Case 1:18-cv-01159-PKC Document 74 Filed 03/26/18 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Ravidath Lawrence RAGBIR et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
THOMAS D. HOMAN, in his official capacity as
Deputy Director and Senior Official Performing
the Duties of the Director of U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, et al.,
(Defendants

Case No.: 18-cv-1159 (PKC)
DECLARATION OF ALINA DAS
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, ALINA DAS, declare under the penalty of perjury that
the following is correct to the best of my knowledge:
1.

My name is Alina Das. I am a professor, co-director, and supervising attorney for the
Immigrant Rights Clinic of Washington Square Legal Services, Inc., at New York
University School of Law, 245 Sullivan Street, 5th Floor, New York, New York 10012.

2.

I, along with co-counsel, represent the Plaintiffs in the instant action. I previously
submitted a declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF
No. 17). I submit this second declaration to address certain assertions in the declarations
submitted by Field Office Director Thomas Decker and Deputy Field Office Director
Scott Mechkowski.

3.

I have represented Plaintiff Ravidath “Ravi” Ragbir pro bono as his immigration attorney
since 2008, along with numerous students under my supervision in the Immigrant Rights
Clinic.
1

 Case 1:18-cv-01159-PKC Document 74 Filed 03/26/18 Page 2 of 8

Brief Background
4.

As I detailed in my prior declaration, Mr. Ragbir is Executive Director of the New
Sanctuary Coalition of New York City (“New Sanctuary Coalition”), a coalition of over
150 faith-based groups, with more than 1,000 volunteers, who advocate for immigrant
rights. As Executive Director of New Sanctuary Coalition, Ravi is a nationally
recognized immigrant rights leader. His work and his views about immigration policy
are frequently profiled in local and national media, and he is associated closely with the
sanctuary movement.

5.

Mr. Ragbir became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 1994. In 2006,
Mr. Ragbir was initially detained by immigration officials and placed in removal
proceedings based on his 2001 conviction for wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire
fraud. His removal order became administratively final in 2007, but he was released from
immigration detention in 2008 on an order of supervision. Since his 2008 release, he has
thus continued to live and work in the United States with the express authorization of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). ICE has provided this authorization
through his order of supervision, which allows him to live in the United States and apply
for work authorization despite his final order of removal. During some periods in the last
decade, Mr. Ragbir has also received a formal stay of removal from ICE in addition to his
order of supervision. One is not required to receive the other, and both provide
authorization to remain in the United States, contingent upon compliance with the order.
Inaccuracies in Defendants’ Declarations

6.

In describing the events and circumstances leading to Defendants’ decision to arrest and
detain Mr. Ragbir on January 11, 2018 for removal, and their ongoing efforts to deport

2

 Case 1:18-cv-01159-PKC Document 74 Filed 03/26/18 Page 3 of 8

Mr. Ragbir despite his release from detention, Director Thomas Decker and Deputy
Director Scott Mechkowski make several statements that require clarification, including
about Mr. Ragbir’s prior authorization to remain in the United States, the relevance of
Mr. Ragbir’s 2001 criminal conviction, and the timing of Defendants’ decision to remove
Mr. Ragbir. These statements are material to the extent they attempt to offer an
alternative explanation of the reasons and timing of Defendants’ decision to target Mr.
Ragbir for removal.
Statements regarding the relevance of Mr. Ragbir’s legal remedies
7.

Director Decker and Deputy Director Mechkowski state that Mr. Ragbir has been
permitted to remain in the United States following his removal order due primarily to his
pending petition for review to the Second Circuit, even stating that immigration officials
released Mr. Ragbir in 2008 from his initial detention due to his then-pending Second
Circuit petition for review and motion for a stay of removal. See Amended Declaration of
Director Thomas Decker (ECF No. 58) ¶ 8 [hereinafter Amended Decker Decl.];
Declaration of Deputy Director Scott Mechkowski (ECF No. 50) ¶ 9 [hereinafter
Mechkowski Decl.]. They further suggest that the denial of Mr. Ragbir’s second petition
for review to the Second Circuit in 2016 opened the way for deportation. Mechkowski
Decl. ¶¶ 14, 17; Amended Decker Decl. ¶ 21.

8.

However, ICE’s decision to initially give Mr. Ragbir permission to live in the United
States on an order of supervision starting in 2008, and its decision to grant him several
subsequent administrative stays, appear to be based on other factors. According to Mr.
Ragbir’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement Post Order Custody Review Worksheet,
dated February 11, 2008, Mr. Ragbir’s release was authorized in 2008 on an order of

3

 Case 1:18-cv-01159-PKC Document 74 Filed 03/26/18 Page 4 of 8

supervision because he “did not commit a crime of violence and does not appear to be a
flight risk and he is fully aware that he will have to report to ICE custody when required.”
While the order references his pending Second Circuit petition, it does not state that the
petition was the basis for release. Indeed, the Second Circuit petition had been pending
since April 2007, but Mr. Ragbir was not released until after February 11, 2008.
Moreover, even after Mr. Ragbir’s first Second Circuit petition was denied in 2010, no
enforcement action was taken against him and he continued to live and work in the
United States under his order of supervision. Mr. Ragbir repeatedly reported to
Immigration and Customs Enforcement as that order required. He continued to pursue
other forms of relief, including a second petition for review to the Second Circuit. At no
time was Mr. Ragbir ever told that his authorization to remain in the United States was
contingent upon the outcome of his petitions for review alone, without regard to his other
available legal remedies or his extensive community support.
Statements regarding the relevance of Mr. Ragbir’s 2001 criminal conviction
9.

Director Decker emphasizes that President Trump has prioritized the deportation of
people with criminal convictions. Amended Decker Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. To the extent he is
suggesting that this prioritization explains the change in position in Mr. Ragbir’s case, it
does not. President Obama also prioritized individuals with criminal convictions for
deportation. See, e.g., Dep’t of Homeland Security, Civil Immigration Enforcement:
Priorities for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens (Mar. 2, 2011),
https://goo.gl/YTSvhP. As in the Obama administration, President Trump permits
discretion to be exercised on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Ragbir has only one conviction,
from 2001.

4

 Case 1:18-cv-01159-PKC Document 74 Filed 03/26/18 Page 5 of 8

10.

Deputy Director Mechkowski admits that he gave no meaningful weight to the hundreds
of community letters of support in favor of Mr. Ragbir’s stay application. Mechkowski
Decl. ¶ 22. He states that this is because the letters do not address Mr. Ragbir’s
conviction. Id. However, nearly every letter submitted explicitly references Mr. Ragbir’s
conviction and describes why it should not be an impediment to a grant of a stay. Mr.
Ragbir talks openly about his conviction, and the letters of support—including a letter
from his former criminal sentencing judge—reference and mitigate it.
Decisions to Review Mr. Ragbir’s Case, Surveil Him, and Deport Him

11.

Director Decker makes different statements in his two declarations regarding when and
why he began to review Mr. Ragbir’s case. In his second declaration, he states that he
was contacted by Jacqueline Esposito, whom he describes as counsel for Mr. Ragbir. See
Amended Decker Decl. ¶ 12. Ms. Esposito has never been counsel for Mr. Ragbir.
Director Decker suggests he then reviewed Mr. Ragbir’s file, see id., but was unaware
that I was counsel for Mr. Ragbir until we met at a community liaison meeting in April
2017. Id. ¶¶ 15-16. However, all legal paperwork in Mr. Ragbir’s file, including the prior
stay requests that Director Decker indicated that he carefully reviewed, id. ¶¶ 12-13, were
submitted by me, on my letterhead, with my G-28 (notice of legal representation). My G28 has been on file with Immigration and Customs Enforcement since 2008 and is
included with each submission. Director Decker’s Special Assistant responded to my
pending request for a community liaison meeting on March 9, 2017, the day of Mr.
Ragbir’s check-in with ICE, during which elected officials and the media were present.

12.

Director Decker and Deputy Director Mechkowski also state that Director Decker made
the decision to deport Mr. Ragbir in December 2017. Id. ¶ 21; Mechkowski Decl. ¶ 17.

5

 Case 1:18-cv-01159-PKC Document 74 Filed 03/26/18 Page 6 of 8

Yet Deputy Director Mechkowski recently submitted a declaration in Ragbir v. Sessions,
attesting that he told me no decision had been made until January 11, 2018, but making
no reference to a decision having been made by Director Decker in December 2017. See
Declaration of Scott Mechkowski dated Jan. 19, 2018 (ECF No. 32) ¶ 43, Ragbir v.
Sessions, No. 1:18-cv-236 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2018) (“[D]eclarant informed Das
that no decision had been made on Ragbir’s request for an administrative stay of removal
and that ICE was still reviewing the application.”). The new timeline described by
Defendants’ declarations in this case also contradicts statements that Deputy Director
Mechkowski made to me in person and in writing, as well as statements he made to
others. I met with Deputy Director Mechkowski on January 8, 2018 to discuss Mr.
Ragbir’s case. See Mechkowski Decl. ¶ 20; Das Decl. ¶ 15-16. I also emailed Deputy
Director Mechkowski on January 10, 2018 to follow-up on the status of Mr. Ragbir’s
application for a stay. Das Decl. ¶ 17. During our conversation on January 8, 2018, and in
his email reply on January 10, 2018, Deputy Director Mechkowski stated that ICE had
not yet made a decision on Ravi’s application. Id. ¶¶ 18-20.
13.

In his declaration, Director Decker also states that ICE surveilled Mr. Ragbir on January
3, 2018, Amended Decker Decl. ¶ 34, and intended to detain him the same day as Jean
Montrevil, one of New Sanctuary Coalition’s co-founders. Id. ¶ 31. This contradicts
Deputy Director Mechkowski’s statements to me during our in-person meeting on
January 8, 2018, that he had not surveilled Mr. Ragbir and that they had no intention of
detaining him prior to his check-in with ICE.

14.

Director Decker and Deputy Director Mechkowski justify the decision to attempt to
detain Mr. Montrevil and Mr. Ragbir on the same day by suggesting detaining only one

6

 Case 1:18-cv-01159-PKC Document 74 Filed 03/26/18 Page 7 of 8

of them would cause the other to evade deportation. Id. However, both had been detained
before and still attended their subsequent check-ins upon release, including during
periods where neither had a stay of removal in place. Both were aware that ICE could
detain them at their upcoming check-ins. Neither had any reason to think that a decision
in one person’s case would have an impact on the other’s, and neither Director Decker or
Deputy Director Mechkowski explain why the two cases are related, other than that they
are high-profile and involve the New Sanctuary Coalition. See e.g., Amended Decker
Decl. ¶ 12 (“My staff and I deemed Mr. Ragbir and Mr. Montrevil noteworthy because
their removal potentially could garner media attention.”).
15.

To suggest that Mr. Ragbir did react to Mr. Montrevil’s detention, both Director Decker
and Deputy Director Mechkowski incorrectly assert that Mr. Ragbir took sanctuary (i.e.,
took the protection of a church to avoid deportation) on January 3, 2018, after learning
that Mr. Montrevil was detained. Amended Decker Decl. ¶ 34; Mechkowksi Decl. ¶ 20.
Indeed, Deputy Director Mechkowski cites to that proposition as one of the reasons why
he misinformed me that no decision had been made on Mr. Ragbir’s case. See
Mechkowski Decl. ¶ 20. That is incorrect. Mr. Ragbir did not take sanctuary. He works at
the New Sanctuary Coalition, which is located at 239 Thompson Street, New York, New
York, inside Judson Memorial Church. Judson Memorial Church also serves as the event
space for New Sanctuary Coalition’s community meetings, clinics, and an array of
volunteer activities coordinated by Mr. Ragbir. Mr. Ragbir was working at the New
Sanctuary Coalition on January 3, 2018 when unmarked cars were surveilling him. The
fact that Mr. Ragbir was inside the church—his regular office—working at the time of
Defendants’ surveillance does not mean that Mr. Ragbir took sanctuary. To the contrary,

7

  

 

Case Document 74 Filed 03/26/18 Page 8 of 8

Mr. Ragbir has regularly stated he would not take sanctuary, has always complied with
reporting requirements, and indeed reported to 26 Federal Plaza as required for his
January 1 l, 2018 check?in.

16. In addition to these various inaccuracies and inconsistencies, there are other areas of
disagreement in our respective recollections of conversations and meetings regarding Mr.
Ragbir?s case. Notably, in response to my previous declaration, Deputy Director
Mechkowski denies expressing ?resentment" towards Mr. Ragbir, or referencing Mr.
Ragbir?s statements to the press and his presence at vigils around 26 Federal P1aza,
during his January 8, 2018 discussion with me. See Mechkowski Decl. at 20, 22. He
also denies expressing anger and stating his need to ?cool off? during the check?in on
January 1 1, 2018 when MI. Ragbir was detained (a meeting at which Mr. Ragbir, his wife
Amy Gottlieb, and another ICE of?cer, Assistant Field Of?ce Director Hector Medina,
were also present). Id. ?1 25. I recall those statements and references vividly, commenting
on them to colleagues shortly after each meeting because they were so concerning.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: New York, NY Respectfully submitted,

68/2 0 

Alina Das, Esq.

Immigrant Rights Clinic

Washington Square Legal Services, Inc.
245 Sullivan Street, 5lh Floor

New York, NY 10012

(212) 998?6430

 

 

 

.