus#ce
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
202.305.0924

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 182 of 223

EXHIBIT 29
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 183 of 223

Subject:
Date:
From:
To:
CC:

Doe v. Trump and JFS v. Trump
Friday, August 17, 2018 at 7:30:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Kornreich, Mollie
'Dugan, Joseph (CIV)', Snell, Kevin (CIV), Bensing, Daniel (CIV)
Aguiar, Lauren E, Sheehan Davis, Abigail, 'mhirose@refugeerights.org', Linda Evarts, 'Burman,
David J. (Perkins Coie) (DBurman@perkinscoie.com)', 'Sepe, CrisTna (Perkins Coie)
(CSepe@perkinscoie.com)', 'Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)', 'Emily Chiang
(echiang@aclu-wa.org)', 'Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)', Melissa
Keaney, 'Deepa Alagesan', Liz.Sweet@hias.Org, Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org, 'Staniar, Lauren
(Perkins Coie)', Mark.He\ield@hias.Org, Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie), Alison Gaffney,
MacNeil, Madeleine P
AGachments: First Set of Interrogatories.pdf
Joe, Kevin and Dan,
Thanks for your email.  Regarding the second point, once you have finalized your search methodology and
determined whether you will use keyword searches, we would appreciate if you could confirm that
defendants have searched for responsive emails and provide any search terms to us.  Also, please let us know
whether you will be searching other forms of electronic communicaTon, such as Slack, to the extent they are
used.
Regarding the third point, it sounds like the parTes are generally in agreement, and we are fine with your
caveat on InstrucTon 13.  With respect to the metadata referenced in InstrucTon 12, we agree that Bates
range and Bates start/stop fields are not both necessary.  File Ttle and file name are not idenTcal fields,
however, and may vary for any given document.  If you have an objecTon to providing both fields, we are
happy to discuss that, but they are not redundant.  Further, in response to your quesTon regarding
instrucTon two and redacTons, we agree that it is likely easiest to place the explanatory text on the
document itself, if that works for you.
Regarding the fourth point, adached please find JFS and Joseph Doe's First Set of Interrogatories.  While we
believe RFP 3 is appropriately proporTonal as draeed, in an adempt to resolve the parTes' disagreement
regarding the breadth of these requests, these interrogatories seek a narrower subset of data than we
requested in RFP 3.  As discussed, if you have insight from the relevant agencies regarding the relaTve burden
of responding to these Interrogatories, we would appreciate if you could tell us as soon as possible.  We
would also appreciate if defendants could respond to these Interrogatories no later than September 14.
Finally, regarding the fieh point, aeer giving the mader further thought we do not believe that the
government is enTtled to seek jurisdicTonal or any other discovery at this Tme.  The July 27 Order specifically
addressed and granted plainTffs' moTon for limited discovery to "allow PlainTffs the opportunity to conduct
limited jurisdicTonal discovery on the issue of mootness."  (July 27 Order at 28.)  The Order does not
contemplate defendants pursuing discovery, and defendants have never moved for or otherwise explained
the necessity of any such discovery. 
Regards,
Mollie
From: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) [mailto:Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 6:23 PM
To: Kornreich, Mollie (NYC); Snell, Kevin (CIV); Bensing, Daniel (CIV)

Page 1 of 5

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 184 of 223
Cc: Aguiar, Lauren E (NYC); Sheehan Davis, Abigail (NYC); 'mhirose@refugeerights.org'; 'Linda Evarts
(levarts@refugeerights.org)'; 'Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie) (DBurman@perkinscoie.com)'; 'Sepe, Cristina
(Perkins Coie) (CSepe@perkinscoie.com)'; 'Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)'; 'Emily Chiang (echiang@acluwa.org)'; 'Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)'; Melissa Keaney (keaney@nilc.org); 'Deepa
Alagesan'; Liz.Sweet@hias.Org; Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org; 'Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)';
Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org; Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie); Alison Gaffney; MacNeil, Madeleine P (NYC)
Subject: [Ext] RE: Doe v. Trump and JFS v. Trump

 
Dear Mollie, et al.,
 
Thanks for your e-mail of Saturday 8/11.  We write to respond and clarify a few points.
 
With respect to your first point, it is correct that Defendants hope to produce materials on a rolling basis but
cannot guarantee the number of documents, if any, we will produce before the 9/14 esTmated producTon
date that we represented in our August 7, 2018, leder.  Obviously, if Defendants are sTll producing
documents on 9/14, it would be exceedingly challenging for us to put together an accurate privilege log for
release that same day.  To that end, we appreciate PlainTffs’ suggesTon of a joint moTon to extend the
discovery moTons deadline by two weeks (an extension that should sTll allow all discovery to be completed
within the 90 days permided under Judge Robart’s Order).  I see that you have circulated today a drae of that
joint moTon.  We will respond to that drae by separate cover.
 
With respect to your second point, I believe the parTes may have a slight misunderstanding.  I did not intend
to convey, and did not state on the call, that Defendants have decided not to run keyword searches.  What I
stated was that at this point Defendants are focusing on targeted searches and have not yet determined
whether any keyword searches will be necessary.  I’m not currently in a posiTon to provide an explanaTon of
our search methodology, as we are sTll in the document-gathering phase of this discovery.  However, from
what my agency colleagues have told me, I expect e-mail communicaTons will be among the documents
produced as responsive to RFP1.
 
With respect to your third point, I have followed up with our document producTon experts at FPB.  Without
waiving any further objecTons we may idenTfy going forward, here is our preliminary take:  We agree with
InstrucTon 9.  We generally agree with InstrucTon 10, though we are assessing whether it is pracTcable for us
to tag individual documents for responsiveness to parTcular RFPs.  We agree with InstrucTon 12, with two
caveats:  (1) Bates range is redundant of Bates start/stop fields and will not be separately provided; (2) file
Ttle seems redundant of file name and will not be separately provided.  We agree with InstrucTon 13, but
would add the following language (which I will also flag in my objecTons next week):  “Should a document or
file that would be produced in naTve format require redacTon, the producing party shall determine if the
document or file can be produced as an image file with redacTons applied or other reasonable method to
produce the document or file with all applicable redacTons.”
 
AddiTonally, we note that InstrucTon 2 is ambiguous in that it is unclear whether PlainTffs contemplate that
Defendants will state the reason for redacTon on the document itself or in a separate redacTon log.  We can
use either approach, though it might be simpler just to place the explanatory text on the document itself. 
But let us know your thoughts.
 
With respect to your fourth point, I think we will have to agree to disagree about the propriety of RFP3 as a
request for producTon.  Based on my preliminary conversaTons with agency counsel, I doubt that much of
the requested info exists in readily producible form.  And as you noted in your e-mail, Defendants’ primary
concern goes to proporTonality, parTcularly in light of Judge Robart’s admoniTon that this jurisdicTonal
discovery should be narrowly craeed.  Frankly, that proporTonality concern applies regardless whether the
request is labeled as an RFP or an interrogatory.  For that reason, we appreciate your group’s willingness to
take another look and see whether there are any data points that might not be essenTal from your
perspecTve.  As I stated on the call, our group is also conferring both internally and with our agency clients to
Page 2 of 5

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 185 of 223
perspecTve.  As I stated on the call, our group is also conferring both internally and with our agency clients to
see what data we think we might reasonably be able to obtain and produce, and we will provide you with
addiTonal informaTon once we have it.
 
One other, related point:  Defendants disagree that the request falls within the default numerical limit for
interrogatories.  While it is true as a general mader that each plainTff in mulTparty liTgaTon can seek
discovery from each defendant, here the request is styled as one propounded on behalf of all PlainTffs
seeking informaTon from all Defendants.  In such situaTons, courts have counted interrogatories propounded
by mulTple liTgants against each such liTgant.  E.g., Neill v. All Pride Fitness of Washougal, LLC, No. C085424RJB, 2009 WL 10676369, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 21, 2009) (“The interrogatories served . . . were, by
their language, directed by all plainTffs to all defendants, and were clearly in excess of the 25 interrogatories
allowed by the rule.  PlainTffs adempt to finesse the rule by arguing that each plainTff gets 25
interrogatories, but they did not submit individual interrogatories for individual plainTffs.”).  So, as you are
thinking about how you might reframe RFP3, we would appreciate it if you would take into account the
default rules under the FRCP as well as Judge Robart’s proporTonality guidance.
 
With respect to your fieh and final point, Defendants have not yet determined whether we intend to seek
jurisdicTonal discovery.  To be clear, however, I wasn’t asking PlainTffs to prospecTvely assess whether you
might object to our discovery; rather, I was asking whether PlainTffs agree or disagree that the Government
is enTtled to seek jurisdicTonal discovery just as PlainTffs are enTtled to do under Judge Robart’s Order.  Any
acknowledgment by you that we are enTtled to seek discovery would not amount to a concession that any
parTcular discovery request we might propound is proper.  I just want to get a sense for whether we need to
file a contested moTon before even propounding discovery, in the event we decide it is in the Government’s
interest for us to do so.  I hope that clarifies my quesTon.
 
If you have any immediate quesTons about the above, feel free to reach out.  Otherwise, we will be in touch
once we have any meaningful informaTon to share about RFP3 (and, regardless, with our wriden objecTons
that we plan to produce on or before 8/22).
 
Best,
Joe
 
Joseph C. Dugan
Trial Adorney
United States Department of JusTce
Civil Division   Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachuseds Ave. NW, Rm. 7330
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 514-3259 (phone)   (202) 616-8470 (fax)
Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov
 
 
From: Kornreich, Mollie [mailto:mollie.kornreich@probonolaw.com] 
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2018 11:22 AM
To: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) <jdugan@CIV.USDOJ.GOV>; Snell, Kevin (CIV) <ksnell@CIV.USDOJ.GOV>; Bensing,
Daniel (CIV) <DBensing@CIV.USDOJ.GOV>
Cc: Aguiar, Lauren E <Lauren.Aguiar@probonolaw.com>; Sheehan Davis, Abigail
<Abigail.Sheehan@skadden.com>; 'mhirose@refugeerights.org' <mhirose@refugeerights.org>; 'Linda Evarts
(levarts@refugeerights.org)' <levarts@refugeerights.org>; 'Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie)
(DBurman@perkinscoie.com)' <DBurman@perkinscoie.com>; 'Sepe, CrisTna (Perkins Coie)
(CSepe@perkinscoie.com)' <CSepe@perkinscoie.com>; 'Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)'
<tlin@KellerRohrback.com>; 'Emily Chiang (echiang@aclu-wa.org)' <echiang@aclu-wa.org>; 'Lisa Nowlin
Page 3 of 5

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 186 of 223
<tlin@KellerRohrback.com>; 'Emily Chiang (echiang@aclu-wa.org)' <echiang@aclu-wa.org>; 'Lisa Nowlin
(lnowlin@aclu-wa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)' <lnowlin@aclu-wa.org>; Melissa Keaney (keaney@nilc.org)
<keaney@nilc.org>; 'Deepa Alagesan' <dalagesan@refugeerights.org>; Liz.Sweet@hias.Org;
Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org; 'Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)' <lstaniar@perkinscoie.com>;
Mark.He\ield@hias.Org; Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie) <TRoberts@perkinscoie.com>; Alison Gaffney
<agaffney@KellerRohrback.com>; MacNeil, Madeleine P <Madeleine.MacNeil@skadden.com>
Subject: Doe v. Trump and JFS v. Trump
 
Joe, Kevin and Dan,
 
We write to memorialize and follow-up on yesterday's meet and confer.
 
First, we advised that, given the current discovery moTon deadline, we cannot agree to your proposed
schedule with respect to the privilege log.  You explained that, while you will endeavor to produce
documents and any privilege log in advance of the dates in your proposed schedule and on a rolling basis,
you cannot commit to compleTon by an earlier date.  In light of your posiTon, we discussed a potenTal joint
moTon to move the discovery moTon deadline back by two weeks.  Assuming you remain amenable to this
approach, we can circulate a drae joint moTon next week. 
 
Second, in response to our suggesTon that the parTes discuss search terms, you advised that the government
is not currently intending to run search terms because, based upon your discussions to date with agency
contacts, you believe that targeted searches without the use of search terms will be appropriate to locate
responsive materials.  You offered to consider any search terms we propose.  While we are sTll considering
what, if any, search terms we might send you for consideraTon, we are surprised that you not planning on
running any, parTcularly in response to RFP 1.  For example, we are concerned that your targeted searches
may not capture instrucTons or guidance that might have been sent via email communicaTons.  We would
appreciate if you could explain your search methodology in greater detail, including what sources you are
searching for responsive material and whether the anTcipated search includes a search for communicaTons,
electronic or otherwise.
 
Third, to facilitate a smooth producTon process, we asked that you tell us the extent to which your
producTon will deviate from the instrucTons in paragraphs 9, 10, 12, and 13 of PlainTffs' RFPs.  You are
planning to share these instrucTons with your document producTon lab and will let us know, which we
appreciate.
 
Fourth, we reiterated our posiTon that RFP 3 is a proper document request, but we are amenable to reframing it as an interrogatory if that is your preference.  You restated your posiTon that the request should be
styled as an interrogatory.  We explained our view that, to the extent it is re-framed as an interrogatory, it is
well within the default numerical limit given that these RFPs are propounded by plainTffs in two cases, each
of which involves mulTple plainTffs and defendants.  You stated that your primary objecTon with regard to
RFP 3 concerns proporTonality.  We will further consider whether this RFP can be narrowed, but explained
that because we believe the request is appropriately tailored as currently draeed, it is difficult to do so
without knowing what specifically you object to and why.  You further stated that, based on further
conversaTons with the relevant agencies, you hope to have a beder understanding next week as to what data
is readily ascertainable, what aspects of the RFP are most burdensome, and what informaTon you will be
able and willing to provide.  We would appreciate if you would share with us what you learn at your earliest
convenience so we can take it into consideraTon in re-evaluaTng RFP 3.
 
Fieh, and finally, you asked whether we would object to the government seeking jurisdicTonal discovery from
plainTffs.  We responded that we would discuss it internally, which we will, but it is hard to answer without
knowing specifically what is being sought.  You were unable to provide further detail beyond saying that you
Page 4 of 5

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 187 of 223
are contemplaTng an interrogatory, rather than documents requests.  If you would like a firm answer on
whether we would object, we will require more detail.
 
Best regards,
Mollie
 
Mollie Kornreich
Four Times Square   New York   10036-6522
T: 212.735.2775   F: 917.777.2775
mollie.kornreich@probonolaw.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------****************************************************
This email and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and
may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of
this e-mail, you are hereby notified any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any
attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify
me via email at the return address contained in this message and permanently delete the original copy
and any copy of any email, and any printout thereof.
****************************************************
=========================================================================
=====
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------****************************************************
This email and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and
may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of
this e-mail, you are hereby notified any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any
attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify
me via email at the return address contained in this message and permanently delete the original copy
and any copy of any email, and any printout thereof.
****************************************************
=========================================================================
=====

Page 5 of 5

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 188 of 223

EXHIBIT 30
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 189 of 223
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

Joseph C. Dugan
Trial Attorney

Tel.: (202) 514-3259
E-mail: joseph.dugan@usdoj.gov

September 1, 2018
BY E-MAIL
Mollie Kornreich
4 Times Square
No. 41-408
New York, NY 10036
Re:

Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-00178 (W.D. Wash.); Jewish Family Service of Seattle v.
Trump, No. 2:17-01707 (W.D. Wash.)

Dear Ms. Kornreich:
As stated in Defendants’ Objections to JFS and Doe Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for
Production to Defendants at 16-17, I write to provide information about those categories of data
relevant to the jurisdictional discovery in this case that Defendants can produce without undue
burden, and those Interrogatories to which Defendants may be able to respond without undue
burden.
Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ assertion in your e-mail of August 20, 2018, that Request for
Production No. 3 (“RFP3”) from Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production is “still
pending,” Defendants will not respond to RFP3, as it is improperly styled as a document request
and is, in any event, profoundly overbroad and burdensome. Defendants appreciate Plaintiffs’
efforts to reformulate RFP3 into a series of twenty-three (23) interrogatories (“Plaintiffs’ First
Interrogatories”), and Defendants appreciate that in doing so Plaintiffs have eliminated a small
number of subparts from RFP3. Defendants also appreciate Plaintiffs’ further representation in
the August 20 e-mail that “[D]efendants can respond to the interrogatories in lieu of searching
for documents.”
That said, Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories remain substantially overbroad. As drafted,
they require Defendants to collect and synthesize internal data held by multiple components of
the Defendant agencies and to compile information, broken down on a week-by-week basis over
the course of nearly one year, across a spectrum of events and criteria relating to the U.S.
Refugee Admissions Program. Defendants cannot understand why Plaintiffs require this vast
body of information to answer the discrete question of whether Plaintiffs’ challenges to the
October 23, 2017, Memorandum to the President, as embodied in Plaintiffs’ operative
complaints, have become moot due to subsequent events. Nor do Defendants understand how
Plaintiffs’ sweeping approach to jurisdictional discovery could be reconciled with Judge

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 190 of 223
-2Robart’s requirement that Plaintiffs’ discovery requests must be “narrowly craft[ed] . . .so that
the requests are ‘proportional to the needs of the case’ in which discovery is limited to issues
pertaining to mootness.” Order Granting Mot. for Disc. & Denying Mot. to Dismiss Without
Prejudice at 29, ECF No. 155.
Despite the foregoing, without waiving any objection to be identified in Defendants’
forthcoming written responses to Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories, and in the spirit of cooperation,
Defendants offer in Attachment A an explanation of those interrogatories or portions of
interrogatories to which Defendants believe they may be equipped to respond without undue
burden in advance of the October 25, 2018, discovery deadline fixed by the Court. Defendants
contend that these anticipated responses, coupled with the documents Defendants will produce in
response to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production, would be more than adequate to
inform Plaintiffs as to whether any aspect of their claims in this consolidated action remain live
and justiciable.
Defendants have already started collecting information for their anticipated responses.
As such, and to streamline the parties’ ongoing negotiation and promote clarity, Defendants
request that Plaintiffs acknowledge their acceptance of any or all of Defendants’ anticipated
responses. Plaintiffs may signal such acceptance either by letter or by propounding superseding
interrogatories that are consistent with Defendants’ anticipated responses.
Defendants would be pleased to meet and confer with Plaintiffs at a mutually convenient
time to discuss this letter, the anticipated responses set forth in Attachment A, or other relevant
matters.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Joseph C. Dugan

CC: Kevin Snell; Dan Bensing; counsel of record

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 191 of 223
-3-

Attachment A
Note: For each anticipated response, Defendants intend to provide responsive data for the period
rnnning from October 23, 201 7, through August 27, 201 8. Defendants acknowledge Plaintiffs'
instruction that, with respect to intenogatories 1--4, 7- 9, and 11-25, Defendants should "identify
the number requested and specify how many relate to Refugees from SAO Countr·ies, how many
relate to Follow-to-Join Refugees, and any overlap in these two groups." To the extent
Defendants intend to deviate from that instruction, those planned deviations are noted below.
Defendants provide this info1mation out of a spirit of cooperation and in an effo1i to avoid
unnecessary discove1y -related motion practice. fu providing this infonnation, Defendants do not
waive any objection they may raise in their fo1thcoming written responses. The below
info1mation and Defendants' fo1thcoming responses are subject to change based on Defendants'
fuither findings and determinations as they gather relevant data and prepare their responses.

I: I dentify the number of cases
and refugees referred to the
USRAP each week.

Defendants anticipate that they can provide responsive data
with respect to refugee applicants other than FTJ refugee
applicants. 1 Because FTJ refugee applicants are not
"refened to the USRAP," this intenogato1y does not apply
to FTJ refugee applicants.

2: I dentify the number of cases
and refugees f or whom RSC
pre-screening interviews were
completed each week.

Defendants anticipate that they can provide responsive data
with respect to refugee applicants including FTJ refugee
applicants processed at the Kenya and Thailand
Resettlement Suppo1i Centers ("the RSCs"). This
inte1rngatory does not apply to FTJ refugee applicants
processed elsewhere.

3: I dentify the number of cases
and refugees f or whom security
checks were requested each
week.

Defendants anticipate that they can provide responsive data
with respect to refugee applicants including FTJ refugee
applicants processed at the RSCs. Defendants can
additionally provide data about security adviso1y opinions
requested for FTJ refugee applicants processed elsewhere.
However, Defendants cannot provide without undue burden
the requested data with respect to other types of security
checks requested for FTJ refugee applicants processed
elsewhere, given that such checks are initiated at different
stages of the FTJ adjudication process and are rnn through a
variety of systems.

1

The te1m "FTJ refugee applicants" refers herein to the intended beneficiaries (i.e. , the
petitioners' spouses and unman-ied children under age 2 1) of Fo1m 1-730 petitions filed by refugees
admitted to the United States who seek the admission of their family members pursuant to 8 U. S.C.
§ 11 57(c)(2)(A).

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 192 of 223
-4-

4: Identify the number ofcases
and refugees for whom security
checks were completed each
week.

Defendants anticipate that they can provide responsive data
with respect to refugee applicants including FTJ refugee
applicants processed at the RSCs. Defendants can
additionally provide data about security adviso1y opinions
issued for FTJ refugee applicants processed elsewhere.
However, Defendants cannot reasonably provide the
requested data with respect to other types of security checks
completed for FTJ refugee applicants processed elsewhere,
given that such checks are initiated at different stages of the
FTJ adjudication process and are nm through a variety of
systems.

Defendants anticipate that they can provide responsive data,
5: Identify the number of1-730
petitions filed each week, and of understanding that the request concerns only FTJ refogee
those, the number ofpetitions
applicants and not applicants for asylum.
corresponding to Beneficiaries
From SAO Countries.
6: Identify the number of1-730
petitions f01warded to overseas
posts each week, and of those,
the number ofpetitions
corresponding to Beneficiaries
From SAO Countries.

Defendant anticipate that they can provide th e number of
cases the National Visa Center transfe1Ted to overseas posts
on a weekly basis.

7: Identify the number of
refugee interviews completed by
Defendants and the number of
cases for which interviews were
completed each week.

Defendants anticipate that they can provide responsive data,
except that for FTJ refogee applicants processed by the
Bureau of Consular Affairs ("CA"), Defendants are unable
to provide data about interviews completed. CA can instead
provide data about first adjudications completed.

8: Identify the number of
refugee re-interviews requested
by Defendants and the number
of cases for which re-interviews
were requested each week.

Defendants have not yet determined whether or to what
extent they can provide responsive data, but Defendants are
working to resolve this question.

Defendants have not yet determined whether or to what
9: Identify the number of
refugee re-interviews completed extent they can provide responsive data, but Defendants are
working to resolve this question.
by Defendants and the number
of cases for which re-interviews
were completed each week.

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 193 of 223
- 510: For the time period since
December 23, 2017, identify the
number of Refugees from SAO
Countries and associated cases
receiving decisions relating to
their BFR status each week.

Defendants anticipate that they can provide responsive data
for the period during which BFR status was trncked.

11: Identify the number of cases
and refugees conditionally
approvedfor admission p ostinterview each week.

Defendants anticipate that they can provide responsive data
with respect to refugee applicants other than FTJ refugee
applicants. This inteITogatory does not apply to FTJ
refugees applicants.

12: Identify the number of
denials of cases and refugees
each week.

Defendants anticipate that they can provide responsive data
other than for FTJ refugee applicants processed by CA.

13: Identify the number of cases
and refugees f or whom
assurances were issued each
week.

Defendants anticipate that they can provide responsive data.

14: Identify the number of cases
and refugees who were
admitted into the United States
each week.

Defendants anticipate that they can provide responsive data.

15: Identify the total number of
cases and refugees f or whom
security checks were or are
pending on the first day of each
week (or another defined day of
each week) .

Defendants cannot provide the requested data without
undue burden. The request asks for info1mation about
pending security checks at specified moments in time, but
the relevant databases are structured to u-ack when
paii icular actions are taken or paii icular events occur; they
do not maintain historic infonnation about pending actions
in a stI11cture that is easily seai·chable. It would take
Defendants' statisticians a substantial amount of time and
resources to write queries to produce this data, and the
burden of that effo1i would be dispropo1i ional to the needs
of this case, in which discove1y is nanowly tailored and
limited to the question of mootness.

16: Identify the total number of
cases and refugees waiting f or
decision p ost-interview on the
first day ofeach week (or
another defined day of each
week) .

Defendants cannot provide the requested data without
undue burden. The request asks for info1mation about
pending post-inte1v iew decisions at specified moments in
time, but the relevant databases ai·e stmctured to u·ack when
paii iculai· actions ai·e taken or paii icular events occur; they
do not maintain historic infonnation about pending actions
in a stI11cture that is easily seai·chable. It would take

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 194 of 223
-6-

Defendants' statisticians a substantial amount of time and
resources to write queries to produce this data, and the
burden of that effo1t would be dispropo1tional to the needs
of this case, in which discove1y is naITowly tailored and
limited to the question of mootness.

17: For each week, identify the
total number of cases and
refugees whose applications
were on hold on the first day of
each week (or another defined
day ofeach week).

Defendants cannot provide the requested data without
undue burden. The request asks for info1mation about
applications on hold at specified moments in time, but the
relevant databases are strnctured to track when paiticular
actions are taken or paiticulai· events occur; they do not
maintain historic info1mation about pending actions in a
strncture that is easily searchable. It would take
Defendants' statisticians a substantial amount oftime and
resources to write queries to produce this data, and the
burden of that effo1t would be dispropo1tional to the needs
of this case, in which discove1y is naITowly tailored and
limited to the question of mootness.

18: For each week, identify the
total number of cases and
refugees ready for departure on
the first day of each week (or
another defined day of each
week) .

Defendants cannot provide the requested data without
undue burden. The request asks for info1mation about
refugee applicants "ready for departure" at specified
moments in time, but the relevant databases are structured
to tr·ack when particulai· actions ai·e taken or paiticular
events occur; they do not maintain historic info1mation
about pending actions in a structure that is easily
searchable. It would take Defendants' statisticians a
substantial ainount of time and resources to write queries to
produce this data, and the burden of that effo1t would be
dispropo1tional to the needs of this case, in which discove1y
is nairnwly tailored and limited to the question of mootness.

19: For each week, identify the
total number of cases and
refugees with assurances on the
first day ofeach week (or
another defined day of each
week) .

Defendants cannot provide the requested data without
undue burden. The request asks for info1mation about
refugee applicants with assurances at specified moments in
time, but the relevant databases are strnctured to tl'ack when
paiticulai· actions are taken or paiticular events occur; they
do not maintain historic infonnation about pending actions
in a str11cture that is easily seai·chable. It would take
Defendants' statisticians a substantial amount oftime and
resources to write queries to produce this data, and the
burden of that effo1t would be dispropo1tional to the needs
of this case, in which discove1y is naITowly tailored and
limited to the question of mootness.

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 195 of 223
-7-

20: For each week, identify the
total number of cases and
refugees in the USRAP who had
not or have not yet been
interviewed, broken down by
their countries of current
residence.

Defendants cannot provide the requested data without
undue burden. The request asks for a breakdown of cases
and refugees pending interviews on a weekly basis, but the
relevant databases are strnctured to track when particular
actions are taken or paiiicular events occur; they do not
maintain historic info1mation about pending actions in a
strncture that is easily searchable. The data would be highly
burdensome for the State Depa1iment to obtain, an d it
would be functionally impossible for USCIS to obtain
absent extraordinaiy manual effo1i , as there is no single,
global system that houses all FTJ cases or man ages eve1y
step of a given case. The burden on the agencies should
they attempt to produce this data would greatly outweigh
the needs of this case, in which discove1y is naITowly
tailored and limited to the question of mootness.

21: For the.first quarter of
Fiscal Year 2018, identify the
number of Circuit Rides
scheduled each week p rior to
the issuance of the Agency
Memo, as well as their planned
locations, durations, number of
RAIO Officers to be involved,
and number of interviews
scheduled, broken down into
cases and refugees.

Defendants anticipate that they can provide responsive data.

22. For each fiscal quarter
beginning with Fiscal Year
2016 to present, identify the
number of Circuit Rides held,
as well as their locations,
durations, number of RAIO
Officers involved, and number
of interviews scheduled p er
location, broken down into
cases and refugees.

Defendants anticipate that they can generally provide
responsive data, although Defendants may not have
comprehensive data about RAIO staffing on prior-year
circuit rides.

23: For the f ourth quarter of
Fiscal Year 2018, identify the
number of Circuit Rides
scheduled, as well as their
locations, durations, number of
RAIO Officers involved, and
number of interviews scheduled

Defendants anticipate that they can provide responsive data.

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 196 of 223
-8per location, broken down into
cases and refugees.

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 197 of 223

EXHIBIT 31
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 198 of 223

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:

Subject:

Dugan, Joseph (CIV) <Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov>
Tuesday, October 9, 2018 7:29 PM
Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie); Snell, Kevin (CIV); Bensing, Daniel (CIV); Dugan, Joseph (CIV)
Aguiar, Lauren E; Sheehan Davis, Abigail; 'mhirose@refugeerights.org'; jcox@refugeerights.org;
'Linda Evarts (levarts@refugeerights.org)'; Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie); 'Tana Lin
(tlin@KellerRohrback.com)'; 'Emily Chiang (echiang@aclu-wa.org)'; 'Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@acluwa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)'; 'Melissa Keaney (keaney@nilc.org)'; 'Deepa Alagesan';
'Liz.Sweet@hias.Org'; 'Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org'; Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie);
'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org'; Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie); 'Alison Gaffney'; MacNeil, Madeleine P;
DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com
RE: Doe v. Trump, No. C17-0178 (W.D. Wash): Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Interrogatories

Cristina, 
 
Thank you for your e‐mail of 10/5/18 sent at 8:17PM ET, after business hours at the start of a federal holiday 
weekend.  As you are aware, the limited jurisdictional discovery that Judge Robart authorized is set to close on 
10/25/18, less than three weeks from the date Plaintiffs served their six additional interrogatories, five of which follow 
the pattern of your prior burdensome requests in seeking week‐by‐week data and one of which improperly requests PII 
about refugee applicants who, presumably, are not your clients.   
 
Defendants will not respond to these tardy interrogatories.  See, e.g., Thomas v. Pacificorp, 324 F.3d 1176, 1179 (10th 
Cir. 2003) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow parties thirty days to respond to interrogatories and requests for 
production. Therefore, requests must be served at least thirty days prior to a completion of discovery deadline.” 
(citations omitted)); Reed v. Morgan, No. 3:16‐CV‐05993‐BHS‐DWC, 2017 WL 4408076, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 4, 2017) 
(“[F]or discovery to be timely, a party must serve discovery at least 30 days prior to the discovery deadline in order to 
allow the other party sufficient time to respond.”); Miller v. Rufion, No. 08‐1233 BTM (WMc), 2010 WL 4137278, at *1 
(E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2010) (“The purpose of a discovery cutoff date is to protect the parties from a continuing burden of 
producing evidence and to assure them adequate time to prepare immediately before trial.  Therefore, discovery 
requests must be served at least 30 days prior to the discovery deadline.” (citations omitted)).  Nor will we agree to any 
request by Plaintiffs to extend the discovery deadline, as we are confident the many hundreds of pages of documents 
we have produced, along with the substantial data we have supplied, should equip Plaintiffs to assess their case in light 
of our forthcoming renewed Rule 12(b)(1) motion.  Indeed, as we have stated previously, it is our position that Plaintiffs’ 
requests to date vastly exceed the narrow discovery that Judge Robart authorized:  these additional, out‐of‐time 
interrogatories would only widen the gulf between the discovery that Plaintiffs are permitted to take and the discovery 
that Plaintiffs have unilaterally chosen to pursue. 
 
Joe Dugan 
 
Joseph C. Dugan 
Trial Attorney 
United States Department of Justice 
Civil Division   Federal Programs Branch 
1100 L Street NW, Room 11212 
Washington, D.C. 20530 
(202) 514‐3259 (phone)   (202) 616‐8470 (fax) 
Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov 
 
1

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 199 of 223

EXHIBIT 32
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 200 of 223

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Meredith Cabell
Meredith Cabell
Re: Doe v. Trump, No. C17-0178 (W.D. Wash): Plaintiffs" Fourth Set of Interrogatories
Friday, October 19, 2018 2:36:14 PM

From: Melissa Keaney [mailto:keaney@nilc.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:33 PM
To: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) <jdugan@CIV.USDOJ.GOV>; Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie)
<CSepe@perkinscoie.com>; Snell, Kevin (CIV) <ksnell@CIV.USDOJ.GOV>; Bensing, Daniel (CIV)
<DBensing@CIV.USDOJ.GOV>
Cc: Aguiar, Lauren E <Lauren.Aguiar@skadden.com>; Sheehan Davis, Abigail
<Abigail.Sheehan@skadden.com>; 'mhirose@refugeerights.org' <mhirose@refugeerights.org>;
jcox@refugeerights.org; Linda Evarts <levarts@refugeerights.org>; Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie)
<DBurman@perkinscoie.com>; 'Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)' <tlin@KellerRohrback.com>;
'Emily Chiang (echiang@aclu-wa.org)' <echiang@aclu-wa.org>; 'Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)
(lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)' <lnowlin@aclu-wa.org>; 'Deepa Alagesan' <dalagesan@refugeerights.org>;
'Liz.Sweet@hias.Org' <Liz.Sweet@hias.Org>; 'Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org'
<Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org>; Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie) <LStaniar@perkinscoie.com>;
'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org' <Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org>; Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)
<TRoberts@perkinscoie.com>; 'Alison Gaffney' <agaffney@KellerRohrback.com>; MacNeil,
Madeleine P <Madeleine.MacNeil@skadden.com>; DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com
Subject: Re: Doe v. Trump, No. C17-0178 (W.D. Wash): Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Interrogatories
 
Joe,
 
I am writing to discuss a few discovery matters and in response to Kevin’s email to me (on 10/5/18)
and your email to Cristina Perkins (on 10/9/18). 
 
As a prefatory matter, we wanted to register our strong disagreement with your continued assertion
that Plaintiffs’ discovery has exceeded the scope of jurisdictional discovery authorized by Judge
Robart and/or that the requests have been disproportionate to the needs of the case.  On the
former, and as we have explained before, Defendants’ protestations seem to be based on an
unsupported and erroneous position regarding the factual issues relevant to the legal determination
of mootness (on which, moreover, Defendants bear the burden of proof).  On the latter, there are a
lot of vulnerable human beings, including our clients and their clients, whose lives could be
significantly affected by the factual question of whether, for example, Defendants heeded Judge
Robart’s order to take actions necessary to undo those portions of the Agency Memo that were
enjoined.  In light of these considerations, we believe our targeted requests are exceedingly
reasonable, particularly given our demonstrated willingness to work with Defendants to minimize
any burden imposed.  Moreover, our discovery requests could have been even more targeted had
Defendants explained—ever—the steps they took to implement the suspensions, how they
interpreted the scope of the preliminary injunction, or the steps they took to implement the
injunction.  Instead, we have been forced to piece it together from the few hundred documents
Defendants chose to produce.  And those few documents Defendants have produced thus far not
only demonstrate that Plaintiffs were justified in their concerns regarding Defendants’ injunction
compliance, but also that Defendants may not have been fully candid with the Court in their factual

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 201 of 223
representations.
 
With the foregoing in mind, we wanted to follow up on a few issues that we have been emailing
about recently.
 
First, there are a number of questions that the other forms of discovery do not answer, and so we
would like to notice the depositions of Kelly Gauger and Jennifer Higgins.  We are flexible on the date
and location.  Please let us know whether Defendants will produce them voluntarily and, if so,
preferred dates and locations.  We will also notice 30(b)(6) deposition(s) for the person(s) most
knowledgeable about the particular steps Defendants took to implement the suspensions and then
to comply with the preliminary injunction.  Given the multiple declarations that Ms. Gauger and Ms.
Higgins have submitted on the latter topic, presumably they could serve as 30(b)(6) witnesses as
well, but of course Defendants could designate whoever they wanted.  Please let us know
Defendants’ position on these depositions as soon as possible so that we can either get them
scheduled or raise the issue with Judge Robart.
 
Second, and relatedly, please let us know when we can expect a response to our letter dated
October 4, which addressed a number of issues related to Defendants’ document production.  It
seems unlikely that we will reach agreement on all the issues addressed therein, and we want to
ensure that we have time to bring any intractable disputes to Judge Robart.
 
Third, we are in receipt of your email yesterday today informing us that Defendants would not be
responding to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Set of Interrogatories.  Given Defendants’ significant (and ongoing)
delays in responding to Plaintiffs’ prior discovery requests, and what the documents produced thus
far reveal, we think it entirely reasonable that these interrogatories were not served earlier. 
 Accordingly, we intend to address this issue with Judge Robart.  
 
Finally, given the high likelihood that such a call will be necessary, please let us know when you are
available on Friday to call Judge Robart’s chambers, per his order denying Defendants’ motion to
dismiss and Local Rule 7(i).
 
I look forward to your response.
Best,
 
Melissa
 

-- 
Melissa Keaney
Staff Attorney
National Immigration Law Center
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1600
Los Angeles   CA   90010
ph  213.674.2820   f  213.639.3911
c  805.252.3845
keaney@nilc.org

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 202 of 223
 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message may be
privileged, confidential, or otherwise legally protected from disclosure and covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sec. 2510 et seq. If you are not the intended recipient of this
message, you are informed that any retention, copying, distribution, and/or other use or
dissemination of any portion of its contents is prohibited.
 
 

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 203 of 223

EXHIBIT 33
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 204 of 223

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:

Subject:

Dugan, Joseph (CIV) <Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov>
Wednesday, October 10, 2018 10:31 PM
Melissa Keaney; Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie); Snell, Kevin (CIV); Bensing, Daniel (CIV); Dugan, Joseph
(CIV)
Aguiar, Lauren E; Sheehan Davis, Abigail; 'mhirose@refugeerights.org'; jcox@refugeerights.org; Linda
Evarts; Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie); 'Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)'; 'Emily Chiang
(echiang@aclu-wa.org)'; 'Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)'; 'Deepa
Alagesan'; 'Liz.Sweet@hias.Org'; 'Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org'; Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie);
'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org'; Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie); 'Alison Gaffney'; MacNeil, Madeleine P;
DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com
RE: Doe v. Trump, No. C17-0178 (W.D. Wash): Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Interrogatories

Melissa, 
 
We are deeply disappointed by Plaintiffs’ insinuation, now on two occasions, that Defendants have been anything other 
than entirely candid with the Court.  The parties may disagree about substantive matters in this litigation, but attacks on 
our professionalism and ethics are unwarranted, and we reject them in the strongest possible terms.  We regret that, 
after Defendants’ considerable efforts over the past several months (during which time Plaintiffs refused to answer our 
handful of contention interrogatories), the comity between the parties has apparently broken down. 
 
The parties obviously have divergent views about the nature and extent of discovery that Judge Robart authorized, 
including the scope of Defendants’ search.  Defendants see little value in quarreling about those differences:  if Plaintiffs 
have concerns about the scope of our search or any other matters, Plaintiffs can bring those concerns to the Court’s 
attention. 
 
We are baffled by your complaint that Plaintiffs have been “forced to piece . . . together” the steps Defendants took to 
comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction Order—since, presumably, Plaintiffs could have propounded relevant 
interrogatories had Plaintiffs not exhausted and indeed exceeded the default 25 interrogatories under the Federal Rules 
with your vast data requests.  We are likewise baffled and insulted by the assertion that there have been “significant 
(and ongoing) delays” in Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, given that Defendants served our 
objections to the RFPs in advance of the default deadline under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 and completed our production in 
response to RFPs 1‐2 within just over six weeks from the date of service (surely a “reasonable time” within the meaning 
of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34); served our objections and responses to your second and third rounds of interrogatories in advance 
of the default deadline under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33; and requested only a short extension on our objections and responses to 
your first round of interrogatories.  (As you will recall, Plaintiffs did not respond to our request for that short extension 
until after 10PM ET on the evening the responses would otherwise have been due, notwithstanding our request for a 
brief extension on two earlier occasions.) 
 
As for the proposed depositions, the parties will likely need to seek guidance from the Court.  However, we doubt that 
Defendants will be amenable to your eleventh hour and expansive deposition requests. 
 
Regarding your 9‐page letter of October 4, 2018, served shortly before a federal holiday weekend, in general it appears 
that these matters may be ripe for presentation to the Court.  However, we offer the following information about points 
we have not previously addressed: 
 As for the purported “missing documents” that you identify on pages 2‐3, Defendants are researching this 
matter and expect to have a response soon. 
 As for the documents with “technical issues,” we are in the process of reimaging the identified documents and 
will reproduce them as soon as practicable. 
1

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 205 of 223






As for your comments about our privilege log, we are puzzled by your request.  If Plaintiffs’ expectation is that 
Defendants will log all redactions of PII or government personnel contact information, that seems like a 
meaningless and unduly burdensome chore.  If Plaintiffs’ concern rather is with our decision not to produce for 
your inspection PII of individual refugee applicants who are not your clients, we stand behind that decision and 
will defend it to the Court if necessary.  You have given us no reason to conclude that such sensitive information 
impacts either your clients or the jurisdictional issue pending before the Court. 
As for your request that we “take another look” at our LES and deliberative process redactions, as you are 
aware, we have already done so in connection with our production of the privilege log.  Nevertheless, per your 
request, Defendants are continuing to assess those redactions, and if Defendants determine that any redactions 
may or should be lifted, Defendants will reprocess the affected documents as soon as practicable. 
As for your comments about the scope of our search, Defendants have provided ample explanation for the 
reasonable approach we have taken, and we refer you to our objections to your RFPs and our extensive prior 
correspondence. 

 
In terms of our availability for a call with the Court on Friday, we are generally available between 11:30AM and 5PM ET. 
 
Joe Dugan 
 
Joseph C. Dugan 
Trial Attorney 
United States Department of Justice 
Civil Division   Federal Programs Branch 
1100 L Street NW, Room 11212 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
(202) 514‐3259 (phone)   (202) 616‐8470 (fax) 
Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov 
 

2

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 206 of 223

EXHIBIT 34
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 207 of 223

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:

Subject:

Melissa Keaney <keaney@nilc.org>
Thursday, October 11, 2018 4:39 PM
Snell, Kevin (CIV); Dugan, Joseph (CIV); Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie); Bensing, Daniel (CIV)
Aguiar, Lauren E; Sheehan Davis, Abigail; 'mhirose@refugeerights.org'; jcox@refugeerights.org; Linda
Evarts; Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie); 'Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)'; 'Emily Chiang
(echiang@aclu-wa.org)'; 'Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)'; 'Deepa
Alagesan'; 'Liz.Sweet@hias.Org'; 'Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org'; Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie);
'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org'; Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie); 'Alison Gaffney'; MacNeil, Madeleine P;
DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com
Re: Doe v. Trump, No. C17-0178 (W.D. Wash): Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Interrogatories

Joe: 
  
Plaintiffs’ observation that the records Defendants chose to produce seem inconsistent with representations Defendants 
have made to the Court is not an “attack”; nor, for that matter, is it unwarranted, as Defendants can surely see from 
their own review of those documents they have chosen to produce and their knowledge of what representations they 
have made to the Court.  Defensiveness about such an issue is understandable, and it would be unfortunate if it were to 
degrade our working relationships, but we thought it important to articulate this observation to ensure that Defendants 
are aware of it and have the opportunity to correct any misstatements that they discover in their own review of what 
they have told the Court. 
  
On the other issues: 
  
‐
On the depositions, we are happy to seek guidance from Judge Robart, but it would of course be helpful to 
know what objections Defendants have to them, so that we can see if there is any middle ground we can 
achieve. 
 
‐
On the PII issue and how it relates to the privilege log: as our letter of a week ago stated, we have no 
objection to Defendants redacting three categories of information that you said Defendants would redact in 
your emails in late August: contact information for government personnel; names of law enforcement and 
other personnel employed by government contractors; and PII protected by the Privacy Act.  But when we 
received the documents, it was clear that Defendants redacted a huge amount of information that doesn’t fit 
in any of those categories—in particular, information (including information that would not be personally 
identifiable) related to individual refugees.  Our letter of October 4 asked Defendants to explain any 
information that they redacted on the belief that it fit the third category. Your response of earlier today 
seems to concede that you have no argument that the information regarding individual refugees does fit into 
any of those categories or is otherwise privileged; instead, you seem to suggest that Defendants just do not 
think that information relevant.  We are extremely disappointed that Defendants unilaterally reneged on the 
understanding that we reached in late August, and that they did so without even acknowledging it to 
Plaintiffs, prior to us asking a direct question about it.  Moreover, the suggestion that information about how 
Defendants treated individual refugees under the suspensions and then under our preliminary injunction does 
not meet the discovery standard is plainly wrong.  As we said in our October 4 letter, we are willing to 
stipulate to a protective order regarding this information, but Defendants ongoing refusal to produce it is 
unjustified. 
  
We are available to call Chambers tomorrow at 4:00 PM ET.  We called chambers to confirm preferred practice, and 
Judge Robart’s judicial assistant indicated that all counsel should participate by phone to briefly explain the nature of the 
1

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 208 of 223
dispute before setting it for a telephonic motion. Unfortunately, she also stated that Judge Robart is in trial this week, 
but said that someone from chambers would likely be able to take down the nature of the dispute. 
  
If you are able to call into the conference line below in advance of that time, we will then conference in Judge Robart’s 
chambers. 
  
(605) 472‐5305 
594684 
 
Best, 
 
Melissa 

-Melissa Keaney
Staff Attorney
National Immigration Law Center
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1600
Los Angeles   CA   90010
ph 213.674.2820   f 213.639.3911
c 805.252.3845
keaney@nilc.org
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential, or
otherwise legally protected from disclosure and covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sec.
2510 et seq. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are informed that any retention, copying,
distribution, and/or other use or dissemination of any portion of its contents is prohibited.
 
 
 

2

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 209 of 223

EXHIBIT 35
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 210 of 223

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:

Subject:

Snell, Kevin (CIV) <Kevin.Snell@usdoj.gov>
Friday, October 19, 2018 3:38 PM
jcox@refugeerights.org; Dugan, Joseph (CIV); 'Melissa Keaney'; 'Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie)';
Bensing, Daniel (CIV); Snell, Kevin (CIV)
'Aguiar, Lauren E'; 'Sheehan Davis, Abigail'; mhirose@refugeerights.org; 'Linda Evarts'; 'Burman, David
J. (Perkins Coie)'; 'Tana Lin'; 'Emily Chiang'; lnowlin@aclu-wa.org; 'Deepa Alagesan';
liz.sweet@hias.org; kmeyer@refugeerights.org; 'Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)';
'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org'; 'Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)'; 'Alison Gaffney'; 'MacNeil, Madeleine P';
dljfstrump@skadden.com
RE: draft 30(b)(6) deposition notices

Justin, 
 
Thank you for providing the draft Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices, which we have carefully reviewed with our clients.  
 
Although Defendants continue to discuss internally whether and to what extent a deposition might be appropriate 
under the unique circumstances of this case, we remain puzzled by the broad range of topics for deposition per the draft 
notices, such as actions taken to implement the Agency Memo and actions taken to implement the Court’s orders.  If we 
were starting this discovery process from scratch, there might be a basis for such wide‐ranging topics, but Plaintiffs are 
hardly working from a blank slate here.  Rather, Plaintiffs’ first request for production sought documents relating to, 
among other things, the “[i]mplentation of the Agency Memo,” and “[c]ompliance with the Court’s” orders.  Defendants 
have provided nearly 800 pages of documents in response to Plaintiffs’ requests.  Additionally, even though the Court’s 
order did not permit Plaintiffs to serve interrogatories, Defendants nevertheless provided Plaintiffs a wealth of data in 
response to Plaintiffs’ many interrogatories.  And as Plaintiffs are aware, the effort to compile and serve that data 
greatly exceeded the effort ordinarily required to answer interrogatories that call for a narrative response:  for instance, 
as we previously informed Plaintiffs, the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration at the State Department spent 
nearly 200 hours on the first set of interrogatories.  That figure does not even account for the time spent by Consular 
Affairs at the State Department or USCIS, nor does it account for the time required to answer Plaintiffs’ subsequent 
interrogatories. 
 
Against the backdrop of these extensive, time‐ and labor‐intensive responses that Defendants have already provided to 
Plaintiffs’ queries in this supposedly narrow jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiffs have not specifically explained why they 
think two Rule 30(b)(6) depositions (or the two fact depositions Plaintiffs previously mentioned) are necessary, even 
though “Plaintiffs propose[d] to confer with Defendants on the need for additional discovery, such as depositions, as 
appropriate after the production of the documents.”  Dkt. 121 at 7 (emphasis added).  As such, Defendants do not know 
what specific questions or concerns Plaintiffs continue to have, and thus we are not in a position at this point to make 
any meaningful counteroffer to Plaintiffs’ deposition request.  If you could please articulate the specific need for 
continuing discovery (i.e., the specific questions that Plaintiffs continue to have), we could confer to try to determine if 
there is any compromise that might address Plaintiffs’ specific lingering questions while heeding the Court’s “caution[]” 
that any deposition “be narrowly tailored and proportional in light of the limited purpose of the authorized 
discovery.”  ECF No. 155 at 29.  Bottom line:  while Defendants are considering and will continue to consider whether 
depositions might be appropriate, we will not agree to a deposition that functions as a do‐over of earlier discovery, 
which is what the notices as drafted appear to call for. 
 
As a practical matter, it seems unlikely that the parties will be able to resolve their differences on this particular issue in 
advance of Plaintiffs’ filing on Monday.  But Defendants are amenable to continuing our conversation even as briefing 
proceeds in the hope that the parties might reach a mutually agreeable outcome, at which point we could notify the 
Court that it need not resolve this specific issue. 
1

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 211 of 223
 
Best regards, 
 
Kevin 
 
 
Kevin Snell 
Trial Attorney 
U.S. Department of Department of Justice 
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 
202.305.0924 

2

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 212 of 223

EXHIBIT 36
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 213 of 223

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:

Subject:

jcox@refugeerights.org
Friday, October 19, 2018 10:36 PM
'Snell, Kevin (CIV)'; 'Dugan, Joseph (CIV)'; 'Melissa Keaney'; 'Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie)'; 'Bensing,
Daniel (CIV)'
'Aguiar, Lauren E'; 'Sheehan Davis, Abigail'; mhirose@refugeerights.org; 'Linda Evarts'; 'Burman, David
J. (Perkins Coie)'; 'Tana Lin'; 'Emily Chiang'; lnowlin@aclu-wa.org; 'Deepa Alagesan';
liz.sweet@hias.org; kmeyer@refugeerights.org; 'Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)';
'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org'; 'Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)'; 'Alison Gaffney'; 'MacNeil, Madeleine P';
dljfstrump@skadden.com
RE: draft 30(b)(6) deposition notices

Hi Kevin,
Thank you for your email. You are likely right that we won’t be able to resolve this before our motion goes in,
but we’re happy to take any opportunity to further narrow the disputes we are raising to the court.
First, on the document production: We recognize that Defendants have produced 786 pages of documents, but
as you know nearly quarter of those pages are duplicative. In any event, the volume of the documents does not
resolve the questions that Plaintiffs have about the relevant facts that emerge from these documents, which
Plaintiffs hope to address through the targeted additional interrogatories and deposition notices that we have
served.
On the interrogatories: We are appreciative of the time that it took for the agencies to respond to them, and
had you provided the estimate to us prior to production we would have been happy to negotiate further with
you to limit our requests. The parties simply did not take that path because of Defendants’ representation that
the agencies could produce the responsive data without undue burden. Additionally, although you are correct
that Judge Robart's order did not specifically mention interrogatories, as you know the order allowed us to
request documents reflecting data on refugee processing and admissions, and we re-framed our document
requests as interrogatories in response to your request, based on it being easier to produce data than
documents.
With regard to the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions: We are requesting depositions to fill important factual gaps and
inconsistencies that have emerged from the paper discovery, which is routine in discovery. The deposition
notice that we shared with you last week lists the areas that we are particularly concerned about, such as
instructions around digital stamping (which was already apparent from our Fourth Set of Interrogatories) and
the implementation of the PDR process. In addition, last week we shared with you our concern about an email
around circuit ride scheduling that, on its face, diverged materially from what Defendants represented that they
did with respect to such scheduling. We understand from the meet and confer on Tuesday that Defendants'
1

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 214 of 223
counsel may not have reviewed the documents closely and do not have a deep understanding of the refugee
process, and there may be an explanation within the agencies' control that reconciles the discrepancies that
we have found. But this is why it would be more efficient to conduct a deposition with agency employees to
clarify some of these gaps in the discovery and the record.
We will explain to Judge Robart on Monday why we need the two 30(b)(6) depositions and the depositions of
Jennifer Higgins and Kelly Gauger. We understand your position will be that all of this is disproportionate under
Rule 26(b)(1), but you have access to all the relevant information, we have access to a rather small slice of it,
and this means a lot to actual human beings, including our clients and everyone who was protected by the
preliminary injunction, so we think depositions are entirely appropriate and justified.
We are, of course, happy to continue to discuss how the issues can be narrowed even after we file our motion.
Thanks again for your email, and have a good weekend.
 
‐‐‐‐  
Justin B. Cox
Senior Supervising Attorney
International Refugee Assistance Project
Urban Justice Center
PO Box 170208
Atlanta, GA 30317
jcox@refugeerights.org
www.refugeerights.org
Follow us on Twitter
Like us on Facebook

 
This message and its attachments are sent by a law office and may contain information that is confidential and protected by
privilege from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from printing, copying, forwarding, or
saving this email and any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately if you believe that you are not the
intended recipient. 

 

2

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 215 of 223

EXHIBIT 37
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 216 of 223

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:

Subject:

Dugan, Joseph (CIV) <Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov>
Friday, October 19, 2018 2:20 PM
Justin Cox; 'Melissa Keaney'; Snell, Kevin (CIV); 'Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie)'; Bensing, Daniel (CIV);
Dugan, Joseph (CIV)
'Aguiar, Lauren E'; 'Sheehan Davis, Abigail'; mhirose@refugeerights.org; 'Linda Evarts'; 'Burman, David
J. (Perkins Coie)'; 'Tana Lin'; 'Emily Chiang'; lnowlin@aclu-wa.org; 'Deepa Alagesan';
liz.sweet@hias.org; kmeyer@refugeerights.org; 'Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)';
'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org'; 'Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)'; 'Alison Gaffney'; 'MacNeil, Madeleine P';
dljfstrump@skadden.com
RE: draft 30(b)(6) deposition notices

Hi Justin, 
 
I agree that Doe‐JFS_State_00000067 appears to be one of the communications referenced in Gauger Decl. ¶ 5 and 
further described in the Notice of Compliance on page 3.  This e‐mail from Sumitra Siram, sent the day after Christmas, 
obviously reflects the Court’s preliminary injunction Order, and appears to be disseminating guidance to PRM 
Admissions personnel.  I assume there were further communications pursuant to Ms. Siram’s guidance between those 
personnel and the RSCs. 
 
Best, 
Joe 
 
Joseph C. Dugan 
Trial Attorney 
United States Department of Justice 
Civil Division   Federal Programs Branch 
1100 L Street NW, Room 11212 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
(202) 514‐3259 (phone)   (202) 616‐8470 (fax) 
Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov 
 
 
From: Justin Cox [mailto:jcox@refugeerights.org]  
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 9:34 PM 
To: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) <jdugan@CIV.USDOJ.GOV>; 'Melissa Keaney' <keaney@nilc.org>; Snell, Kevin (CIV) 
<ksnell@CIV.USDOJ.GOV>; 'Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie)' <csepe@perkinscoie.com>; Bensing, Daniel (CIV) 
<DBensing@CIV.USDOJ.GOV> 
Cc: 'Aguiar, Lauren E' <lauren.aguiar@skadden.com>; 'Sheehan Davis, Abigail' <abigail.sheehan@skadden.com>; 
mhirose@refugeerights.org; 'Linda Evarts' <levarts@refugeerights.org>; 'Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie)' 
<dburman@perkinscoie.com>; 'Tana Lin' <tlin@kellerrohrback.com>; 'Emily Chiang' <echiang@aclu‐wa.org>; 
lnowlin@aclu‐wa.org; 'Deepa Alagesan' <dalagesan@refugeerights.org>; liz.sweet@hias.org; 
kmeyer@refugeerights.org; 'Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)' <lstaniar@perkinscoie.com>; 'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org' 
<mark.hetfield@hias.org>; 'Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)' <troberts@perkinscoie.com>; 'Alison Gaffney' 
<agaffney@kellerrohrback.com>; 'MacNeil, Madeleine P' <madeleine.macneil@skadden.com>; 
dljfstrump@skadden.com 
Subject: Re: draft 30(b)(6) deposition notices 
 
1

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 217 of 223
Hi Joe,
One quick clarifying question on that last topic. Do you agree that the email we identified (DoeJFS_State_00000067) reflects the action described in (for example) Gauger Decl., ECF 114-1 ¶ 5? It seems
incontestable, but I just wanted to clarify, on the off chance that we’re talking past each other here.
Thanks,
Justin

---Justin B. Cox
Senior Supervising Attorney
International Refugee Assistance Project
Urban Justice Center
PO Box 170208
Atlanta, GA 30317
jcox@refugeerights.org
www.refugeerights.org
Follow us on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
This message and its attachments are sent by a law office and may contain information that is confidential and
protected by privilege from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from printing,
copying, forwarding, or saving this email and any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately if you
believe that you are not the intended recipient.

From: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) <joseph.dugan@usdoj.gov> 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 7:27 PM 
To: jcox@refugeerights.org; 'Melissa Keaney'; Snell, Kevin (CIV); 'Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie)'; Bensing, Daniel (CIV); 
Dugan, Joseph (CIV) 
Cc: 'Aguiar, Lauren E'; 'Sheehan Davis, Abigail'; mhirose@refugeerights.org; 'Linda Evarts'; 'Burman, David J. (Perkins 
Coie)'; 'Tana Lin'; 'Emily Chiang'; lnowlin@aclu‐wa.org; 'Deepa Alagesan'; liz.sweet@hias.org; 
kmeyer@refugeerights.org; 'Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)'; 'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org'; 'Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)'; 
2

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 218 of 223
'Alison Gaffney'; 'MacNeil, Madeleine P'; dljfstrump@skadden.com 
Subject: RE: draft 30(b)(6) deposition notices  
  
Dear Justin, et al., 
  
Thanks for sending along the draft 30(b)(6) notices.  We are reviewing and will be in touch soon.  
  
Regarding Doe‐JFS_State_00000067, we appreciate Plaintiffs sharing with us your concern about that e‐mail.  This 
approach seems vastly preferable to some of our earlier exchanges, in which Plaintiffs expressed general concerns about 
Defendants’ representations to the Court but did not identify any corresponding documents within a production 
universe that encompasses nearly 800 pages.  That being said, we are puzzled by Plaintiffs’ concerns about Doe‐JFS 
State_ 00000067, because we see no inconsistency between that document and Defendants’ prior representations (or 
the Court’s preliminary injunction Order, for that matter).  If you’re able to identify for us the “apparent discrepancy” 
that you referenced earlier, we’d be happy to look into it.   
  
Best, 
Joe 
  
Joseph C. Dugan 
Trial Attorney 
United States Department of Justice 
Civil Division  Federal Programs Branch 
1100 L Street NW, Room 11212 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
(202) 514‐3259 (phone)  (202) 616‐8470 (fax) 
Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov 
  
  
From: jcox@refugeerights.org [mailto:jcox@refugeerights.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 11:39 AM 
To: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) <jdugan@CIV.USDOJ.GOV>; 'Melissa Keaney' <keaney@nilc.org>; Snell, Kevin (CIV) 
<ksnell@CIV.USDOJ.GOV>; 'Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie)' <csepe@perkinscoie.com>; Bensing, Daniel (CIV) 
<DBensing@CIV.USDOJ.GOV> 
Cc: 'Aguiar, Lauren E' <lauren.aguiar@skadden.com>; 'Sheehan Davis, Abigail' <abigail.sheehan@skadden.com>; 
3

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 219 of 223
mhirose@refugeerights.org; 'Linda Evarts' <levarts@refugeerights.org>; 'Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie)' 
<dburman@perkinscoie.com>; 'Tana Lin' <tlin@kellerrohrback.com>; 'Emily Chiang' <echiang@aclu‐wa.org>; 
lnowlin@aclu‐wa.org; 'Deepa Alagesan' <dalagesan@refugeerights.org>; liz.sweet@hias.org; 
kmeyer@refugeerights.org; 'Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)' <lstaniar@perkinscoie.com>; 'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org' 
<mark.hetfield@hias.org>; 'Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)' <troberts@perkinscoie.com>; 'Alison Gaffney' 
<agaffney@kellerrohrback.com>; 'MacNeil, Madeleine P' <madeleine.macneil@skadden.com>; 
dljfstrump@skadden.com 
Subject: draft 30(b)(6) deposition notices 
  

Dear Joe, 
 

Thanks again for talking yesterday; we appreciate it. 
 

I’m writing to follow up on something we discussed: attached please find draft 30(b)(6) notices, one directed at the
Department of State and the other DHS (the notices are otherwise identical). We appreciate your stated willingness
to give this request genuine, good-faith consideration, and to let us know if your clients would be willing to provide
one or more deponents to testify on these mootness-related topics, so as to obviate the need for motion practice on
this issue. As we have stated before (and as the notices repeat), we can be reasonably flexible on timing and
location. We’re happy to discuss if that would be helpful, but given the timing, we need to have it resolved by midday Friday. 
 

Also apropos of our discussion yesterday, we wanted to bring to your attention the discrepancy between the email
dated December 26, 2017 at Doe-JFS State_ 00000067, and Defendants’ prior descriptions of it. See, e.g., Gauger
Decl., ECF 114-1 ¶ 5; Higgins Decl., ECF 114-2 ¶ 5; Defs.’ Notice of Compliance, ECF No. 114, at 3. If
Defendants have an explanation for this apparent discrepancy, we would be very interested to hear it. 
 

Thank you for your time, 
Justin 
  
  
‐‐‐‐  
Justin B. Cox 
Senior Supervising Attorney 

 
International Refugee Assistance Project 
Urban Justice Center 
4

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 220 of 223
PO Box 170208 
Atlanta, GA 30317 
jcox@refugeerights.org 
www.refugeerights.org 
Follow us on Twitter 
Like us on Facebook 

  
This message and its attachments are sent by a law office and may contain information that is confidential and protected by
privilege from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from printing, copying, forwarding, or
saving this email and any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately if you believe that you are not the
intended recipient. 

  

5

 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 221 of 223

EXHIBIT 38
to Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel

 SUMMARY: Key Documents
on PI Compliance
and Digital
Stamping
of Security
Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR
Document
167-2 Filed
10/22/18
Page
222 of 223
Advisory Opinion (SAO) Cases with Bona Fide Relationships (BFRs)

Oct. 23, 2017: Agency Memo (ECF 145-1)
Nov. 9

Interim Guidance for Decisions on Applications for Refugee Status (USCIS 4): “It is
anticipated that during the 90-day period, cases of SAO nationals will generally not be
adjudicated as approved . . . . Officers reviewing [SAO] cases for final hold lift will not
stamp a case approved without evidence documenting that the case has received a
case-by-case determination.”

Nov. 15

Email from E. Villasenor re Digital Stamping Guidance (USCIS 184): “During your
review of cases in the digital stamp queue, if you come across [SAO] cases, please do
not review those cases at this time unless there is evidence of a case-by-case
determination by State and DHS that allows the case to proceed for final adjudication. .
. . SAO cases that are in the queue at this time and that do not have a case-by-case
determination should be marked as ‘Unable to Stamp: Evidence documenting a
case-by-case determination by DHS and State required for further processing.’”

Nov. 17

Email from E. Villasenor re Message from the RAIO Associate Director: Update on EO
13780 and New Executive Order; Message from the RAIO Associate Director:
Implementation of EO 13815; Removing “Pending HQ Review” and “Other” holds
solely based on BFR (USCIS 172): “If you come across [SAO] cases…please do not
review those cases at this time unless there is evidence of a case-by-case
determination by State and DHS that allows the case to proceed for final
adjudication.”

Dec. 23: Order Issuing a Preliminary Injunction (ECF 92)
Dec. 28 Email from H. Ingraham re Message #3 FY 2018: Update on USRAP operations (State
75-77): “The [Refugee Processing Center] is in the process of adding [BFR] status back
into [the system].”
Jan. 11, Email from J. Smith re Message #4 FY 2018: Update on USRAP operations (State 78):
2018
“The . . . BFR[] status and expanded data collection status have both been implemented
in [the system].”
Jan. 12

Email from E. Villasenor re Digital Stamping (USCIS 171): “If you see any cases in the
digital stamp queue with [SAO cases], please hold off on stamping them until we
receive some clarification on the cases.”

Jan. 29: Memo from Secretary Nielsen re: 90-Day Refugee Review (ECF 145-2)
Jan. 29 Memo from J. Higgins re New Procedures and Revised Guidelines for Refugee
Adjudications as a Result of the 90-Day Review (USCIS 9-11): “[Refugees Affair
Division (RAD)] shall immediately institute a process and issue guidance to evaluate
whether I-590 ‘pipeline’ cases (i.e., cases already interviewed by a USCIS officer but
that are pending final approval) involving SAO nationals require a re-interview in light
of these new protocols.”
Jan. 31

Email from E. Villasenor re Digital Stamping Updates (USCIS 474): “We have been
advised . . . that they are working . . . on the updated guidance regarding SAO cases. At
this time, we ask that you do not review any SAO cases in the digital stamp queue
until we receive further guidance . . . .”

Feb. 1

Email from A. Chiorazzi re final approval updates (USCIS 101): “Until technical issues
are resolved, please do not stamp approved any SAO cases until we receive further
guidance . . . and provide updated instructions to you.”

Mar. 20 Email from J. Ruppel re Current Guidance on I-590 Refugee Processing – Update and
Summary of Prior Guidance (USCIS 96): “Currently, RAD headquarters (RAD HQ). . .
is conducting the review of I-590 pipeline cases involving SAO nationals . . . . As such,
an officer may not stamp approved an I-590 pipeline case involving an SAO
national interviewed prior to April 1, 2018, unless RAD HQ has reviewed the case
[and made certain determinations.]”

 Case
2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 167-2 Filed 10/22/18 Page 223 of 223
Apr. 2 Memo from J. Ruppel re Pipeline DHS Review (PDR) Guidance (USCIS 111-112): “In
line with [the directive from the Higgins memo], RAD is adopting the . . . Pipeline DHS
Review (PDR), for SAO nationals interviewed prior to April 1, 2018 if the case . . . is
pending final approval (has not yet been stamped approved). . . . An officer may not
stamp approved an I-590 case involving an SAO national interviewed prior to
April 1, 2018, unless RAD HQ has completed PDR and [made certain
determinations.]”