Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 1 of 49

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
M.M.V.; A.A.M., a minor; S.L.V.; M.F.L., a minor; )
J.G.G.; E.G.G., a minor; J.G.O.; I.M.G., a minor; )
A.O.V.; J.S.O., a minor; M.R.A.; L.C.R., a minor; )
A.L.V.; I.G.L, a minor; A.G.L., a minor; L.O.R.; )
A.P.O., a minor; N.P.; R.D.P., a minor; M.D.E.;
)
A.G.D., a minor; M.M.B.; N.M.M., a minor;
)
D.C.V.; S.V.C., a minor; L.A.C.; B.A.G., a minor; )
M.G.V.; A.R.G., a minor; R.P.F.; J.F.P., a minor; )
S.T.T.; E.T.T., a minor; R.G.R.; B.B.G., a minor; )
D.B.G., a minor; J.M.R.; C.G.M., a minor; M.R.A.; )
V.A.R., a minor; H.M.M.; T.A.M., a minor; J.S.M., )
D.M.S., a minor; Y.U.; F.G.U., a minor; I.F.L.;
)
R.F.L., a minor; R.C.C.; D.L.C., a minor; N.M.L.; )
A.R.M., a minor; M.C.D.; E.E.C., a minor; Y.O.T.; )
D.L.O., a minor; V.L.O., a minor; M.A.A.; A.R.A., )
a minor; C.A.A., a minor; M.C.M; S.M.C., a minor; )
I.A.D.; C.L.A., a minor; C.C.N.; B.S.C., a minor; )
C.P.G.; M.B.P., a minor; L.P.E.; C.C.P., a minor; )
D.C.P., a minor; L.H.H.; Y.F.H., a minor; A.A.T.; )
C.A.T., a minor; V.O.V.; E.H.O., a minor; I.H.O., a )
minor; W.P.R.; J.C.P., a minor; H.C.P., a minor;
)
D.M.G.; N.E.M, a minor; A.B.C.; E.C.B.; a minor; )
P.A.; I.A., a minor; G.A.Q.; N.A.Q., a minor;
)
A.A.Q., a minor; S.G.H.; A.G.H., a minor; M.S.M.; )
C.C.S., a minor; I.S.R.; J.A.S., a minor; J.S.P.;
)
M.A.S., a minor; N.C.A.; M.P.C., a minor; J.L.C., a )
minor; M.A.M.; G.M.A., a minor; D.V.R.; A.V.R., )
a minor; D.S.P.; V.V.P., a minor; D.G.A.; E.P.G., a )
minor; M.P.G., a minor; K.P.P.; M.P.P., a minor; )
I.P.P., a minor; M.G.P.; M.U.G., a minor; J.A.L., a )
minor; F.G.; I.G., a minor; J.T.; Y.J.T., a minor;
)
M.V.C.; E..P.V., a minor; K.N.E; and E.A.N., a
)
minor; M.H.; J.M.H., a minor.
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the
)

Case No. 1:19-cv-2773

COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 2 of 49

United States; JAMES MCHENRY, Director,
)
Executive Office for Immigration Review; KEVIN )
K. MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary, United States )
Department of Homeland Security; MARK
)
MORGAN, Acting Commissioner, United States )
Customs and Border Protection; MATTHEW T.
)
ALBENCE, Acting Director, United States
)
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
)
KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, Purported Acting
)
Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration)
Services; and ANDREW DAVIDSON, Acting
)
USCIS Asylum Division Chief,
)
)
Defendants.
)

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

INTRODUCTION
1.

On July 16, 2019, the Administration published new and immediately effective

“Asylum Eligibility and Procedural Modifications.” 84 FR 33829. The legality of the July 16,
2019 regulation is currently at issue in separate litigation.1 However, subsequent to that
announcement, Defendants have eviscerated the “credible fear” process and have implemented
ever-shifting directives, guidance and procedures that place parents and children in immigration
detention at risk of wrongful deportation, persecution, and death.
2.

Upon reason and belief, since July 16, 2019 the credible fear passage rates at the

South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas—the largest family detention center in
the United States with a bed and crib capacity of 2,400 for asylum seeking mothers and
children—have diminished from approximately 97% of credible fear applicants, to fewer than
10% of applicants.

1

​See Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant,​ 588 U.S. ___ (Sept. 11, 2019).

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 3 of 49

3.

On information and belief, since July 16, 2019, the Defendants have implemented

new regulations, directives, guidance and/or procedures concerning the evaluation of “credible
fear” in people seeking protection from persecution and torture.
4.

On information and belief, said regulations, directives, guidance and/or

procedures are written and have not been made public; however, each of the Plaintiffs have been
subjected to written decisions that confirm said changes concerning the evaluation of “credible
fear.” Presumably, written guidance has been disseminated by the Defendants to their agents and
employees conducting these “credible fear” evaluations. As a result of these new regulations,
directives, guidance and/or procedures, the immigration authorities summarily rejected
Plaintiffs’ claims of fear.
5.

Plaintiffs challenge the new regulations, directives, guidance and/or procedures

concerning the evaluation of “credible fear,”2 and seek declaratory and injunctive relief finding
the application of new credible fear standard(s) to them unlawful, barring further application of
such policies and procedures to them, and requiring the government Defendants to reprocess
their fear claims under the prior existing and established policies, directives, guidance and
procedures.
6.

DHS failed to follow appropriate notice and comment requirements, and in

addition, the new regulations, directives, guidance and/or procedures concerning the evaluation
of “credible fear” are arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law in violation of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 706(2).

This Complaint does ​not ​challenge the legality of 84 FR 33829, which is being addressed in
other litigation. Instead, this Complaint challenges the legality of the Defendants’ additional
regulations and directives created as a result of 84 FR 33829 to modify the credible fear review
process.
2

3

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 4 of 49

JURISDICTION
7.

This case arises under the United States Constitution; the Administrative

Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 ​et seq​.; the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8
U.S.C. § 1101 ​et seq​. and its implementing regulations; and the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”), ​see F
​ oreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (“FARRA”), Pub. L. No.
105-277, div. G, Title XXII, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822 (1998) (codified as Note to 8
U.S.C. § 1231).
8.

The Court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3). Section 1252(e)(3) is a

provision of the INA that provides exclusive jurisdiction in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia over systemic challenges to “the validity of the [expedited removal]
system,” including regulations and “written” policies regarding expedited removal. The Court
also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction with a waiver of
sovereign immunity pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §701 et seq.); and
28 U.S.C. § 1346 (United States as defendant). Jurisdiction lies to grant declaratory relief
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 (Declaratory Judgment Act).
9.

8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3)(B) requires that suit be brought within sixty days of the

date of implementation of “the challenged section, regulation, directive, guideline, or procedure.”
The policies in question arose as a result of the Department of Homeland Security’s rule issued
on July 16, 2019. 84 FR 33829. On information and belief, guidance on credible fear
adjudication was issued by the Attorney General on or after this date. Sixty days elapsed on
Saturday, September 14, 2019. However, as per F.R.C.P. 6(a)(1)(C), because the last day of the
sixty-day time period was a Saturday, the time period for filing to challenge the regulation

4

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 5 of 49

extended to “the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday” - Monday, September
16, 2019. Plaintiffs’ challenge to all subsequent directives, guidelines and procedures is thus also
timely.
VENUE
10.

Venue is proper in this District because 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3)(A) requires that all

8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3) actions be brought in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia.
11.

Venue in the District of Columbia is further proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1391(e), as the location where the government Defendants reside and where a substantial part of
the events giving rise to the claims occurred.
PARTIES
12.

Plaintiffs are mothers and children detained at the South Texas Texas Family

Residential Center who have been issued negative credible fear determinations.
13.

Plaintiffs  M.M.V.  and  her  minor  son  A.A.M.  are  Salvadoran  nationals  who  seek 

protection  from  persecution  and  torture in the United States. M.M.V. and A.A.M. were placed in 
credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  22,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible  fear 
interview  on  August  29,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative  credible  fear  determinations  on 
August  30,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in  Dilley, 
Texas. 
14.

Plaintiffs  S.L.V.  and  her  minor  daughter  M.F.L.  are  Salvadoran  nationals  who 

seek  protection  from  persecution and torture in the United States. S.L.V. and M.F.L. were placed 
in  credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  22,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible  fear 

5

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 6 of 49

interview  on  August  29,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative  credible  fear  determinations  on 
September  2,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in  Dilley, 
Texas. 
15.

Plaintiffs  J.G.G.  and  her  minor  daughter  E.G.G.  are  Salvadoran  nationals  who 

seek  protection  from  persecution  and torture in the United States. J.G.G. and E.G.G. were placed 
in  credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  24,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible  fear 
interview  on  August  29,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative  credible  fear  determinations  on 
September  2,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in  Dilley, 
Texas. 
16.

Plaintiffs  J.G.O.  and  her  minor  son  I.M.G.  are  Honduran  nationals  who  seek 

protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  J.G.O.  and  I.M.G.  were  placed  in 
credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  24,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible  fear 
interview  on  August  29,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative  credible  fear  determinations  on 
September  2,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in  Dilley, 
Texas. 
17.

Plaintiffs  A.O.V.  and  her  minor  son  J.S.O.  are  Honduran  nationals  who  seek 

protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  A.O.V..  and  J.S.O.  were  placed  in 
credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  25,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible  fear 
interview  on  August  30,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative  credible  fear  determinations  on 
September  3,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in  Dilley, 
Texas. 

6

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 7 of 49

18.

Plaintiffs  M.R.A.  and  her  minor  daughter  L.C.R.  are  Honduran  nationals  who 

seek  protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  M.R.A.  and  L.C.R.  were 
placed  in  credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  28,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible 
fear  interview  on  September  3,  2019  and  were  served with negative credible fear determinations 
on  September 3, 2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, 
Texas. 
19.

Plaintiffs  A.L.V.  and  her  minor  sons  I.G.L.  and  A.G.L.  are  Honduran  nationals 

who  seek  protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  A.L.V.,  I.G.L.,  and 
A.G.L.  were  placed  in  credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  28,  2019  attended  their 
initial  credible  fear  interview  on  September  3,  2019  and  were  served with negative credible fear 
determinations  on  September  3,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential 
Center in Dilley, Texas. 
20.

Plaintiffs  L.O.R.  and  her  minor  son  A.P.O.  are  Honduran  nationals  who  seek 

protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  L.O.R.  and  A.P.O.  were  placed  in 
credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  16,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible  fear 
interview  on  September  3,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative  credible  fear  determinations  on 
September  3,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in  Dilley, 
Texas. 
21.

Plaintiffs  N.P.  and  her  minor  daughter  R.D.P.  are  Honduran  nationals  who  seek 

protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  N.P.  and  R.D.P.  were  placed  in 
credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  16,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible  fear 
interview  on  August  27,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative  credible  fear  determinations  on 

7

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 8 of 49

August  29,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in  Dilley, 
Texas. 
22.

Plaintiffs  M.D.E.  and  her  minor  son  A.G.D.  are  Salvadoran  nationals  who  seek 

protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  M.D.E.  and  A.G.D.  were placed in 
credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  21,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible  fear 
interview  on  August  29,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative  credible  fear  determinations  on 
August  29,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in  Dilley, 
Texas. 
23.

Plaintiffs  M.M.B.  and  her  minor  daughter  N.M.M.  are  Nicaraguan  nationals who 

seek  protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  M.M.B.  and  N.M.M.  were 
placed  in  credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  21,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible 
fear  interview  on August 30, 2019 and were served with negative credible fear determinations on 
August  31,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in  Dilley, 
Texas. 
24.

Plaintiffs  D.C.V.  and  her  minor  son  S.V.C.  are  Guatemalan  nationals  who  seek 

protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  D.C.V.  and  S.V.C.  were  placed  in 
credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  22,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible  fear 
interview  on  August  27,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative  credible  fear  determinations  on 
August  30,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in  Dilley, 
Texas. 
25.

Plaintiffs L.A.C. and her minor child B.A.G. are Salvadoran nationals who seek

protection from persecution and torture in the United States. They were placed in credible fear

8

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 9 of 49

proceedings on or around August 20, 2019, attended their initial credible fear interview on
August 23, 2019, and were served with negative credible fear determinations on August 30,
2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas.
26.

Plaintiffs M.G.V. and her minor child A.R.G. are Salvadoran nationals who seek

protection from persecution and torture in the United States. They were placed in credible fear
proceedings on or around August 25, 2019, attended their initial credible fear interview on
September 2, 2019, and were served with negative credible fear determinations on September 3,
2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas.
27.

Plaintiffs R.P.F. and her minor child J.F.P. are Salvadoran nationals who seek

protection from persecution and torture in the United States. They were placed in credible fear
proceedings on or around August 26, 2019, attended their initial credible fear interview on
September 2, 2019, and were served with negative credible fear determinations on September 2,
2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas.
28.

Plaintiffs S.T.T. and her minor child E.T.T. are Honduran nationals who seek

protection from persecution and torture in the United States. They were placed in credible fear
proceedings on or around August 27, 2019, attended their initial credible fear interview on
September 2, 2019, and were served with negative credible fear determinations on September 2,
2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas.
29.

Plaintiffs R.G.R. and her minor children B.B.G. and D.B.G. are Salvadoran

nationals who seek protection from persecution and torture in the United States. They were
placed in credible fear proceedings on or around August 25, 2019, attended their initial credible
fear interview on September 2, 2019, and were served with negative credible fear determinations

9

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 10 of 49

on September 3, 2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley,
Texas.
30.

Plaintiffs J.M.R. and her minor child C.G.M. are Honduran nationals who seek

protection from persecution and torture in the United States. They were placed in credible fear
proceedings on or around August 20, 2019, attended their initial credible fear interview on
August 27, 2019, and were served with negative credible fear determinations on August 29,
2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas.
31.

Plaintiffs  M.C.M.  and  her  minor  daughter  S.M.C.  are  Honduran  nationals  who 

seek  protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  M.C.M.  and  S.M.C.  were 
placed  in  credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  26,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible 
fear  interview  on  September  2,  2019  and  were  served with negative credible fear determinations 
on  September 2, 2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, 
Texas. 
32.

Plaintiffs P.A. and her minor daughter I.A. are Romanian nationals who seek

protection from persecution and torture in the United States. P.A. and I.A. were placed in
credible fear proceedings on or around August 31, 2019 attended their initial credible fear
interview on September 5, 2019 and were served with negative credible fear determinations on
September 11, 2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley,
Texas.
33.

Plaintiffs G.A.Q. and her minor son N.A.Q. are Salvadoran nationals who seek

protection from persecution and torture in the United States. G.A.Q. and N.A.Q. were placed in
credible fear proceedings on or around September 4, 2019 attended their initial credible fear

10

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 11 of 49

interview on September 5, 2019 and were served with negative credible fear determinations on
September 6, 2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley,
Texas.
34.

Plaintiffs S.G.H. and her minor child A.G.H. are Salvadoran nationals who seek

protection from persecution and torture in the United States. S.G.G.H. and A.G.H. were placed in
credible fear proceedings on or around August 30, 2019 attended their initial credible fear
interview on September 5, 2019 and were served with negative credible fear determinations on
September 12, 2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley,
Texas.
35.

Plaintiffs M.S.M. and her minor daughter C.C.A. are Honduran nationals who

seek protection from persecution and torture in the United States. M.S.M. and C.C.A. were
placed in credible fear proceedings on or around August 27, 2019 attended their initial credible
fear interview on September 3, 2019 and were served with negative credible fear determinations
on September 3, 2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley,
Texas.
36.

Plaintiffs I.S.R. and her minor son J.A.S. are Honduran nationals who seek

protection from persecution and torture in the United States. I.S.R. and J.A.S. were placed in
credible fear proceedings on or around August 16, 2019 attended their initial credible fear
interview on August 30, 2019 and were served with negative credible fear determinations on
September 12, 2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley,
Texas.

11

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 12 of 49

37.

Plaintiffs J.S.P. and her minor son M.A.S. are Honduran nationals who seek

protection from persecution and torture in the United States. J.S.P. and M.A.S. were placed in
credible fear proceedings on or around August 16, 2019 attended their initial credible fear
interview on September 5, 2019 and were served with negative credible fear determinations on
September 12, 2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley,
Texas.
38.

Plaintiffs N.C.A. and her minor children M.P.C. and J.L.C. are Honduran

nationals who seek protection from persecution and torture in the United States. They were
placed in credible fear proceedings on or around August 27, 2019 attended their initial credible
fear interview on September 3, 2019 and were served with negative credible fear determinations
on September 12, 2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in
Dilley, Texas.
39.

Plaintiffs M.A.M. and her minor daughter G.M.A. are Honduran nationals who

seek protection from persecution and torture in the United States. M.A.M. and G.M.A. were
placed in credible fear proceedings on or around August 29, 2019 attended their initial credible
fear interview on September 5, 2019 and were served with negative credible fear determinations
on September 12, 2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in
Dilley, Texas.
40.

Plaintiffs D.V.R. and her minor son A.V.R. are Honduran nationals who seek

protection from persecution and torture in the United States. D.V.R. and A.V.R. were placed in
credible fear proceedings on or around August 22, 2019 attended their initial credible fear
interview on August 29, 2019 and were served with negative credible fear determinations on

12

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 13 of 49

September 12, 2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley,
Texas.
41.

Child  J.A.L. is a Guatemalan national who entered the United States accompanied 

by  his  mother,  who was placed in reasonable fear proceedings. J.A.L. was placed in credible fear 
proceedings  on  or  around  August  30,  2019  attended  an  initial  credible  fear  interview  on 
September  10,  2019  and  was  served  with  a  negative  credible  fear  determination  on  September 
12, 2019. 
42.

Plaintiffs  D.S.P.  and  her  minor  son  V.V.P.  are  Salvadoran  nationals  who  seek 

protection  from  persecution  and torture in the United States. D.V.S.P. and V.M.V.P. were placed 
in  credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  28,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible  fear 
interview  on  September  10,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative credible fear determinations on 
September  12,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in Dilley, 
Texas. 
43.

Plaintiffs  D.G.A.  and  her  minor  children  M.P.G.  and  E.P.G.  are  Honduran 

nationals  who  seek  protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  They  were 
placed  in  credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  29,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible 
fear  interview  on  September  4,  2019  and  were  served with negative credible fear determinations 
on  September  11,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in 
Dilley, Texas. 
44.

Plaintiffs  K.P.P.  and  her  minor  children  I.P.P.  and  M.P.P.  are  Ecuadorean 

nationals  who  seek  protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  They  were 
placed  in credible fear proceedings on or around September 9, 2019 attended their initial credible 

13

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 14 of 49

fear interview on September 12, 2019 and were served with negative credible fear determinations 
on  September  12,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in 
Dilley, Texas. 
45.

Plaintiffs  M.G.P.  and  her  minor  daughter  M.U.G.  are  Salvadoran  nationals  who 

seek  protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  M.G.P.  and  M.U.G.  were 
placed  in credible fear proceedings on or around September 7, 2019 attended their initial credible 
fear interview on September 11, 2019 and were served with negative credible fear determinations 
on  September  13,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in 
Dilley, Texas. 
46.

Plaintiffs  M.V.C.  and  her  minor  son  E.P.V.  are  Guatemalan  nationals  who  seek 

protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  M.V.C.  and  E.P.V.  were  placed  in 
credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  22,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible  fear 
interview  on  September  5,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative  credible  fear  determinations  on 
September  16,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in Dilley, 
Texas. 
47.

Plaintiffs  K.N.E.  and  her  minor  son  E.A.N.  are  Honduran  nationals  who  seek 

protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  K.N.E.  and  E.A.N.  were  placed  in 
credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  September  8,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible  fear 
interview  on  September  12,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative credible fear determinations on 
September  16,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in Dilley, 
Texas. 

14

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 15 of 49

48.

Plaintiffs  F.G.  and  her  minor  child  I.G.  are  Romanian  nationals  who  seek 

protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  F.G.  and  I.G.  were  placed  in 
credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  September  4,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible  fear 
interview  on  September  10,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative credible fear determinations on 
September  16,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in Dilley, 
Texas. 
49.

Plaintiffs  J.B.T.  and  her  minor  daughter  Y.J.T.  are  Indian  nationals  who  seek 

protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  J.B.T.  and  Y.J.T.  were  placed  in 
credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  16,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible  fear 
interview  on  August  23,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative  credible  fear  determinations  on 
August  27,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in  Dilley, 
Texas. 
50.

Plaintiffs  I.A.D.  and  her  minor  daughter  C.L.A.  are  Ecuadorian  nationals  who 

seek  protection  from  persecution  and  torture in the United States. I.A.D. and C.L.A. were placed 
in  credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  24,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible  fear 
interview  on  August  30,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative  credible  fear  determinations  on 
September  4,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in  Dilley, 
Texas. 
51.

Plaintiffs  C.C.N.  and  her  minor  son  B.S.C.  are  Salvadoran  nationals  who  seek 

protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  C.C.N.  and  B.S.C.  were  placed  in 
credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  27,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible  fear 
interview  on  September  4,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative  credible  fear  determinations  on 

15

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 16 of 49

September  6,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in  Dilley, 
Texas. 
52.

Plaintiffs  C.P.G.  and  her  minor  son  M.B.P.  are  Guatemalan  nationals  who  seek 

protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  C.P.G.  and  M.B.P.  were  placed  in 
credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  20,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible  fear 
interview  on  August  30,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative  credible  fear  determinations  on 
September  6,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in  Dilley, 
Texas. 
53.

Plaintiffs  L.P.E.  and  her  minor  sons  C.C.P.  and  D.C.P.  are  Honduran  nationals 

who  seek  protection  from  persecution  and torture in the United States. L.P.E, C.C.P., and D.C.P. 
were  placed  in  credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  29,  2019  attended  their  initial 
credible  fear  interview  on  September  5,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative  credible  fear 
determinations  on  September  10,  2019.  They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential 
Center in Dilley, Texas. 
54.

Plaintiffs  L.H.H. and her minor daughter Y.F.H. are Honduran nationals who seek 

protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  L.H.H.  and  Y.F.H.  were  placed  in 
credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  25,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible  fear 
interview  on  September  2,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative  credible  fear  determinations  on 
September  2,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in  Dilley, 
Texas. 
55.

Plaintiffs  A.A.T.  and  her  minor  son  C.A.T.  are  Salvadoran  nationals  who  seek 

protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  A.A.T.  and  C.A.T.  were  placed  in 

16

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 17 of 49

credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  28,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible  fear 
interview  on  September  4,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative  credible  fear  determinations  on 
September  11,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in Dilley, 
Texas. 
56.

Plaintiffs  V.O.V.  and  her  minor  children  E.H.O.  and  I.H.O.  are  Honduran 

nationals  who  seek  protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the United States.V.O.V., E.H.O., 
and  I.H.O.  were  placed  in  credible fear proceedings on or around August 25, 2019 attended their 
initial  credible  fear  interview  on  September  3,  2019  and  were  served with negative credible fear 
determinations  on  September  11,  2019.  They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential 
Center in Dilley, Texas. 
57.

Plaintiffs  W.P.R.  and  her  minor  children  J.C.P.  and  H.C.P.  are  Salvadoran 

nationals  who  seek  protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.W.P.R.,  J.C.P., 
and  H.C.P.  were  placed in credible fear proceedings on or around August 21, 2019 attended their 
initial  credible  fear  interview  on  August  30,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative  credible  fear 
determinations  on  September  11,  2019.  They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential 
Center in Dilley, Texas. 
58.

Plaintiffs  D.M.G..  and  her  minor  daughter  N.E.M..  are  Honduran  nationals  who 

seek  protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  D.M.G.  and  N.E.M.  were 
placed  in  credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  29,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible 
fear  interview  on  September  5,  2019  and  were  served with negative credible fear determinations 
on  September  11,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in 
Dilley, Texas. 

17

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 18 of 49

59.

Plaintiffs  A.B.D.  and  her  minor  daughter  E.C.B.  are  Salvadoran  nationals  who 

seek  protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  A.B.D.  and  E.C.B..  were 
placed  in  credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  29,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible 
fear  interview  on  September  4,  2019  and  were  served with negative credible fear determinations 
on  September  11,  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in 
Dilley, Texas. 
60.

Plaintiffs  M.H.  and  her  minor  son  J.M.H.  are  Honduran  nationals  who  seek 

protection  from  persecution  and  torture  in  the  United  States.  M.H.  and  J.M.H.  were  placed  in 
credible  fear  proceedings  on  or  around  August  29,  2019  attended  their  initial  credible  fear 
interview  on  September  4,  2019  and  were  served  with  negative  credible  fear  determinations  on 
September  6  2019.  They  are  detained  at  the  South  Texas  Family  Residential  Center  in  Dilley, 
Texas. 
61.

Plaintiffs M.R.A. and her minor child V.A.R. are Salvadoran nationals who seek

protection from persecution and torture in the United States. They were placed in credible fear
proceedings on or around August 14, 2019, attended their initial credible fear interview on
August 26, 2019, and were served with negative credible fear determinations on August 29,
2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas.
62.

Plaintiffs H.M.M. and her minor child T.A.M. are Honduran nationals who seek

protection from persecution and torture in the United States. They were placed in credible fear
proceedings on or around August 25, 2019, attended their initial credible fear interview on
August 29, 2019, and were served with negative credible fear determinations on August 29,
2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas.

18

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 19 of 49

63.

Plaintiffs J.S.M. and her minor child D.M.S. are Salvadoran nationals who seek

protection from persecution and torture in the United States. They were placed in credible fear
proceedings on or around August 21, 2019, attended their initial credible fear interview on
August 29, 2019, and were served with negative credible fear determinations on August 30,
2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas.
64.

Plaintiffs Y.U. and her minor child F.G.U. are Salvadoran nationals who seek

protection from persecution and torture in the United States. They were placed in credible fear
proceedings on or around August 23, 2019, attended their initial credible fear interview on
August 29, 2019, and were served with negative credible fear determinations on September 2,
2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas.
65.

Plaintiffs I.F.L. and her minor child R.F.L. are Salvadoran nationals who seek

protection from persecution and torture in the United States. They were placed in credible fear
proceedings on or around August 24, 2019, attended their initial credible fear interview on
September 2, 2019, and were served with negative credible fear determinations on September 2,
2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas.
66.

Plaintiffs R.C.C. and her minor child D.L.C. are Honduran nationals who seek

protection from persecution and torture in the United States. They were placed in credible fear
proceedings on or around August 21, 2019, attended their initial credible fear interview on
August 29, 2019, and were served with negative credible fear determinations on August 30,
2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas.
67.

Plaintiffs N.M.L. and her minor child A.R.M. are Honduran nationals who seek

protection from persecution and torture in the United States. They were placed in credible fear

19

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 20 of 49

proceedings on or around August 28, 2019, attended their initial credible fear interview on
September 4, 2019, and were served with negative credible fear determinations on or about
September 5, 2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley,
Texas.
68.

Plaintiffs M.C.D. and her minor child E.E.C. are Honduran nationals who seek

protection from persecution and torture in the United States. They were placed in credible fear
proceedings on or around August 13, 2019, attended their initial credible fear interview on
August 30, 2019, and were served with negative credible fear determinations on or about
September 5, 2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley,
Texas.
69.

Plaintiffs Y.O.T. and her minor children D.L.O. and V.L.O. are Salvadoran

nationals who seek protection from persecution and torture in the United States. They were
placed in credible fear proceedings on or around August 21, 2019, attended their initial credible
fear interview on September 4, 2019, and were served with negative credible fear determinations
on September 5, 2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley,
Texas.
70.

Plaintiffs M.A.A. and her minor children A.R.A. and C.A.A. are Salvadoran

nationals who seek protection from persecution and torture in the United States. They were
placed in credible fear proceedings on or around August 29, 2019, attended their initial credible
fear interview on September 4, 2019, and were served with negative credible fear determinations
on September 4, 2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley,
Texas.

20

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 21 of 49

71.

Plaintiffs M.C.M. and her minor child S.M.C. are Honduran nationals who seek

protection from persecution and torture in the United States. They were placed in credible fear
proceedings on or around August 26, 2019, attended their initial credible fear interview on
September 2, 2019, and were served with negative credible fear determinations on September 2,
2019. They are detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas.
72.

Defendant William P. Barr is the Attorney General of the United States and the

head of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). Defendant Barr is responsible for
advising the government Defendants on the lawful administration and enforcement of the
immigration laws and policies, including the execution of any new policies or procedures for
asylum seekers, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1103. Defendant Barr has ultimate authority over the
Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), the agency within DOJ responsible for the
immigration court system. He is sued in his official capacity.
73.

Defendant James McHenry is the Director of the Executive Office for

Immigration Review “EOIR,” the federal agency within the DOJ that includes immigration
judges, the immigration courts, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). EOIR is
responsible for conducting administrative adjudicative proceedings, including adjudicating
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture, bond redeterminations, custody redeterminations, and hearings to determine appropriate
restrictions on liberty for individuals detained by ICE. He is sued in his official capacity.
74.

Defendant Kevin K. McAleenan is the Acting Secretary of the Department of

Homeland Security (“DHS”), the Department of the Executive Branch of the United States
government that oversees the component agencies responsible for enforcing the immigration

21

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 22 of 49

laws of the United States. Those component agencies include U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”); U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”); and U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Defendant McAleenan directs and is responsible for the
administration and enforcement of the immigration laws in the United States. He is sued in his
official capacity.
75.

Defendant Matthew T. Albence is the Acting Director of ICE, the agency within

DHS that is responsible for carrying out removal orders, oversees enforcement and removal
operations, and is responsible for the detention of noncitizens throughout the United States.
Defendant Albence has direct authority over all ICE policies, procedures and practices relating to
the detention and deportation of noncitizens. He is sued in his official capacity.
76.

Defendant Mark Morgan is the Acting Commissioner of CBP, the agency within

DHS that is responsible for the initial processing and detention of noncitizens apprehended near
the United States Border. In that capacity, Defendant Morgan has direct authority over all CBP
policies, procedures and practices relating to the apprehension of asylum seekers. He is sued in
his official capacity.
77.

Defendant Kenneth T. Cuccinelli is purportedly the Acting Director of USCIS,

3

the agency within DHS that is responsible for the adjudication of immigration benefits to
noncitizens in the United States, including all functions of the Asylum Office. In that capacity,
Defendant Cuccinelli has direct authority over all USCIS policies, procedures and practices
relating to benefits adjudication. He is sued in his official capacity.
A complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed in federal district court for the District of
Columbia on September 6, 2019, alleging that Mr. Cuccinelli does not satisfy the legal requirements to
serve as the director under Federal Vacancies Reform Act (“FVRA”) and the Constitution. That lawsuit is
ongoing.
3

22

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 23 of 49

78.

Defendant Andrew Davidson is the Acting USCIS Asylum Division Chief, the

division within USCIS that is responsible for conducting credible fear interviews, reasonable fear
interviews, and asylum interviews for affirmative asylum applicants. In that capacity, Defendant
Davidson has direct authority over all USCIS policies, procedures and practices relating to
“credible fear” screening procedures for persons seeking protection from persecution or torture.
He is sued in his official capacity.
FACTS
A.

U.S. ​Obligations to Provide Safe Harbor to Persons Fearing Persecution or Torture
79.

The current asylum system was enacted in 1980, as part of the Refugee Act of

1980, Pub. L. 96-212, 94 Stat. 102, and was intended to bring U.S. law into conformity with our
obligations under the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of refugees and 1967
United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Consistent with international law,
the definition of “refugee” does not require a showing of ​certain harm. Instead, individuals can
establish eligibility for asylum based on a “well-founded fear of persecution.” The Supreme
Court has explained that a showing of a 1 in 10 chance of persecution is sufficient to satisfy that
standard. ​See INS v. Cardozo-Fonseca,​ 480 U.S. 421, 430, 440 (1987).
80.

Defendants purport to have exercised discretion in constructing the new July 16,

2019 regulation to bar Plaintiffs from applying for asylum pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158.
However, even if Plaintiffs are barred from asylum relief as a matter of discretion (which they do
not concede), the Defendants must still comply with the non-refoulement obligations of the
United States (withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture).

23

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 24 of 49

81.

The principle of non-refoulement was first articulated in Article 33 of the 1951

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Refugee Convention”) as follows:
No Contracting State shall expel or return (refouler) a refugee in any manner whatsoever
to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened on
account of his [or her] race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group
or political opinion.
82.

The Defendants’ non-refoulement obligations are found in Article 33 of the

Refugee Convention,4 and also Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and the
domestic statutes that implement these two treaties.
83.

As part of the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress enacted the withholding of removal

statute, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), to “implement the principles agreed to” in the Refugee
Convention, with the specific intent to ensure that the United States does not “expel or return”
noncitizens to any place where they face likelihood of persecution. I.N.S. v. Aguirre-Aguirre,
526 U.S. 415, 427 (1999). And as part of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of
1999 (“FARRA”), Congress implemented Article 3 of CAT in the INA, making explicit the
prohibition against refoulement:
It shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the
involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for
believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture . . . .
FARRA § 2242(a), Pub. L. No. 105-207, Div. G. Title XXI, 112 Stat. 2681 (codified at 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231 note).

​Although not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the United States adopted the 1967
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which incorporates the Refugee Convention’s
non-refoulement prohibition. See 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, art. 1(1) &
7(1) (stating that signatories “undertake to apply articles 2 to 34 inclusive of the [Refugee]
Convention” without reservation).
4

24

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 25 of 49

84.

Therefore, as adopted and statutorily codified, the non-refoulement guarantees in

both the Refugee Convention and CAT provide procedural safeguards that prohibit removal or
return of non-citizens to countries where their life or liberty may be threatened. ​See generally
I.N.S. v. Stevic,​ 467 U.S. 408, 426 (1984) (recognizing non-citizens’ statutory “entitlement” to
withholding under § 1231(b)(3)); ​Khouzam v. Attorney General,​ 549 F.3d 235, 256–57 (3d Cir.
2008) (“[T]he basic dictates of due process must be met . . . where, as here, mandatory statutory
relief [is] at issue.”).
B. ​The Pre-July 16, 2019 Expedited Removal and Credible Fear Process
85.

Prior to 1996, noncitizens were generally entitled to a full hearing in immigration

court before they could be removed, whether they were seeking admission at the border or had
already entered the country. They were also entitled to administrative appellate review before
the BIA and judicial review in federal court.
86.

In 1996, Congress enacted legislation that established a highly truncated removal

mechanism called “expedited removal” that could be used for certain noncitizens seeking
admission. Noncitizens subject to expedited removal are ordered removed by an immigration
officer “without further hearing or review.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i).
87.

Congress, however, was careful to carve out an exception for individuals who

express a fear of return to their home countries. ​See ​8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B); 8 C.F.R. §
208.30(f).
88.

If an individual indicates a fear of returning to his or her home country or

intention to apply for asylum, the immigration officer must refer the individual for an interview
with an asylum officer, called a “credible fear” interview.

25

8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii),

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 26 of 49

1225(b)(1)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(4); ​see also ​8 C.F.R. § 208.30. If the noncitizen is referred to
an asylum officer, the officer conducts (with the assistance of an interpreter if necessary) a
rudimentary “credible fear interview” which is designed “to elicit all relevant and useful
information bearing on whether the applicant has a credible fear of persecution or torture.” 8
C.F.R. § 208.30(d).
manner.”

​Id.

The asylum officer must “conduct the interview in a non-adversarial

Further, in determining whether credible fear is satisfied, the officer must

“consider whether the alien’s case presents novel or unique issues that merit consideration in a
full hearing before an immigration judge.” 8 C.F.R. 208.30(e)(4).
89.

At the conclusion of the interview, if the asylum officer makes a negative credible

fear determination, the officer must provide a written record of the determination that “shall
include . . . the officer’s analysis of why, in light of [the] facts, the alien has not established a
credible fear of persecution.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(II).
90.

Upon the individual’s request, the agency must provide for prompt review of the

asylum officer’s negative credible fear determination by an immigration judge. 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(III); ​see also ​8 C.F.R. § 208.30(g)(1). [“shall include an opportunity to be
heard and questioned by the immigration judge,” but “shall be concluded as expeditiously as
possible, to the maximum extent practicable within 24 hours, but in no case later than 7 days.”
Id. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(II).] In conducting that review, the immigration judge has access to
“[t]he record of the negative credible fear determination.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.30(g)(2).

The

immigration judge’s decision is administratively “final and may not be appealed.” 8 C.F.R. §
1208.30(g)(2)(iv)(A). Noncitizens undergoing credible fear review before immigration judges

26

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 27 of 49

are still in expedited removal proceedings, and do not get the full panoply of rights available in
regular immigration court removal proceedings.
91.

Noncitizens who receive a negative credible fear determination are issued an

expedited removal order, which comes with significant consequences, beyond removal itself.
Noncitizens who are removed pursuant to expedited removal orders are subject to a five-year bar
on admission to the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(A)(i).
92.

To ultimately prevail on an asylum claim the applicant need only establish that

there is a 10% chance that he or she will be persecuted on account of one of the five protected
grounds for asylum. To prevail at a credible fear interview, however, the applicant need only
show a “significant possibility” of asylum eligibility—i.e., a “significant possibility” of a 1 in 10
chance of persecution, or a ​fraction ​of 10%. ​See 8​ U.S.C. §1225(b)(1)(B)(v) (defining credible
fear as “a significant possibility, taking into account the credibility of the statements made by the
alien in support of the alien’s claim and such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien
could establish eligibility for asylum[.]”).
93.

If a noncitizen is found by the asylum officer to have a “credible fear,” the

individual is taken out of the expedited removal process and referred for a regular removal
hearing before an immigration judge. At that hearing, they will have the opportunity to develop
a full record before the judge, and they may appeal an adverse decision to the BIA and federal
court of appeals. 8 C.F.R. § 208.30(f); ​see also​ 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii).
94.

The reason for the low threshold at the credible fear stage is straightforward. An

asylum claim is highly fact-specific and often will take significant time, resources and expertise
to develop, including expert testimony and extensive evidence about country conditions. It may

27

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 28 of 49

also involve complex legal questions. In the expedited removal system, however, abbreviated
credible fear proceedings occur within days of arrival, with little or no preparation or assistance
by counsel, little to no knowledge of asylum law by the applicant, and no opportunity to examine
witnesses or gather evidence, while the individual is detained. It is thus highly unrealistic for
applicants in the expedited removal system to present a fully developed asylum claim.
Accordingly, Congress established a low threshold at the credible fear stage to ensure that
potentially valid asylum claims could be developed properly in a full trial-type hearing before an
immigration judge. Congress viewed this credible fear process as an essential safeguard to
ensure bona fide asylum seekers would not be summarily removed.
95.

The threshold safeguards in place for applicants seeking protection from

persecution or torture have now been eliminated. As a result of Defendant’s changes in policies,
practices, directives and guidance, no longer can a parent or child demonstrate a significant
likelihood of success in asylum proceedings – now that mother and child carry a much higher
burden. Such a high burden will result in many applicants, including vulnerable children, being
returned to persecution or torture.
C.

Current Expedited Removal, Credible Fear and Reasonable Fear Process
96.

On July 16, 2019, the government Defendants published a regulation that purports

to ban asylum applications from any asylum seekers who passed through any third country on
the way to the United States without applying for protection (the “Asylum Ban”). That policy is
5

not challenged here. Rather, subsequent to the new Asylum Ban, the government Defendants
have radically changed their handling of procedures to evaluate migrants in expedited removal

5

​Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant,​ 588 U.S. ___ (Sept. 11, 2019), is pending ​class action litigation

challenging the Asylum Ban.

28

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 29 of 49

for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. These
changes in procedure and policy are chaotic, and do not comport with existing federal law,
regulations and agency policies in violation of the APA and the ​Accardi ​doctrine.
97.

In the new regulations, if the government determines during initial screening that

an alien subject to expedited removal is barred from asylum eligibility, the alien is issued a
negative credible fear determination. The alien is then placed in proceedings to determine if a
reasonable fear of persecution exists for withholding of removal or Convention Against Torture
(CAT) protection. If the alien does not establish a reasonable fear of persecution during the
interview, the asylum office issues a written notice of decision, subject to immigration judge
review under the higher standard of reasonable fear.
98.

While the regulation purports to not change the credible fear standard, it states

that aliens subject to the asylum bar are categorically unable to establish a significant possibility
of asylum eligibility, and prevents further screening from taking place under the credible fear
standard.
D.

Impact of the New Process on the Plaintiffs
99.

Since July 16, 2019, Plaintiffs have been subjected to a series of policy changes at

the South Texas Family Residential Center, located in Dilley, Texas. Defendants have
unilaterally eliminated procedural protections proscribed to each Plaintiff by statute and
regulation in order to frustrate their ability to successfully seek protection from persecution and
torture in the United States.
100.

In the aggregate, Defendants’ new regulation and changes to directives,

guidelines, policies and procedures eliminate access to safe harbor for families seeking

29

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 30 of 49

protection from persecution and torture. While some of the policy changes implemented by the
Defendants flow from the application of the new “Asylum Ban,” other recent changes are
independent, yet serve the same purpose: to prevent access to legal protections in the United
States. Upon reason and belief, since July 16, 2019 the credible fear passage rates at the South
Texas Family Residential Center have diminished from approximately 97% of credible fear
applicants, to fewer than 10% of applicants.
101.

Prior to the initiation of their credible fear screenings, Plaintiffs (who are wholly

comprised of mothers and their children) completed dangerous and arduous journeys to the
United States, subsequent to incidents of sexual and physical violence, or threats of violence, that
triggered their flights from their home countries. As a consequence of this past trauma, many of
the Plaintiffs suffer from symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), anxiety, and
depression.
102.

After completing the journey to the United States – which lasted for more than a

month for some Plaintiffs – all of the Plaintiffs were apprehended and placed in CBP custody,
where they remained for days in cages and/or cement cells, without access to privacy, showers,
beds, telephones, pillows, hot meals, or adequate medical attention.
103.

Against this backdrop, while in CBP custody, Plaintiffs were placed in

proceedings under Section 235 of the INA and issued an Order of Expedited Removal.
104.

Despite the fact that there has been no change to the Defendants’ treaty or

statutory obligations, in the last 60 days, the Defendants have issued a series of ever-changing
regulations, directives, guidelines, policies and procedures and have applied these constantly
shifting standards in the Plaintiffs’ credible fear screenings.

30

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 31 of 49

105.

The chaotic and changing credible fear paradigm has wrought havoc on the

Plaintiffs’ credible fear process. The legal standard applied to the Plaintiffs’ cases has changed
unexpectedly and without meaningful explanation to the Plaintiffs throughout each part of their
process. For many Plaintiffs, the law that dictated the outcome of their case was different when
they were placed into proceedings, different at the time of their first interview, different when
they had a second interview, and different at the time of their final follow-up interview. And it
will be different yet again, when they present in front of the immigration judge to seek review of
their negative credible fear determinations.
106.

The dramatic instability in the credible fear screening process since July 16, 2019

has prejudiced Plaintiffs, more than half of whom are children. Since their proceedings began,
Plaintiffs have experienced a constant state of confusion because they have been denied the
opportunity to understand the basis on which their fear would be evaluated. Plaintiffs have a
right to a legal orientation in advance of their credible fear interviews. The Defendants’ failure to
appropriately and meaningfully orient the Plaintiffs in advance of their interview – and
throughout the interview in accordance with the changing process and standard to which they
were subjected – has effectively denied them their right to be oriented to the credible fear
process, as established in 8 C.F.R § 235.3(b)(4)(i). Defendants’ “​Failure to Meaningfully Orient
Proper Legal Standard Policy​”6 has denied Plaintiffs their right to understand and participate in
their proceedings and to meaningfully understand what laws are applicable to them in the
threshold screening process.

6

In the absence of official policy directive names (prior to the discovery process), this complaint presents alternative
policy names for the purposes of clarity.

31

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 32 of 49

107.

Defendants have also implemented a new policy of proceeding with fear

interviews absent necessary training and direction for the asylum officers charged with
conducting them. Upon information and belief, Defendants have conspired to limit the
information they put forth in writing, impeding necessary training opportunities and direction for
front-line adjudicators. This policy, the “​Proceed Before Training and Written Guidance Policy,​ ”
has impacted the integrity and consistency of credible fear interviews conducted by the asylum
office. Each variation of the changing policies and practices has been implemented inconsistently
and haphazardly to the detriment of each Plaintiff. Asylum officers did not receive training
relevant to the proper application of the Asylum Ban, including training regarding the trafficking
exception and how to assess whether or not the Asylum Ban applies to a given credible fear
applicant, in advance of Plaintiffs credible fear interviews. During some interviews, supervisors
interrupted the interview after an interview had already begun to announce in English to the
officer, “apply the bar,” subsequent to discovery of a new court order.
108.

Defendants’ “​Eliminate Supervisory Review and Concurrence of Credible Fear

Determination Directive”​ has compounded Defendants’ “Proceed Before Training and Written
Guidance Directive”. Subsequent to July 16, 2019 the asylum office has eliminated supervisory
review of credible fear determinations in violation of 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.30(e)(7), 235.3(b)(2),
(b)(7).

Based upon this new directive, interviewing asylum officers unilaterally denied

Plaintiffs’ credible fear claim, and announced their determination, prior to completion of
supervisory asylum officer review and concurrence.
109.

Many Plaintiffs were interviewed not once, but three or more times on three

separate dates, over a timespan of several weeks or more. The delay in final adjudication of each

32

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 33 of 49

Plaintiffs’ claims prejudiced each Plaintiff’s ability to recall what was discussed at their prior
interview, and to participate meaningfully in their interview. This impacted Plaintiffs’ ability to
access counsel during each separate meeting with the asylum office, which occurred without
sufficient or any advance written notice.
110.

A credible fear interview is psychologically demanding and difficult. It requires

the asylum seeker to describe the circumstances that gave rise to their fear of persecution.
Asylum seekers must present deeply personal, stigmatizing, and traumatizing details. Frequently,
these details have never been relayed to another person, and their disclosure brings the
asylum-seeker shame, fear, and/or renewed trauma. Credible fear applicants must also answer
complicated and nuanced follow-up questions. Extending the interview process over a long
period of time impacted the Plaintiffs by prolonging their detention in government custody,
which exacerbated the negative consequences they have experienced as a result of their ongoing
detention.
111.

Being subjected to repeated interviews, without thoughtful and accessible

explanation through the statutorily required orientation process, limited Plaintiffs’ meaningful
participation in their credible fear proceeding.
112.

The application of Asylum Ban has impeded Plaintiffs’ right to a non-adversarial

interview, in accordance with the new “​Declare a Negative Decision in the Middle of the
Screening Directive​.” Subsequent to July 16, 2019 the asylum office implemented a policy of
having the interviewing asylum officer announce a negative credible fear decision to the
applicant, directly, in the middle of their credible fear interview. Previous to this new policy,
negative decisions were never announced during an interview itself, but made subsequent to the

33

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 34 of 49

entirety of the interview process, after all testimony was solicited in support of the
asylum-seekers claim during a non-adversarial interview. This new policy violates each
Plaintiff’s right to a non-adversarial interview and creates a hostile interview environment that
chills the testimony of credible fear applicants. ​See ​8 C.F.R. § 208.30(d). ​As an outcome of this
policy, Plaintiffs believed at the outset of their interview that their deportation was certain. Many
Plaintiffs report feeling paralyzed, overwhelmed, intimidated and confused the moment they
were informed their credible fear interview was denied. Other Plaintiffs report giving up before
their interview had ever truly begin, believing their case was a lost cause.
113.

Defendants have also implemented a new “​Limit Fact-Finding Relevant to a

Significant Possibility of Eligibility for Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and Relief Under the
Convention Against Torture Directive​.” This Directive encourages asylum officers to limit
questioning that solicits testimony necessary to evaluate an asylum-seeker’s eligibility for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection against the Convention Against torture under the
“significant possibility” standard required for credible fear proceedings. Based upon this new
policy, Defendants fail to adequately evaluate whether or not an asylum-seeker merits a positive
credible fear finding based upon eligibility and erroneously issue negative credible fear findings.
114.

While Defendants have stripped Plaintiffs of procedural protections required in

credible fear proceedings, they have simultaneously denied Plaintiffs the benefit of mandatory
procedures available to individuals seeking protection under Withholding and the CAT. The
policy of subjecting Plaintiffs to a higher burden in threshold fear screening violates mandatory
obligations to ensure that no applicant is returned to a country where they will be subjected to
persecution or torture. Defendants have heightened the burden on Plaintiffs unlawfully, and at

34

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 35 of 49

the same time, have failed to provide procedural safeguards normally present in heightened fear
proceedings.
115.

Individuals placed in reasonable fear proceedings under section 241 of the INA

have a right to (1) advance written notice of their reasonable fear interview, (2) in-person
orientation to their reasonable fear proceeding by an asylum officer at least 48 hours in advance
of their interview, and (3) access to counsel during their reasonable fear proceeding. Although
Plaintiffs were placed in credible fear proceedings under INA 235, Defendants’ application of
the procedural protections available in reasonable fear proceedings while evaluating Plaintiffs’
under the heightened reasonable fear standard, or “​RFI Standard Without RFI Protections
Directive​” defies the law under both credible and reasonable fear proceedings.
116.

Defendants’ have also implemented a new policy directive of rejecting the most

favorable case law in credible fear proceedings, when assessing an asylum-seekers eligbility for
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The “​Failing to Apply
Most Favorable Precedent in CFI Proceedings Directive”​ ignores the permanent injunction
issued in ​Grace v. Whitaker,​ 344 F. Supp. 3d 96, (D.D.C. 2018) which requires the asylum
officer to apply the most favorable circuit court precedent in credible fear proceedings,
regardless of where an asylum-seeker is detained.
117.

In addition to new directives related to the application of the Asylum Ban and

applied to each individual Plaintiff, Defendants have also established three additional policies to
ensure the smallest percentage of families placed in credible fear proceedings obtain positive
credible fear proceedings.

35

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 36 of 49

118.

Upon information and belief, USCIS has implemented a “​Mandatory

Concurrence Review by the Fraud Detection Unit Directive.​ ” This new directive requires any
and all cases that have received a positive fear finding by the interviewing asylum officer, and
positive fear concurrence by the supervisory asylum officer, to be reviewed by USCIS’s Fraud
Detection and National Security Directorate. Upon information and belief, this new procedure
—which applies only to asylum-seekers slated to be issued positive credible fear findings—has
resulted in mandatory rescission of the overwhelming majority of cases sent for review
subsequent to a follow-up interview conducted in response to guidance provided by the Fraud
Detection unit.
119.

Relatedly, the asylum office has a new policy of “​Withholding Facts Relied Upon

in Issuing the Credible Fear Determination​.” The asylum officer is required to create a written
record of his or her determination, including a summary of all material facts as stated by the
applicant, and any additional facts relied upon by the officer, in issuing the credible fear
determination. 8 CFR 208.30(e)(1). In conflict with this regulatory mandate, the asylum office
now withholds critical information relied upon when issuing a negative fear determination.
120.

The asylum office has also implemented a new policy abandoning child-sensitive

treatment in credible fear proceedings, including the “​Telephonic Interview Directive”​ for
families detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center. Since the inception of the South
Texas Family Residential Center, asylum officers have conducted in-person interviews with
mothers and children who are detained in Dilley, Texas. This practice allowed asylum officers to
apply child-friendly procedures during the interview process, and to provide protections
necessary to mothers, who are required to proceed with their credible fear interview while tasked

36

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 37 of 49

with caring for their child. Prior policy allowed asylum officers to ensure mothers who did not
feel comfortable providing testimony in the presence of their children were able to leave their
children in daycare, and to build trust and rapport with a child in-person prior to questioning the
child regarding their history of persecution. Some plaintiffs were deprived necessary
accommodations related to their age and status as asylum-seekers traveling in a family unit in
conflict with long-standing asylum office practice.7
121.

Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this Complaint to rename the above directives

as the official designations become known through discovery, and to add other unlawful
directives as they become known through the discovery process.
122.

The ​Accardi doctrine stands for the unremarkable proposition that an agency must

abide by its own regulations. Thus, an agency's failure to afford an individual procedural
safeguards required under its own regulations may result in the invalidation of the ultimate
administrative determination.
D.
Defendants’ Public Statements Regarding Their Goal to Undermine Asylum
Protections
123.

Rather than comply with our asylum laws, Defendants have been open about their

desire to weaken asylum protections, particularly for vulnerable immigrant children and families
from Central America. Indeed, Defendants have repeatedly expressed their hostility towards the
asylum claims of such children and families and urged higher credible fear screening standards
in order to speed the removal of such individuals. The new policies seek to advance these goals.

Asylum Division. Asylum Officer Basic Course: Guidelines for Children’s Asylum
Claims (Mar. 21, 2009). ​Available at
https://cliniclegal.org/sites/default/files/AOBTC_Lesson_29_Guidelines_for_Childrens_Asylum
_Claims_0.pdf​ ​(last visited September 16, 2019).
7

​USCIS

37

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 38 of 49

124.

Thus, the unlawful efforts to heighten the credible fear standard evinced in the

Defendants’ new credible fear policies culminated from Defendants’ expressed desire to change
that standard. But none of the Defendants have the power to change the credible fear standard,
which can be changed only by Congress.
E. The New Credible Fear Policies Place Plaintiffs in Grave Danger
125.

Under the correct legal standards, each of the Plaintiffs should have easily passed

their credible fear interview or reasonable fear interview, and would have been referred for
regular removal proceedings to seek asylum and other relief from removal. Instead, because of
the new credible fear policies, they were each issued a negative credible fear determination.
126.

Many other bona fide asylum applicants who meet the credible fear standard

similarly have received and will receive negative credible fear determinations based on the new
policies.
127.

Defendants’ new policies are depriving Plaintiffs their right to pursue potentially

meritorious claims for protection. Indeed, immigration service providers across the country have
already reported that the new credible fear policies are causing a dramatic increase in the
proportion of asylum seekers who receive negative credible fear determinations.
128.

The result of these policies is that children and their mothers have been and will

be sent back to countries that have been cited for their pervasive and widespread violence against
women and childen, including domestic violence, rape, and beatings, and other abuse by gangs.
For example, it has been widely recognized, including by the U.S. State Department in 2018, that
El Salvador has one of the highest homicide rates in the world, and Amnesty International has
described El Salvador as “one of the most dangerous countries to be a woman.” Numerous other

38

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 39 of 49

reports, including by UNHCR, have documented that gender-motivated killings and other
murders of women in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala are commonplace, and that Central
American gangs perpetrate “pervasive, pernicious, and often uncontrollable violence and
disruption in the region.” Human rights reports have also widely documented the systemic
failures in state protection in Central American countries.
129.

Indeed, numerous migrants from Central American who were deported from the

United States have suffered brutal harms, including death, after returning to their home countries.
For example, one study documented that up to 83 individuals deported to Northern Triangle
countries between 2014 and 2015 have been killed.
130.

Without judicial intervention the Defendants will be able to effectively rewrite the

expedited removal scheme and substantive asylum law to achieve the policy goal of eliminating
the ability of Central American children to seek safety in the United States.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Refugee Act, Immigration and Nationality Act, Administrative Procedures Act)
131.

All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth

132.

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3), judicial review is available before the Court

herein.

regarding whether “a written policy directive, written policy guideline, or written procedure
issued by or under the authority of the Attorney General to implement [8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)] is not
consistent with applicable provisions of [Subchapter II of the INA] or is otherwise in violation of
law.”
133.

The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706, provides that a Court

“shall hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be—(A)
39

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 40 of 49

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B)
contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; [or] (C) in excess of statutory
jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.”
134.

The new policies related to expedited removal proceedings violate the INA and

the Refugee Act and are arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law under the APA for multiple
reasons. Among other reasons, the new policies conflict with the definition of “refugee,” ​see 8​
U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(A); conflict with the credible fear standard at 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b)(1)(B)(v); represent a departure from the agency’s longstanding policy without an
acknowledgment of or a reasoned explanation for that departure; are illogical and irrational; and
deprive applicants of a meaningful opportunity to establish their potential eligibility for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT relief pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1), 1225(b)(1)(B), and
1231.
135.

In determining whether an alien is eligible for protection under the Convention

Against Torture, the threshold determination at an interview is whether or not the alien has
demonstrated a “significant possibility that he or she is eligible for...deferral of removal under
the Convention Against Torture.” 8 C.F.R. §208.30(e)(3).
136.

The newly promulgated regulations have mandated that aliens deemed ineligible

for asylum are to be assessed under a “reasonable possibility” threshold, rather than the lower
threshold “significant possibility” requirement.
137.

Upon information and belief, this assessment is conducted without assessing

whether aliens fall under exceptions to the newly promulgated regulations, such as human
trafficking exceptions. This assessment also denies aliens protections associated with reasonable

40

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 41 of 49

fear interviews, such as access to counsel, advance notice of their interviews, and an in-person
orientation by an asylum officer.
138.

Defendants’ application of the procedural protections available in reasonable fear

proceedings while evaluating Plaintiffs’ under the heightened reasonable fear standard, or “RFI
Standard Without RFI Protections Directive” defies the law under both credible and reasonable
fear proceedings.
139.

As a result, the new asylum procedures/policies are contrary to law. ​See ​5 U.S.C.

§ 706(2)(A).
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Separation of Powers, Immigration and Nationality Act, Administrative Procedure Act)
140.

All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth

141.

The doctrine of separation of powers is embodied in the U.S. Constitution. The

herein.

Constitution establishes the paramount authority of the Judiciary to interpret the law—“to say
what the law is,” ​Marbury v. Madison​, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)—and to render decisions
that bind the other branches of government in our constitutional system. The Executive
Branch—like Congress—is bound by the decisions issued by the federal courts. Respect for the
controlling authority or judicial opinions and judgments is a fundamental component of the rule
of law. The new policies and regulations violate the separation of powers; violate the INA,
including the credible fear standard at 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(v); and are arbitrary and
capricious and contrary to law under the APA.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution)

41

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 42 of 49

142.

All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth

143.

Plaintiffs have protected interests in applying for asylum, withholding of removal,

herein.

and Convention Against Torture relief upon a showing that meets the applicable standards, and
in not being removed to a country where they face serious danger and potential loss of life.
144.

Plaintiffs are entitled under the Due Process Clause to a fair hearing of their

claims, and a meaningful opportunity to establish their potential eligibility for asylum and related
relief from removal.
145.

The new policies and regulations have violated Plaintiffs’ right to due process in

numerous respects, including by foreclosing their claims regardless of their individual facts or
merits; by applying an unlawful, more burdensome legal standard to Plaintiffs’ claims; and by
depriving them of a meaningful opportunity to establish their potential eligibility for asylum and
related relief.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(​Administrative Procedure Act)
146.

All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth

147.

The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) requires notice and opportunity for

herein.

comment prior to the promulgation of a rule. 5 U.S.C. § 553(b), (c).
148.

The government Defendants’ nondiscretionary procedures for screening for

threshhold credible fear as the first step in evaluatint the Plaintiffs’ eligibility for asylum and
related relief, as well as for determining whether an individual is more likely than not to face
persecution or torture in a specific country, and thus precluded from being returned to that
42

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 43 of 49

country during the pendency of removal proceedings, constitutes a rule that requires
notice-and-comment rulemaking.
149.

The government Defendants did not promulgate a rule or engage in

notice-and-comment rulemaking before implementing their new procedures for evaluating fear
for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
150.

The APA requires that a substantive rule be published “no less than 30 days

before its effective date.” 5 U.S.C. § 553(d).
151.

The government Defendants failed to appropriately publish its new asylum,

withholding and CAT fear screening procedures, and related guidance 30 days before their
effective date.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Administrative Procedure Act)
152.

All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth

153.

The APA provides that courts “shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency

herein.

action” that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
law.” 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706(2)(A). The policies and procedures of ICE, CBP and USCIS are
binding upon those agencies pursuant to the Accardi doctrine, and the APA grants the Plaintiffs
the right to challenge the failure of those agencies to comply with their own rules, regulations,
and guidance. ​See, e.g., Damus v. Nielsen​, 313 F. Supp. 3d 317 (D.C. Dist. Court 2018) (stating
“[i]t has long been settled that a federal agency must adhere firmly to self-adopted rules by
which the interests of others are to be regulated,” ​citing Mass. Fair Share v. Law Enf't Assistance
Admin.​, 758 F.2d 708, 711, 244 U.S. App. D.C. 388 (D.C. Cir. 1985)).
43

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 44 of 49

154.

The ​Accardi ​doctrine is enforced via the mechanism of § 706(2) of the APA. ​See,

Damus v. Nielsen,​ 313 F. Supp. 3d at 335-341; ​see also, Torres v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,​
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161406, 2017 WL 4340385, at *5-6 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2017) (holding
that the failure of DHS to follow its own Operating Procedures governing Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, in terminating the plaintiff’s status was properly framed as a
claim that the agency’s actions were ‘arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion’ pursuant
to the APA).
155.

The government Defendants’ new regulation, directives, guidance, policies and

procedures are arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, in that they do not comport with
established agency directives, policies and procedures for determining whether individuals face a
“credible fear,” or a likelihood of persecution or torture, and as such, they are presumptively
invalid.
156.

Moreover, the government Defendants have not articulated a reasoned

explanation for their decision to adopt these new procedures; have failed to consider relevant
factors; have relied on factors Congress did not intend to be considered; and have offered
explanations for their decision that are counter to the evidence before the agency.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Immigration and Nationality Act, Withholding of Removal, and
Administrative Procedure Act)
157.

All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth

158.

The 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of

herein.

Refugees, to which the United States is party, requires that the United States not “expel or return

44

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 45 of 49

(‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or
freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group or political opinion.” United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of
Refugees, art. 33, July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 150; ​see also P
​ rotocol Relating to the Status of
Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 6223, 606 U.N.T.S. 267.
159.

The Refugee Convention prohibits the return of individuals to countries where

they would directly face persecution on a protected ground as well as to countries that would
deport them to conditions of persecution.
160.

Congress has codified these prohibitions in the “withholding of removal”

provision at INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), which bars the removal of an individual to
a country where it is more likely than not that he or she would face persecution.
161.

Pursuant to regulation, only an immigration judge can determine whether an

individual faces such a risk of persecution and is entitled to withholding of removal after full
removal proceedings in immigration court. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(a).
162.

The new agency regulation, directives, guidance, policies and procedures

regarding fear screening adopted pursuant to the Asylum Ban provide none of these safeguards
to ensure the critical protection against ​nonrefoulement ​and therefore violates Section 1231(b)(3)
and its implementing regulations.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Immigration and Nationality Act, and Administrative Procedure Act)
163.

All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth

herein.

45

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 46 of 49

164.

The INA provides, with certain exceptions, that “[a]ny alien who is physically

present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated
port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been
interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply
for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.” 8
U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1).
165.

The APA provides that courts “​shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency

action” ​that is “​ ​in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory
right.​ ” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).
166.

The APA provides that courts “​shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency

action” ​that is “​without observance of procedure required by law.​ ” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).
167.

The following laws require access to immigration judicial review of the

conditions under which noncitizens are detained or released:
a. 19 U.S.T. 6223, art. 33 § 1 provides that the United States will not “expel or
return (‘​refouler’​ )” refugees to any country that may subject them to persecution
itself, or transfer refugees to a third country that may subject them to persecution;
b. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) as implemented by 8 C.F.R. 1208.16(a) provides for review
of ​nonrefoulment​ decisions by an immigration judge;
168.

Because the new procedures are “not in accordance with law” and should

therefore be held unlawful and set aside under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C)-(D).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court grant the following relief:

46

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 47 of 49

a) Declare the new regulation, directives, guidance, policies and procedures
contrary to law;
b) Enter an order vacating the new regulation, directives, guidance, policies and
procedures;
c) Enter an order enjoining Defendants from continuing to apply the new
regulation, directives, guidance, policies and procedures to credible fear
determinations, reasonable fear determinations, interviews, or hearings issued
or conducted by asylum officers or immigration judges;
d) Enter an order staying the application of the new regulation, directives,
guidance, policies and procedures to each of the Plaintiffs;
e) Enter an order enjoining Defendants from issuing and/or executing expedited
removal orders with regard to the Plaintiffs;
f) Enter an order enjoining Defendants from removing the Plaintiffs without first
providing each of them with a new credible fear process or reasonable fear
process (as appropriate) under correct legal standards or, in the alternative,
full immigration court removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a;
g) Enter a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction
maintaining the status quo by requiring the government Defendants to
reprocess the Plaintiffs’ fear claims under the accepted prior policies;
h) Order Defendants to pay Plaintiffs’ litigation costs and reasonable attorney
fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act; and

47

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 48 of 49

i) Order all other relief that the Court deems just and proper to ensure that the
government Defendants act according to law.
Respectfully submitted this 16​th​ day of September, 2019.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: September 16, 2019

By:

/s/ Hassan Ahmad
Hassan M. Ahmad (D.D.C Bar: MD16049)
The HMA Law Firm, PLLC
7926 Jones Branch Dr., Suite 600
McLean, VA 22102
Phone: (703) 964-0245
Fax: (703) 997-8556
E-mail: ​hma@hmalegal.com

Dated: September 16, 2019

By:

/s/ Bridget Cambria
* Bridget Cambria (PA Bar No. 205271)
Cambria & Kline, P.C.
532 Walnut Street
Reading, PA 19601
Phone: (484) 926-2014
Fax: (484) 926-2032
E-mail: ​bridget.cambria@cambriaklinelaw.com

Dated: September 16, 2019

By:

/s/Amy Maldonado
* Amy Maldonado (IL Bar No. 6256961)
Law Office of Amy Maldonado
333 Albert Avenue, Suite 610
East Lansing, MI 48823
Phone: (517) 803-2870
Fax: (888) 299-3780
E-mail: ​amy@amaldonadolaw.com

Dated: September 16, 2019

By:

/s/ Elora Mukherjee
* Elora Mukherjee (NY Bar No. 4427233)
Columbia Law School
Morningside Heights Legal Services, Inc.
435 W. 116th Street
New York, NY 10027
Phone: (212) 854-2603

48

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 49 of 49

Fax: (212) 854-3554
E-mail: emukherjee@law.columbia.edu
Dated: September 16, 2019

By:

/s/ Humza Kazmi
* Humza Kazmi (DC Bar No. 1032240)
The HMA Law Firm, PLLC
7926 Jones Branch Dr., Suite 600
McLean, VA 22102
Phone: (703) 964-0245
Fax: (703) 997-8556
E-mail: ​hak@hmalegal.com

ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
*​Motion pro hac vice forthcoming

49

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1-1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 1 of 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET
JS-44 (Rev. 6/17 DC)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

M.M.V. et al

(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF _____________________
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

William P. Barr, Attorney General; James McHenry, Director
EOIR; Kevin McAleenan, Acting Secretary DHS; Mark
Morgan, Acting Commissioner CBP; Matthew Albence, Acting
Director ICE; Kenneth Cuccinelli, Purported Acting Director,
USCIS; Andrew Davidson, Acting USCIS Asylum
DivisionDC
Washington,
COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT _____________________
Chief
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

(c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER)

ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)

Frio (TX)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED

Hassan M. Ahmad
The HMA Law Firm, PLLC
7926 Jones Branch Dr., Suite 600
McLean, VA 22102
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX FOR

(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY)

o
o

1 U.S. Government
Plaintiff
2 U.S. Government
Defendant

o
o

3 Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of
Parties in item III)

PLAINTIFF AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT) FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY!
PTF
DFT

Citizen of this State
Citizen of Another State
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country

o1 o1
o2 o2
o3 o3

Incorporated or Principal Place
of Business in This State
Incorporated and Principal Place
of Business in Another State
Foreign Nation

PTF

DFT

o4 o4
o5 o5
o6 o6

IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT
(Place an X in one category, A-N, that best represents your Cause of Action and one in a corresponding Nature of Suit)

o

A. Antitrust
410 Antitrust

o

o

o

B. Personal Injury/
Malpractice
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product Liability
320 Assault, Libel & Slander
330 Federal Employers Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability
360 Other Personal Injury
362 Medical Malpractice
365 Product Liability
367 Health Care/Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury Product Liability
368 Asbestos Product Liability

E. General Civil (Other)

Real Property
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent, Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property
Personal Property
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal Property
Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability

C. Administrative Agency
Review
151 Medicare Act

Social Security
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
Other Statutes
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
890 Other Statutory Actions (If
Administrative Agency is
Involved)

OR
Bankruptcy
422 Appeal 27 USC 158
423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Prisoner Petitions
535 Death Penalty
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Conditions
560 Civil Detainee – Conditions
of Confinement
Property Rights
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
835 Patent – Abbreviated New
Drug Application
840 Trademark

o

o

D. Temporary Restraining
Order/Preliminary
Injunction

Any nature of suit from any category
may be selected for this category of
case assignment.
*(If Antitrust, then A governs)*

F. Pro Se General Civil
Federal Tax Suits
870 Taxes (US plaintiff or
defendant)
871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC
7609
Forfeiture/Penalty
625 Drug Related Seizure of
Property 21 USC 881
690 Other
Other Statutes
375 False Claims Act
376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a))
400 State Reapportionment
430 Banks & Banking
450 Commerce/ICC
Rates/etc.
460 Deportation

462 Naturalization
Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions
470 Racketeer Influenced
& Corrupt Organization
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Satellite TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of State
Statutes
890 Other Statutory Actions
(if not administrative agency
review or Privacy Act)

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1-1 Filed 09/16/19 Page 2 of 2

o

G. Habeas Corpus/
2255

o

K. Labor/ERISA
(non-employment)
710 Fair Labor Standards Act
720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations
740 Labor Railway Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act

*(If pro se, select this deck)*

*(If pro se, select this deck)*

o

o

L. Other Civil Rights
(non-employment)
441 Voting (if not Voting Rights
Act)
443 Housing/Accommodations
440 Other Civil Rights
445 Americans w/Disabilities –
Employment
446 Americans w/Disabilities –
Other
448 Education

o

I. FOIA/Privacy Act
895 Freedom of Information Act
890 Other Statutory Actions
(if Privacy Act)

442 Civil Rights – Employment
(criteria: race, gender/sex,
national origin,
discrimination, disability, age,
religion, retaliation)

530 Habeas Corpus – General
510 Motion/Vacate Sentence
463 Habeas Corpus – Alien
Detainee

o

o

H. Employment
Discrimination

152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loan
(excluding veterans)

o

M. Contract
110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of
Judgment
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran’s Benefits
160 Stockholder’s Suits
190 Other Contracts
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise

J. Student Loan

N. Three-Judge
Court
441 Civil Rights – Voting
(if Voting Rights Act)

V. ORIGIN

o 1 Original o 2 Removed o 3 Remanded
Proceeding

from State
Court

from Appellate
Court

o 4 Reinstated o 5 Transferred o 6 Multi-district o 7 Appeal to
or Reopened

from another
district (specify)

Litigation

o 8 Multi-district

District Judge
from Mag.
Judge

Litigation –
Direct File

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE.)

5 USC § 706, 5 USC § 553, 5 USC § 706(2); Unlawful Implementation of Directives Adjusting Credible Fear standard
VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS
ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DEMAND $
JURY DEMAND:

Check YES only if demanded in complaint

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY

(See instruction)

YES

If yes, please complete related case form

9/16/2019
DATE: _________________________

NO

YES

NO

/s/ Hassan M. Ahmad
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD _________________________________________________________
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET JS-44
Authority for Civil Cover Sheet

The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and services of pleadings or other papers as required
by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the
Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed.
Listed below are tips for completing the civil cover sheet. These tips coincide with the Roman Numerals on the cover sheet.
I.

COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT (b) County of residence: Use 11001 to indicate plaintiff if resident
of Washington, DC, 88888 if plaintiff is resident of United States but not Washington, DC, and 99999 if plaintiff is outside the United States.

III.

CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES: This section is completed only if diversity of citizenship was selected as the Basis of Jurisdiction
under Section II.

IV.

CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT: The assignment of a judge to your case will depend on the category you select that best
represents the primary cause of action found in your complaint. You may select only one category. You must also select one corresponding
nature of suit found under the category of the case.

VI.

CAUSE OF ACTION: Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of the primary cause.

VIII.

RELATED CASE(S), IF ANY: If you indicated that there is a related case, you must complete a related case form, which may be obtained from
the Clerk’s Office.

Because of the need for accurate and complete information, you should ensure the accuracy of the information provided prior to signing the form.

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/19 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
M.M.V., et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the
United States; et al.,
Defendants.

19-cvMOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
UNDER PSEUDONYMS

Plaintiffs in the above captioned matter hereby respectfully request leave to file this action
under pseudonyms pursuant to the legal standards articulated in United States v. Microsoft Corp.,
56 F.3d 1448 (D.C. Cir. 1995). A proposed order is attached.
1.

Plaintiffs consist of mothers and children who are detained and who are contesting

application of a change in expedited removal regulations, directives, guidance, policies and
procedures to them by the United States government such that threshold “credible fear” screenings
(which under the prior regulations, directives, guidance, policies and procedures had a positive
finding rate of more than 9 out of 10) are now passed by only 1 out of 10
2.

The treatment of children and families on the border is currently a subject of great

importance with great interest throughout the country and in the media.
3.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) requires that a complaint state all of the

names of the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). “Disclosure of the parties’ identities furthers the public
interest in knowing the facts surrounding judicial proceedings.” See Doe v. George Wash. Univ.,
369 F. Supp. 3d 49 (D.D.C. 2019) (citing Doe v. Cabrera, 307 F.R.D. 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2014) (Walton,
J.) (quoting Nat’l Ass’n of Waterfront Emp’rs v. Chao, 587 F. Supp. 2d 90, 99 (D.D.C. 2008))).
4.

The “rare dispensation” of allowing parties to proceed pseudonymously is only

justified in the “critical case,” or the “unusual case,” . . . include[ing] those in which “identification
creates a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm,”and those in which “anonymity is necessary
to preserve privacy in a matter of [a] sensitive and highly personal nature.” See Qualls v. Rumsfeld,
228 F.R.D. 8, 10-11 (D.D.C. 2005).
1

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/19 Page 2 of 4

5.

“[I]t is within the discretion of the district court to grant the ‘rare dispensation’ of

anonymity.” United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1464, 312 U.S. App. D.C. 378 (D.C.
Cir. 1995) (quoting James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 238 (4th Cir. 1993)). In exercising this
discretion, the Court has “a judicial duty to inquire into the circumstances of particular cases to
determine whether the dispensation is warranted.” Id. “As part of this inquiry, the court should
take into account the risk of unfairness to the opposing party, as well as the customary and
constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted).
6.

“[I]t is the litigant seeking to proceed under pseudonym that bears the burden to

demonstrate a legitimate basis for proceeding in that manner,” Qualls, 228 F.R.D. at 13, and
“motions to proceed under pseudonym should be granted sparingly,” See Doe v. U.S. Dep’t of
State, Civ. Action No. 1:15-01971, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173937, 2015 WL 9647660, at *2
(D.D.C. Nov. 3, 2015).
7.

Plaintiffs, who are families seeking the protection of the United States from

persecution and torture (in the form of asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the
Convention Against Torture), are willing to disclose their full names and Alien numbers under
seal.
8.

The federal government protects the confidentiality of asylum-seekers by

regulation. See 8 C.F.R. 208.6. According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Asylum Confidentiality Fact Sheet, attached as Exhibit A, the reason for that protection is as
follows:
Public disclosure of asylum-related information may subject the claimant to
retaliatory measures by government authorities or non-state actors in the
event that the claimant is repatriated, or endanger the security of the
claimant’s family members who may still be residing in the country of origin.
Moreover, public disclosure might, albeit in some limited circumstances, give
rise to a plausible protection claim where one would not otherwise exist by
bringing an otherwise ineligible claimant to the attention of the government
authority or non-state actor against which the claimant has made allegations
of mistreatment. Because refugee applicants face similar negative
consequences when their information is disclosed to a third party, as a matter
of policy, USCIS extends the same protections outlined in 8 CFR 208.6 to
refugees.

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/19 Page 3 of 4

9.

As such, revealing the name of the Plaintiffs subjects them to the potential of

serious retaliatory harm should Plaintiffs be subjected to removal from this country. They are
persons who have left countries suffering trememdous violence, who are seeking protection in the
United States. Revealing their identities could subject them to significant danger here and in their
home countries if they are removed.
10.

There is no unfairness to the opposing parties, the government Defendants, in

allowing the Plaintiffs to proceed under pseudonyms – their own policies and regulations support
confidentiality. Further, Plaintiffs’ interests in proceeding anonymously outweighs the public’s
right to access judicial proceedings using the balancing test set out in United States v. Microsoft
Corp., 56 F.3d at 1464.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs, through counsel, request the ability to prosecute this action while
maintaining confidentiality of their identities. As families with minor children who have been
subjected to terrible violence in multiple countries in an action against the United States
government, Plaintiffs are especially vulnerable and require confidentiality of identity to protect
them from further trauma, harm or humiliation.
Respectfully submitted this 16nd day of September, 2019.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: September 16, 2019

By:

3

/s/ Hassan Ahmad
 
Hassan M. Ahmad (Bar No. MD16049)
Humza Kazmi 
The HMA Law Firm, PLLC 
7926 Jones Branch Dr., Suite 600 
McLean, VA 22102 
Phone: (703) 964-0245 
Fax: (703) 997-8556 
E-mail: hma@hmalegal.com
E-mail: hak@hmalegal.com 
 

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/19 Page 4 of 4

Dated: September 16, 2019

By:

/s/Bridget Cambria
*Bridget Cambria (PA Bar No. 205271)
Cambria & Kline, P.C.
532 Walnut Street
Reading, PA 19601
Phone: (484) 926-2014
Fax: (484) 926-2032
E-mail: bridget.cambria@cambriaklinelaw.com

Dated: September 16, 2019

By:

/s/Amy Maldonado
*Amy Maldonado (IL Bar No. 6256961)
Law Office of Amy Maldonado
333 Albert Avenue, Suite 610
East Lansing, MI 48823
Phone: (517) 803-2870
Fax: (888) 299-3780
E-mail: amy@amaldonadolaw.com

Dated: September 16, 2019

By:

/s/ Elora Mukherjee 
* Elora Mukherjee (NY Bar No. 4427233)  
Columbia Law School 
Morningside Heights Legal Services, Inc. 
435 W. 116th Street 
New York, NY 10027 
Phone: (212) 854-2603 
Fax: (212) 854-3554 
E-mail: emukherjee@law.columbia.edu 

ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF
*Motion for pro hac vice admission forthcoming

4

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1-3 Filed 09/16/19 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
M.M.V., et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the
United States; et al.,
Defendants.

PROPOSED ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to proceed under
Pseudonyms is GRANTED.

_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

 Case 1:19-cv-02773 Document 1-4 Filed 09/16/19 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
M.M.V., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the
United States; et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

19-cv-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that September 16, 2019, I electronically filed the attached Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Leave to File Under Pseudonyms with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which
will deliver a copy to all counsel of record.
 
Dated: September 16, 2019

By:

/s/ Hassan Ahmad
 
Hassan M. Ahmad (Bar No. MD16049) 
The HMA Law Firm, PLLC 
7926 Jones Branch Dr., Suite 600 
McLean, VA 22102 
Phone: (703) 964-0245 
Fax: (703) 997-8556 
E-mail: hma@hmalegal.com