IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)

WTLMER GARCIA RAMIREZ, SULMA
HERNANDEZ ALFARO, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

)

)
)
)
)

Case No.
Class Action

)
v.

)

)
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT (ICE);
THOMAS HOMAN,
Acting Director of ICE;
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;
KIRSTJEN NIELSEN,
Secretary of Homeland Security,
Defendants.

)

)
)
)

Case: 1:18-cv-00508
(D-Deck)
Assigned To : Contreras, Rudolph
Assign. Date: 3/5/2018
Description: TRO/PI

)
)

)
)
)

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1.

Plaintiffs are immigrant teenagers held in the custody of Defendant U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). They bring this action on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated immigrant teenagers, because ICE has failed to consider them for
placement in “the least restrictive setting available” and to provide them with meaningful
alternatives to detention, as required by amendments to the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). See 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B).
2.

Congress enacted the TVPRA in 2008 to protect immigrant children who come to

the United States without a parent or guardian. See Pub. L. 110-457 (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1232).
The TVPRA requires federal officials to screen these unaccompanied children for certain
vulnerabilities, including whether they are victims of trafficking and whether they fear persecution
in their home countries. See 8 U.S.C. § 1232(a)(4). The TVPRA also enacted procedures for

 ensuring “safe and secure placements” for these children, see § 1232(c)(1), and mandated that the
Department of Health and Human Service’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) promptly
place them in the “least restrictive setting,” such as with a parent or family member.
8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(A).
3.

In 2013, Congress enacted an amendment to the TVPRA extending many of these

same protections to unaccompanied immigrant children who turn 18 and are transferred by ORR
into the custody of ICE. See Pub. L. 113-4, § 1261, 127 Stat. 120-122 (Mar. 7, 2013). That
amendment, which is codified as Section 1232(c)(2)(B), requires that ICE “shall consider
placement in the least restrictive setting available after taking into account the alien’s danger to
self, danger to the community, and risk of flight.” Section 1232(c)(2)(B) further requires that such
children “shall be eligible to participate in alternative to detention programs, utilizing a continuum
of alternatives based on the alien’s need for supervision, which may include placement... with
an

individual

or

an

organizational

sponsor,

or

in

a

supervised

group

home.”

8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B).
4.

Each of the Plaintiffs recently turned 18 and was transferred by ORR to ICE. Upon

their transfer to ICE, ICE did not comply with the requirements set forth in Section 1232(c)(2)(B).
Specifically, it did not “consider placement in the least restrictive setting available” or make any
alternative to detention programs available. Quite the opposite, it automatically placed Plaintiffs
in adult detention without considering any alternatives.
5.

On information and belief, ICE is routinely and systematically failing to comply

with the requirements of Section 1232(c)(2)(B) with respect to unaccompanied immigrant children
transferred into ICE’s custody when they turn 18. Moreover, ICE has failed to establish any
policies, programs, or procedures implementing Section 1232(c)(2)(B)’s statutory requirements

2

 that ICE “consider placement in the least restricted] setting available after taking into account the
alien’s danger to self, danger to the community, and risk of flight,” and that ICE provide these
immigrants with “alternative to detention programs.” 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B). Instead, ICE
automatically places unaccompanied immigrants who have turned 18 into adult detention without
considering or making available the least restrictive (or other) alternatives.
6.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all unaccompanied immigrant

children who have been transferred to the custody of ICE upon turning 18 and as to whom ICE has
not considered placement in the least restrictive setting available and/or made alternative to
detention programs available, as required by Section 1232(c)(2)(B).
7.

Plaintiffs ask this Court to grant declaratory and injunctive relief to each of them

individually and to the class they represent, enjoin ICE from detaining Plaintiffs and other class
members without considering placement in the least restrictive setting available after taking into
account their danger to themselves and others and risk of flight, and making alternative to detention
programs available to them, including release to individual and organizational sponsors and
supervised group homes.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8.

This Court has jurisdiction over the claims alleged in this Complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1331, as they arise under federal statutes, including 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B) and
5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
9.

The Administrative

Procedure

Act,

5 U.S.C. § 706(2),

waives the U.S.

government’s sovereign immunity where, as here, federal agencies have acted in violation of the
law.
10.

The Court has authority to issue a declaratory judgment under the Declaratory

Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3

 11.

The Court has authority to grant injunctive relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and

706, and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
12.
of the events

Venue properly lies in the District of Columbia because a substantial part
and

omissions

28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B).

giving

rise

to

this

action

occurred

in

the

District.

Defendants are headquartered in Washington, D.C., and on

information and belief, Defendants’ decisions regarding the policies and procedures relating to the
detention of 18 year-olds who “age out” of ORR custody are being made in the District of
Columbia.
PARTIES
13.

Plaintiff Wilmer Garcia Ramirez is an 18 year-old from Guatemala. He entered the

United States without inspection on March 26, 2017, at the age of 17. He is currently detained at
the Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona.
14.

Plaintiff Sulma Hernandez Alfaro is an 18 year-old from Honduras. She entered

the United States without inspection in December 2016, at the age of 16. She is currently detained
at the Port Isabel Service Detention Center in Los Fresnos, Texas.
15.

Defendant Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a department of the

Executive Branch of the United States government. It is located in Washington, D.C. DHS is
responsible for enforcing federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration.
16.

Defendant Kirstjen Nielsen is sued in her official capacity as the Secretary of the

DHS. In this capacity, she directs each agency within DHS, including ICE. As a result, in her
official capacity, Secretary Nielsen is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the
immigration laws.
17.

Defendant ICE is an agency within DHS. It, too, is located in Washington, D.C. It

is in charge of the administration and enforcement of federal immigration laws, including
4

 implementing and complying with 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B), and determining whether and where
to detain Plaintiffs and other immigrants who are transferred by DHS into the custody of ICE upon
turning 18.
18.
ICE.

Defendant Thomas Homan is sued in his official capacity as the Acting Director of

In that capacity, he is responsible for the administration and enforcement of federal

immigration laws, including implementing and complying with 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B), and
determining whether and where to detain Plaintiffs and other immigrants who are transferred by
DHS into the custody of ICE upon turning 18.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A.

Wilmer’s Background and Immigration History

19.

Wilmer Garcia Ramirez was bom in 1999, in Caserio Pinalito Matazano, within the

department of Chicimula, Guatemala. He is one of six children. His family lived in poverty in
Guatemala, sharing a one-room house with dirt walls, a tin roof, and no floors.
20.

Wilmer began working in his family’s fields at the age of six. Wilmer walked with

his father more than an hour to the fields and worked there five days per week, cutting underbrash
with a machete.
21.

When he was approximately 8 years old, Wilmer began working in other people’s,

fields. He worked daily for 9 or more hours. He would often make the 30-minute walk to the
fields by himself.
22.

When Wilmer was approximately 9 years old, his father began taking him and his

brothers to work at a coffee plantation in Escipulas, Guatemala. From the ages of 9 to 15, Wilmer
worked at the coffee plantation in Escipulas for three months each year.
23.

The working conditions in Escipulas were difficult. Wilmer worked from about 6

a.m. to about 5 p.m. with a small break for lunch. The work involved cutting coffee beans by
5

 hand. He was required to stand along the row of plants all day and was not allowed to take breaks,
even to use the restroom. Wilmer was required to fill about two and a half barrels of coffee beans
every day. In return, he earned approximately $3.40 (25 Quetzales) daily, all of which he gave to
his parents.
24.

While working in Escipulas, Wilmer’s boss provided housing and food. Wilmer

worked with 15 other people, with whom he stayed in a bedroom-sized open-air structure. Wilmer
slept on the floor.
25.

If Wilmer did not complete his work, his boss would not feed him. Even when he

was fed, most meals were limited to beans and rice.
26.

In 2016, when Wilmer was 16, he went to work at another coffee plantation in

Honduras for three months. He traveled there alone.
27.

At the coffee plantation in Honduras, Wilmer worked 11 or more hours a day,

cutting coffee, cleaning plants, and removing weeds from the fields. He would work for about
20 days, take a six-hour bus ride home to visit for a night, and then return to Honduras.
28.

In Honduras, Wilmer had to fill three barrels full of coffee beans each day, and was

paid approximately $ 1.35 (10 Quetzales) for each barrel. Each time he returned home, he gave the
money to his parents.
29.

The conditions at this plantation were even worse than those in Escipulas. Again,

Wilmer slept on the floor with approximately 30 other workers.

And while Wilmer’s boss

provided food, he withheld it whenever he was unsatisfied with a laborer’s work. In one instance,
Wilmer was not fed for two days. When Wilmer and the other workers were fed, it was only beans
and water.

6

 30.

In March 2017, at the age of 17, Wilmer left Guatemala, seeking a better life in the

United States.
31.

Wilmer entered the United States near Andrade, California, on or about March 26,

32.

Wilmer was apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers after he

2017.

crossed the border. The officers determined that he was an unaccompanied alien child and
transferred him to the custody of ORR.
3 3.

While in ORR custody, Wilmer petitioned the Superior Court of Arizona to declare

him a dependent of the State due to his parent’s neglect in Guatemala. The court granted Wilmer’s
petition on September 19, 2017, finding that it was not in Wilmer’s best interest to be returned to
Guatemala due to the circumstances described above, including being neglected by his parents and
forced to work as a minor in deplorable conditions.
34.

Wilmer then filed a petition for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) based on

the state court’s dependency order. SIJS is granted to immigrant children who demonstrate that it
is not in their best interests to return to their home country and parents because of abuse,
abandonment, or neglect. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J). If immigrant children meet the criteria for
SIJS they are eligible for lawful permanent residency. Id.
35.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services received Wilmer’s SIJS application on

October 12, 2017. That application remains pending. This is despite the fact that Wilmer meets
all of the statutory criteria for SIJ status, as evidenced by the state court’s dependency order finding
he suffered parental neglect in Guatemala and that it would not be in his best interest to return
there.

7

 36.

Wilmer has a family friend in Warmister, Pennsylvania, who is willing to act as his

sponsor and provide for his care and custody.
37.

ORR transferred Wilmer to the custody of ICE in 2017, on his eighteenth birthday.

ICE is currently detaining him at Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona.
38.

On January 5, 2018, Wilmer’s attorney sent a request to ICE asking the agency to

release Wilmer to the least restrictive setting available as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B).
Wilmer included information about his SIJS application, his life in Guatemala, and his potential
sponsor in Pennsylvania. ICE did not respond to this request. To date, ICE has failed to consider
or make any determination regarding whether Wilmer’s detention was “the least restrictive setting
available after taking into account [his] danger to self, danger to the community, and risk of flight.”
It has also failed to make available to Wilmer any alternative to detention programs, as required
by Section 1232(c)(2)(B).
B.

Sulma’s Background and Immigration History

39.

Sulma Hernandez Alfaro was bom in 2000, in Corquin, Copan, Honduras.

40.

Sulma is one of ten children. For the first several years of her life, she, her mother,

and her siblings lived with her paternal grandparents. Her father worked in a different town.
41.

Sulma was subjected to multiple forms of abuse by members of her father’s family,

primarily her uncle. Although efforts were made to protect Sulma from this abuse, they were not
successful. Sulma also feared for her safety because she was threatened, including with death, by
her uncle.
42.

Because of the abuse she suffered and the threats she faced, Sulma left Honduras

and traveled to the United States so that should would be safe. She traveled by bus, train, and car
to the United States. The trip took about a month and a half.

8

 43.

Sulma entered the United States near Eagle Pass, Texas, on or about September 19,

2016. After she arrived, she approached a Border Patrol unit and asked for help. U.S. Customs
and Border Patrol agents determined she was an unaccompanied alien child and transferred her to
the custody of ORR. ORR placed her in a shelter for unaccompanied immigrant children in San
Benito, Texas.
44.

Sulma was housed at the ORR shelter in San Benito for more than a year. She was

treated well there, provided good food, and the staff was friendly and kind. She particularly
enjoyed the classes she was able to take, especially English and math.
45.

While in ORR custody, Sulma was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

resulting from the abuse she suffered in Honduras.
46.

Sulma applied for asylum on November 16, 2017, based on the abuse and harm she

suffered from her father’s family, and particularly her uncle. An asylum officer interviewed her
regarding her asylum claim on January 17, 2018. She is currently awaiting a decision on her
asylum application.
47.

When Sulma turned 18 in 2018, ORR transferred her to ICE’s custody. ICE placed

her in the Port Isabel Detention Center in Los Fresnos, Texas.
48.

Sulma has had a difficult time adjusting to ICE detention. She currently sleeps in

a large room with up to 67 other detainees.

She is not receiving counseling to address her

post-traumatic stress disorder, and she is not able to take classes or continue her schooling.
49.

On February 2, 2018, counsel for Sulma sent a letter to ICE requesting that Sulma

be released to La Posada Providencia, a shelter home for immigrants and refugees in San Benito,
Texas. An ICE deportation officer responded verbally that Sulma would not be released, but did
not give any reason for that decision.

9

 50.

ICE has failed to consider or make any determination regarding whether Sulma’s

detention is “the least restrictive setting available taking into account [her] danger to self, danger
to the community, and risk of flight,” or to make any alternative to detention programs available
to her, as required by Section 1232(c)(2)(B).
LEGAL BACKGROUND
A.

Laws And Agreements Governing The Care And Custody Of
Unaccompanied Immigrant Children

51.

Three key laws and agreements govern the federal government’s treatment and

custody of unaccompanied immigrant children:

the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement; the

Homeland Security Act of 2002; and the TVPRA.
52.

The Flores Settlement Agreement resulted from a lawsuit filed by a group of

immigrant children challenging their detention and seeking to be released to family members
and/or sponsors within the United States. See Flores v. Sessions, 862 F.3d 863, 869 (9th Cir. 2017)
(discussing the history of the Flores litigation). In 1997, the plaintiff children entered into a
consent decree with the federal government that created a nationwide policy governing the custody
and release of immigrant children by immigration authorities. Flores v. Reno, No. CV 85-4544,
Settlement

Agreement,

available

at

https://cliniclegal.org/sites/default/files/attachments

/flores_v ._reno_settlement_agreementJ.pdf (“Flores Settlement Agreement”).

Among other

things, the agreement requires: (a) release without unnecessary delay, (b) release to an adult
caregiver, with parents and other family members given priority, and (c) placement in the “least
restrictive setting.” Flores Settlement Agreement ff 11, 14.
53.

At the time of the Flores Settlement Agreement, a single agency—the Immigration

and Naturalization Service (INS)—administered the custody, detention, and deportation of
immigrant children. In 2002, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act (HSA), which abolished

10

 the INS, created a new Department of Homeland Security, and transferred all functions related to
the care and custody of unaccompanied immigrant children to ORR, a sub-department of the
Department of Health and Human Services. Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2153 (Nov. 25, 2002).
54.

Section 462 of the HSA extended the key terms of the Flores Settlement Agreement

to all unaccompanied immigrant children, including the requirement that ORR place such children
in the least restrictive setting. Id.
55.

In 2008, Congress further strengthened protections for unaccompanied children

through the TVPRA. See Pub. L. 110-457, 122 Stat. 5044 (Dec. 23, 2008). Like the Flores
Settlement Agreement, the TVPRA mandates that an unaccompanied child “shall be promptly
placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child,” Id. (emphasis added).
56.

Under the TVPRA, ORR endeavors to place each unaccompanied immigrant child

with a suitable sponsor, such as a parent or family member. A sponsor is suitable if he or she is
“capable of providing for the child’s physical and mental well-being.” 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(3)(A);
see also ORR, Children Entering the United States Unaccompanied:

Section 2, available at

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/children-entering-the-united-states-unaccompanied-section
2.

-

57.

In 2013, Congress enacted a statutory provision to address the placement of

unaccompanied immigrant children who have turned 18 and been transferred into ICE custody.
See Violence Against Women Act in 2013, Pub. L. 113-4, 127 Stat. 156, (codified at
8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B)

(March 7,

2013).

That provision,

which

was

codified

as

Section 1232(c)(2)(B), requires that ICE “shall consider placement” of such 18-year olds “in the
least restrictive setting available after taking into account the alien’s danger to self, danger to the
community, and risk of flight.” Id. (emphasis added).

11

 58.

Section 1232(c)(2)(B) further requires that such children “shall be eligible to

participate in alternative to detention programs, utilizing a continuum of alternatives based on the
alien’s need for supervision, which may include placement... with an individual or an
organizational sponsor, or in a supervised group home.” Id. (emphasis added).
B.

The Requirement That Immigrant Children Be Placed In
The “Least Restrictive Setting”

59.

The term “least restrictive setting” was first used in the Flores Settlement

Agreement, which required the government to release children to the “least restrictive setting
appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs ....” Flores Settlement Agreement f 11.
60.

Congress subsequently codified the term “least restrictive setting” in the TVPRA,

requiring that immigrant children “shall be promptly placed in the least restrictive setting that is in
the best interest of the child.” 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(A).
61.

ORR has multiple placement options for unaccompanied children.

First, if a

suitable sponsor is available, ORR will release the unaccompanied child to that sponsor. See
8 U.S.C. §§ 1232(b)(2)(A); 1232(c)(3). If a suitable sponsor is not available, ORR will house the
child in one of three types of facilities—shelter care, a staff secure shelter, or a secure shelter,
which is “akin to a local juvenile hall.”

Saravia v. Sessions, No. 17-CV-03615-VC,

2017 WL 5569838, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017), appeal docketed No. 18-15114.
62.

The TVPRA requires that a child shall not be placed in a secure facility absent a

finding that he or she is a flight risk or dangerous. 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(A). And, when ORR
places a child in a secure facility, it is required to review that placement every 30 days. Id.
63.

In 2013, when Congress amended Section 1232, it chose to extend the foregoing

protections afforded by the TVPRA to unaccompanied children to those immigrant children who
turn 18 and are transferred into ICE’s custody. See Pub. L. 113-4, § 1261. As discussed above,

12

 Section 1232(c)(2)(B) requires that ICE place such 18 year-olds “in the least restrictive setting
available after taking into account the alien’s danger to self, danger to the community, and risk of
flight,” and that ICE make available to them “alternative to detention programs, utilizing a
continuum of alternatives ... which may include placement... with an individual or an
organizational sponsor, or in a supervised group home.” 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B).
64.

But unlike ORR, which has multiple non-detention options for placing a child, (i.e.,

release to a sponsor, foster care, shelter care, staff-secure shelters, or a secure shelter), ICE
maintains, and places all immigrant children who tum 18 into, only one type of placement—adult
detention. ICE does not comply with any of the requirements of Section 1232(c)(2)(B). It does
not make a determination as to, or place 18-year olds in, “the least restrictive setting available after
taking into account the alien’s danger to self, danger to the community, and risk of flight.” Id.
Nor does it make available to such immigrants “alternative to detention programs, utilizing a
continuum of alternatives” that include placement “with an individual or an organizational
sponsor, or in a supervised group home.” Id.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
65.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)

consisting of:
All former unaccompanied alien children who are detained or will be detained by
ICE after being transferred by ORR because they have turned 18 years of age and
as to whom ICE did not consider placement in the least restrictive setting available,
including
alternative
to
detention
programs,
as
required
by
8 U.S.C.§ 1232(c)(2)(B).
66.

The class is so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable. In

Fiscal Year 2017, 40,810 children were referred to ORR as unaccompanied alien children. Of
those, 32%, or 13,059 children were age 17. Plaintiffs estimate that at the present point in time,
the class contains approximately 100 18 year-olds.
13

 67.

In addition, because class members are routinely being granted immigration relief

or removed from the country, the composition of the class changes on a regular basis and the class
is inherently transitory.
68.

All members of the class are subject to ICE’s failure to comply with, and to

establish policies and practices implementing, the requirements of Section 1232(c)(2)(B).
69.

There are questions of law and fact common to the class. These questions include,

but are not limited to: whether ICE has violated Section 1232(c)(2)(B) by failing to place class
members in the least restrictive setting available (considering danger to self and community and
flight risk); and whether ICE has violated Section 1232(c)(2)(B) by failing to consider class
members for alternative to detention programs, including providing the types of alternative
placements described in the statute.
70.

Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of all members of the proposed class.

Plaintiffs have no interests separate from those of the class, and seek no relief other than the relief
sought on behalf of the class.
71.

Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class because

(a) they are willing and able to represent the proposed class and have every incentive to pursue
this action to a successful conclusion; (b) their interests do not in any way conflict with those of
absent members of the class; and (c) they have retained counsel who are competent and
experienced in litigating class actions, civil rights, and immigrants’ rights litigation.
72.

The named Plaintiffs are adequate representatives. They have suffered the same

injury as all class members—ICE’s failure to consider their placement in the least restrictive
setting under Section 1232(c)(2)(B), and ICE’s failure to make alternatives to detention available
utilizing a continuum that includes release to a sponsor or placement in a group home. Named

14

 Plaintiffs assert the same statutory violations as each member of the class: ICE’s failure to comply
with Section 1232(c)(2)(B).
73.

Plaintiffs are also adequate representatives based on the relief they seek. Plaintiffs

seek two forms of relief:

first, a declaration that ICE is failing to comply with Section

1232(c)(2)(B) and thereby violating the unambiguous commands in the statute; and second, an
injunction barring ICE from continuing to violate Section 1232(c)(2)(B). If Plaintiffs succeed in
obtaining this declaratory and injunctive relief, such relief will adequately ameliorate the harm
ICE is causing to each class member. Accordingly, there is no conflict of interest among named
Plaintiffs and the class members they represent.
74.

Plaintiffs’ counsel are experienced in class action, civil rights, and immigrants’

rights litigation. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests
of the class.
75.

Given the commonality of the questions shared by all class members, prosecuting

separate claims as to individual class members would create a risk of inconsistent individual
adjudications that would establish different and potentially incompatible rules and standards for
ICE to apply when ORR transfers 18 year-old unaccompanied immigrants into ICE’s custody.
76.

Defendants have acted, and failed to act, on grounds that apply generally to the

class, such that injunctive and declaratory relief are appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.
77.

Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent have been directly injured by the

Defendants’ violations of Section 1232(c)(2)(B). They are at risk of future harm from continuation
of ICE’s failure to comply with Section 1232(c)(2)(B) and failure to enact policies, programs and
practices implementing and effectuating Section 1232(c)(2)(B).

15

 COUNT I
Administrative Procedure Act—5 U.S.C. § 706(2)
Defendants Are Violating 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B)
By Failing To Consider The Least Restrictive Setting For Plaintiffs And
Failing To Make Alternatives To Detention Available
78.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations of all preceding paragraphs.

79.

ICE has failed to consider the “least restrictive setting” for each Plaintiff and has

failed to consider each Plaintiff for alternatives to detention.
80.

ICE’s failure to consider the least restrictive setting for each Plaintiff and to make

alternative to detention programs available to Plaintiffs violates § 1232(c)(2)(B), which requires
that ICE “shall consider placement in the least restrictive setting available” for all immigrants who
are transferred into its custody after turning 18, and that these immigrants “shall be eligible to
participate in alternative to detention programs.” Id. (emphasis added).
81.

Each Plaintiff specifically asked ICE to place him or her in the least restrictive

setting available and to allow him or her to participate in alternative to detention programs. Their
requests have been summarily denied and/or ignored.
82.

ICE has no policy or procedure for placing 18 year-olds who are transferred by

ORR into the “least restrictive setting available after taking into account [their] danger to self,
danger to the community, and risk of flight,” assessing what the least restrictive setting would be,
or governing who has authority to make such a decision.
83.

ICE has no policy or procedure for making 18 year-olds eligible to participate in

alternatives to detention, including placement with an individual sponsor, an organizational
sponsor, or in a supervised group home as an alternative to detention.
84.

ICE’s failure to make “least restrictive setting” determinations violates

Section 1232(c)(2)(B), which requires that ICE “shall consider placement in the least restrictive
16

 setting available after taking into account the alien’s danger to self, danger to the community, and
risk of flight.” Id. (emphasis added).
85.

ICE’s failure to make alternatives to detention available to 18 year-olds transferred

from ORR custody violates Section 1232(c)(2)(B), which requires that such immigrants “shall be
eligible to participate in alternative to detention programs, utilizing a continuum of alternatives
based on the alien’s need for supervision, which may include placement... with an individual or
an organizational sponsor, or in a supervised group home.” Id. (emphasis added).
86.

ICE’s disregard of Section 1232(c)(2)(B)’s requirements violates the APA in that

ICE’s actions are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
law;” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or
short of statutory right,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).
COUNT II
Administrative Procedure Act—5 U.S.C. § 706(1)
Defendants Are Failing To Take Action They Arc Required To Take
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B)
87.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations of all the preceding paragraphs.

88.

The Court may “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably

delayed . .. .” 8 U.S.C. § 706(1). To make a showing under Section 706(1), Plaintiffs must
demonstrate “that an agency failed to take a discrete agency action that it is required to take.”
Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55, 64 (2004) (emphasis omitted).
89.

Section 1232(c)(2)(B) sets out two discrete, nondiscretionary actions that ICE is

required to take with regard to all 18 year-olds transferred into its custody from ORR. First, ICE
must “consider placement in the least restrictive setting.” 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B). Second, ICE
“shall” make 18 year-olds “eligible to participate in alternative to detention programs, utilizing a

17

 continuum of alternatives based on the alien’s need for supervision, which may include
placement.., with an individual or an organizational sponsor, or in a supervised group home.”
Id.
90.

As explained above, ICE has not taken, and is not taking, either of these statutorily-

required actions.
91.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek a court order under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) compelling ICE

to take the actions it is required to take pursuant to Section 1232(c)(2)(B).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court:
A.

Assume jurisdiction over this matter;

B.

Certify a class of unaccompanied immigrant children who have been transferred to

ICE because they have turned 18, as defined in Paragraph 65 above;
C.

Appoint the undersigned as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure;
D.

Declare that ICE’s failure to place Plaintiffs and members of the class in the “least

restrictive setting available” violates 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B) and 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(1) and 706(2);
E.

Declare that ICE’s failure to make “alternative to detention programs” available to

Plaintiffs and members of the class violates 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B) and 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(1) and
706(2);
F.

Order that ICE comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B) by considering Plaintiffs and

members of the class for, and placing them in, the last restrictive setting available after taking into
account each individual’s danger to self, danger to community, and risk of flight;
G.

Order that ICE comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B) by allowing Plaintiffs and

members of the class to participate in alternative to detention programs utilizing a continuum, of
18

 alternatives based on tlieir need for supervision, including placement with an individual or
organizational sponsor, or in a supervised group home;
H.

Award Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees and costs; and

I.

Grant such other and further relief as the^Court deems equitable, just, and proper.

Dated: March 5,2018
i ta lTTrDut
D.C. Bar No. 990447
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
655 Fifteenth St., NW
Washington, DC 20005
Tel.: (202) 879-5000
Fax: (202) 879-5200
tia.trout-perez@kirkland.com
Stephen R. Patton
Anne K.H. Reser
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
300 North LaSalle
Chicago, IL 60654
Tel: (312) 862-2000
Fax: (312) 862-2200
stephen.patton@kirkland.com
anne.reser@kirkland.com
Katherine Melloy Goettel
National Immigrant Justice Center
208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Tel: (312) 660-1335
Fax: (312) 660-1505
kgoettel@heartlandalliance.org

19