Court filing
Emergency Motion to Restore Nationwide Scope of Injunction — East Bay Sanctuary v. Barr (N.D. Cal.)
Filed August 19, 2019 in East Bay Sanctuary v. Barr; one of 69 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2019-08-19 |
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · No. 3:19-cv-04073-JST · Doc. 57 · 2019-08-19 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Katrina Eiland (SBN 275701)
Cody Wofsy (SBN 294179)
Spencer Amdur (SBN 320069)
Julie Veroff (SBN 310161)
ACLU FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 343-0770
F: (415) 395-0950
keiland@aclu.org
cwofsy@aclu.org
samdur@aclu.org
jveroff@aclu.org
Lee Gelernt*
Omar C. Jadwat*
Anand Balakrishnan*
ACLU FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
T: (212) 549-2660
F: (212) 549-2654
lgelernt@aclu.org
ojadwat@aclu.org
abalakrishnan@aclu.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
(Additional counsel listed on following page)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant; Al Otro Lado;
Innovation Law Lab; and Central American
Resource Center in Los Angeles,
Plaintiffs,
v.
William Barr, Attorney General, in his official
capacity; U.S. Department of Justice; James
McHenry, Director of the Executive Office for
Immigration Review, in his official capacity; the
Executive Office for Immigration Review; Kevin
McAleenan, Acting Secretary of Homeland
Security, in his official capacity; U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; Ken Cuccinelli, Acting
Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, in his official capacity; U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services; John Sanders,
Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, in his official capacity; U.S. Customs
and Border Protection; Matthew Albence, Acting
Director of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, in his official capacity; Immigration
and Customs Enforcement,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:19-cv-04073-JST
NOTICE OF MOTION AND
EMERGENCY MOTION TO
CONSIDER SUPPLEMENTAL
EVIDENCE AND RESTORE THE
NATIONWIDE SCOPE OF THE
INJUNCTION
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Melissa Crow**
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
1101 17th Street, NW Suite 705
Washington, D.C. 20036
T: (202) 355-4471
F: (404) 221-5857
melissa.crow@splcenter.org
Mary Bauer**
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
1000 Preston Avenue
Charlottesville, VA 22903
T: (470) 606-9307
F: (404) 221-5857
mary.bauer@splcenter.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
*Admitted Pro hac vice
**Pro hac vice application forthcoming
Baher Azmy**
Angelo Guisado**
Ghita Schwarz**
CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
666 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10012
T: (212) 614-6464
F: (212) 614-6499
bazmy@ccrjustice.org
aguisado@ccrjustice.org
gschwarz@ccrjustice.org
Christine P. Sun (SBN 218701)
Vasudha Talla (SBN 316219)
Angélica Salceda (SBN 296152)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, INC.
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 621-2493
F: (415) 255-8437
csun@aclunc.org
vtalla@aclunc.org
asalceda@aclunc.org
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57 Filed 08/19/19 Page 2 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Mot. to Supplement the Record and Restore Nationwide Relief
Case No.: 3:19-cv-04073
TO RESPONDENTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiffs East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Al Otro Lado,
Innovation Law Lab, and Central American Resource Center of Los Angeles hereby move the Court
to consider supplemental evidence in support of the necessary scope of preliminary injunctive relief
to remedy Plaintiffs’ harms, and to restore the nationwide scope of the preliminary injunction
entered on July 24, 2019. See ECF No. 42.
This motion is brought pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and is based on the
accompanying Memorandum in Support and materials cited therein; the pleadings and evidence on
file in this matter; the accompanying declarations; and such other materials and argument as may be
presented in connection with the hearing on the motion.
The additional declarations Plaintiffs have asked the Court to consider are limited to the
scope of the injunction, and are of the same nature as the plaintiff declarations filed in the first East
Bay Sanctuary Covenant case, see 18-cv-06810-JST, ECF No. 8-3, 8-4, 8-6, 8-7, as well as the
plaintiff declarations filed in this case in support of preliminary injunctive relief, see ECF No. 3-2, 3-
3, 3-4, 3-5, which the government did not challenge factually. In light of the irreparable harm that
Plaintiffs will face if the Interim Final Rule is not enjoined nationwide, Plaintiffs propose that
Defendants’ opposition to this motion be due within 48 hours of this filing, and that Plaintiffs’ reply
be due within 24 hours of the filing of Defendants’ opposition. Should the Court wish to hear
argument on this motion, Plaintiffs request a hearing on Friday, August 23, 2019, at 2:30 pm.
Counsel for Plaintiffs provided notice of their intent to file this motion to Defendants on
August 18, 2019, by email to Erez R. Reuveni, Counsel for Defendants. Counsel for Plaintiffs will
promptly send a copy of these filings to Mr. Reuveni by email.
Counsel for Defendants requested that Plaintiffs submit the following statement on their
behalf: Defendants are not able to consent to a schedule without having the opportunity to see what
new evidentiary matter Plaintiffs are submitting in support of their motion, as Defendants must
determine whether they need to submit evidentiary matter of their own or to request expedited
discovery as to Plaintiffs' evidence. Although Plaintiffs contacted Defendants about scheduling,
because Defendants cannot review Plaintiffs’ evidence before Plaintiffs file, Defendants propose that
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57 Filed 08/19/19 Page 3 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Mot. to Supplement the Record and Restore Nationwide Relief
Case No.: 3:19-cv-04073
the Court order the parties to meet and confer on a schedule that reasonably provides both parties
sufficient time to submit or contest evidentiary matters relevant to Plaintiffs’ pending motion.
Defendants do not believe that can be accomplished in the 48 hours Plaintiffs propose Defendants
have to respond, and note that in other cases in which discovery is needed to assess scope of injury,
such proceedings often take months. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 28 and 118, United States v. California, No.
18-490 (E.D. Cal.) (orders providing for expedited discovery period of nine weeks as to issues
related to scope of injury).
Dated: August 19, 2019
Katrina Eiland (SBN 275701)
Cody Wofsy (SBN 294179)
Spencer Amdur (SBN 320069)
Julie Veroff (SBN 310161)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 343-1198
F: (415) 395-0950
keiland@aclu.org
cwofsy@aclu.org
samdur@aclu.org
jveroff@aclu.org
Melissa Crow**
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
1101 17th Street, NW Suite 705
Washington, D.C. 20036
T: (202) 355-4471
F: (404) 221-5857
melissa.crow@splcenter.org
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Lee Gelernt
Lee Gelernt*
Omar Jadwat*
Anand Balakrishnan*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
125 Broad St., 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
T: (212) 549-2660
F: (212) 549-2654
lgelernt@aclu.org
ojadwat@aclu.org
abalakrishnan@aclu.org
Christine P. Sun (SBN 218701)
Vasudha Talla (SBN 316219)
Angélica Salceda (SBN 296152)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 621-2493
F: (415) 255-8437
csun@aclunc.org
vtalla@aclunc.org
asalceda@aclunc.org
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57 Filed 08/19/19 Page 4 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Mot. to Supplement the Record and Restore Nationwide Relief
Case No.: 3:19-cv-04073
Mary Bauer**
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
1000 Preston Avenue
Charlottesville, VA 22903
T: (470) 606-9307
F: (404) 221-5857
mary.bauer@splcenter.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
*Admitted Pro hac vice
** Pro hac vice application forthcoming
Baher Azmy**
Angelo Guisado**
Ghita Schwarz**
CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
666 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10012
Telephone: (212) 614-6464
Facsimile: (212) 614-6499
bazmy@ccrjustice.org
aguisado@ccrjustice.org
gschwarz@ccrjustice.org
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57 Filed 08/19/19 Page 5 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Katrina Eiland (SBN 275701)
Cody Wofsy (SBN 294179)
Spencer Amdur (SBN 320069)
Julie Veroff (SBN 310161)
ACLU FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 343-0770
F: (415) 395-0950
keiland@aclu.org
cwofsy@aclu.org
samdur@aclu.org
jveroff@aclu.org
Lee Gelernt*
Omar C. Jadwat*
Anand Balakrishnan*
ACLU FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
T: (212) 549-2660
F: (212) 549-2654
lgelernt@aclu.org
ojadwat@aclu.org
abalakrishnan@aclu.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
(Additional counsel listed on following page)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant; Al Otro Lado;
Innovation Law Lab; and Central American
Resource Center in Los Angeles,
Plaintiffs,
v.
William Barr, Attorney General, in his official
capacity; U.S. Department of Justice; James
McHenry, Director of the Executive Office for
Immigration Review, in his official capacity; the
Executive Office for Immigration Review; Kevin
McAleenan, Acting Secretary of Homeland
Security, in his official capacity; U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; Ken Cuccinelli, Acting
Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, in his official capacity; U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services; John Sanders,
Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, in his official capacity; U.S. Customs
and Border Protection; Matthew Albence, Acting
Director of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, in his official capacity; Immigration
and Customs Enforcement,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:19-cv-04073-JST
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY
MOTION TO CONSIDER
SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE AND
RESTORE THE NATIONWIDE
SCOPE OF THE INJUNCTION
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-1 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Melissa Crow**
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
1101 17th Street, NW Suite 705
Washington, D.C. 20036
T: (202) 355-4471
F: (404) 221-5857
melissa.crow@splcenter.org
Mary Bauer**
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
1000 Preston Avenue
Charlottesville, VA 22903
T: (470) 606-9307
F: (404) 221-5857
mary.bauer@splcenter.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
*Admitted Pro hac vice
**Pro hac vice application forthcoming
Baher Azmy**
Angelo Guisado**
Ghita Schwarz**
CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
666 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10012
T: (212) 614-6464
F: (212) 614-6499
bazmy@ccrjustice.org
aguisado@ccrjustice.org
gschwarz@ccrjustice.org
Christine P. Sun (SBN 218701)
Vasudha Talla (SBN 316219)
Angélica Salceda (SBN 296152)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, INC.
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 621-2493
F: (415) 255-8437
csun@aclunc.org
vtalla@aclunc.org
asalceda@aclunc.org
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-1 Filed 08/19/19 Page 2 of 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Memo in Support of Mot. to Supplement the Record and Restore Nationwide Relief
Case No.: 3:19-cv-04073
INTRODUCTION
This Court issued an order preliminarily enjoining the challenged Interim Final Rule
nationwide on July 24, 2019. See ECF No. 42. The government sought an administrative stay and a
stay pending appeal from the Ninth Circuit. See No. 19-16487 (9th Cir.), Dkt. 3-1. The Ninth
Circuit motions panel denied the government’s request for an administrative stay that same day. See
id., Dkt. 19. On August 16, 2019, the motions panel denied the government’s request for a stay
“insofar as the injunction applies within the Ninth Circuit.” Id., Dkt. 30 (Order) at 3.
The motions panel did not disturb this Court’s conclusions about Plaintiffs’ likelihood of
success on the merits or the equities, and agreed that the government has “not made the required
‘strong showing’ that they are likely to succeed on the merits on [the notice-and-comment] issue.”
Id. However, the motions panel limited the scope of the injunction to the Ninth Circuit. Id.
Critically, however, the panel recognized that a nationwide injunction of the Rule could well be
appropriate. But before it would uphold nationwide relief in this case, the panel required further
record evidence and findings by this Court connecting that scope of relief to Plaintiffs’ injuries. Id.
at 3-6. Accordingly, the motions panel provided that “[w]hile [the preliminary injunction] appeal
proceeds, the district court retains jurisdiction to further develop the record in support of a
preliminary injunction extending beyond the Ninth Circuit.” Id. at 8-9.
Consistent with that express permission from the Ninth Circuit, Plaintiffs now respectfully
request that the Court consider additional evidence in support of a nationwide injunction, and, based
on supplemental findings of fact, restore the nationwide scope of the preliminary injunction.1
Absent nationwide relief, the serious and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs caused by the Rule cannot be
fully remedied.
1 Given the panel’s clear acknowledgment that this Court retains jurisdiction to revisit the
proper scope of the injunction, there is no jurisdictional bar to this Court restoring the nationwide
scope of the preliminary injunction based on further factual findings. See Order at 8-9; id. at 9
(“Because the record is insufficiently developed as to the question of the national scope of the
injunction, we vacate the injunction to the extent that it applies outside California and remand to the
district court for a more searching inquiry into whether this case justifies the breadth of the
injunction imposed.”) (quoting City & County of San Francisco v. Trump, 897 F.3d 1225, 1245 (9th
Cir. 2018)); see also Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 62(d) (permitting district courts to “modify, restore, or grant
an injunction” even while an interlocutory appeal is pending).
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-1 Filed 08/19/19 Page 3 of 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Memo in Support of Mot. to Supplement the Record and Restore Nationwide Relief
Case No.: 3:19-cv-04073
ARGUMENT
I.
Nationwide Relief Is Necessary to Remedy Plaintiffs’ Injuries.
As the Ninth Circuit motions panel confirmed, nationwide injunctions will be upheld where
they are “necessary to remedy a plaintiff’s harm.” Order at 4. The declarations accompanying this
motion—which supplement the declarations filed by Plaintiffs in support of their motion for a
temporary restraining order, see ECF No. 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5—clearly demonstrate that the injunction
in this case must be nationwide “to remedy the specific harm shown” to Plaintiffs. Order at 4
(quoting City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, 897 F.3d 1225, 1243-45 (9th Cir. 2018)).
As set forth below, Plaintiffs have specific reasons why a nationwide injunction is necessary
to remedy the harms to their organizations. But one common theme is that asylum seekers
frequently do not enter the country and complete their asylum proceedings within the same circuit,
and it is not possible to predict asylum seekers’ movements in advance. For instance, an asylum
seeker may enter the U.S. through Texas, have a credible fear interview in New Jersey, and
ultimately apply for asylum in California. See Alvarez Decl. ¶ 6; Supp. Manning Decl. ¶¶ 12, 16.
The Declaration of Aaron Reichlin-Melnick discusses the reasons for and frequency with which this
movement occurs. The declarations from each of the four Plaintiffs discuss these scenarios as they
relate to the organization’s work.
Innovation Law Lab: Law Lab’s operations are not limited to the Ninth Circuit. In addition
to its work in the Ninth Circuit, Law Lab has offices in Georgia, Missouri, and Texas; operates pro
bono representation projects in Georgia, Kansas, Missouri, and North Carolina, with expansion
underway to New Mexico; and provides direct representation to persons applying for asylum outside
the Ninth Circuit. See Supp. Manning Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. And six of the seven detention centers at which
Law Lab regularly works are outside the Ninth Circuit. Id. ¶ 19. Given Law Lab’s national scope,
an injunction limited to the Ninth Circuit would not fully remedy the harm to the organization.
First, because Law Lab provides training, materials, and overall legal assistance to other
organizations and asylum seekers throughout the country, the harm to Law Lab will not be remedied
by an injunction limited to the Ninth Circuit. Among other things, Law Lab currently uses
synchronized templates and materials across its program sites. A geographically limited injunction
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-1 Filed 08/19/19 Page 4 of 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Memo in Support of Mot. to Supplement the Record and Restore Nationwide Relief
Case No.: 3:19-cv-04073
will force it to abandon this practice, and will require it to meaningfully restructure its operations to
effectively serve persons who are subject to the transit ban as well as persons who are not. Id. ¶¶ 7-
8, 13-14, 20.
Second, the fact that Law Lab directly represents individuals outside the Ninth Circuit means
that an injunction limited to the Ninth Circuit is insufficient. Id. ¶ 15.
Moreover, providing legal guidance and assistance to persons subject to the Rule will be a
significant burden on Law Lab employee time and program operations, as these persons will now
only be eligible for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Those
forms of relief are more time consuming than asylum to pursue, as they involve higher burdens of
proof than asylum and require the development of distinct and more in-depth legal analyses. They
also do not permit derivative applications to be filed on behalf of family members. In addition, Law
Lab will have to retrain its volunteers on these forms of relief and adjust how it screens individuals
for relief. Id. ¶¶ 9, 11.
And, importantly, because asylum seekers often move between different locations—and
between judicial circuits—during their proceedings, Law Lab’s ability to provide legal assistance
workshops will be hindered. Id. ¶¶ 12, 16. For instance, at Law Lab’s workshops in Tijuana for
individuals about to seek asylum in the U.S., Law Lab will have to provide guidance about a Rule
that might apply at different points throughout their asylum cases, depending on where they
ultimately cross the border or where they end up once in the U.S. Indeed, the number of asylum
seekers Law Lab serves in Tijuana who end up in detention centers in Louisiana and Mississippi has
been significantly increasing. Id. ¶ 12. See also Reichlin-Melnick Decl. (discussing movement of
asylum seekers across jurisdictions).2 As a result, it will now be impossible simply to provide all of
these asylum seekers and their legal representatives with one set of guidelines.
2 The Reichlin-Melnick declaration analyzes recent statistics from the Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”) and Executive Office for Immigration Review demonstrating that
asylum seekers frequently move throughout the country during the asylum process, either by their
choice or because DHS transfers detained asylum seekers from one detention center to another. This
data reveals that there is almost no connection between asylum seekers’ place of entry and ultimate
destination. Reichlin-Melnick Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, 14-15.
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-1 Filed 08/19/19 Page 5 of 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Memo in Support of Mot. to Supplement the Record and Restore Nationwide Relief
Case No.: 3:19-cv-04073
Finally, an injunction limited to the Ninth Circuit not only will frustrate Law Lab’s
operations outside the Ninth Circuit, but will adversely impact its programs within the Ninth Circuit
as well. Because serving individuals affected by the Rule’s categorical ban is so time consuming,
Law Lab will have to direct significant resources towards their representation, which will negatively
affect clients in the Ninth Circuit and may force Law Lab to serve fewer people overall. Supp.
Manning Decl. ¶ 17.
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant (“EBSC”): The harms caused to EBSC by the Rule, see ECF
No. 3-2, will persist if the Rule is allowed to go into effect everywhere other than the Ninth Circuit.
See Supp. Smith Decl. ¶ 4. Part of EBSC’s mission is to serve clients in affirmative asylum cases,
regardless of where they entered the United States. Accordingly, EBSC serves clients who enter the
United States anywhere in the country, not just the Ninth Circuit. A sizable portion of EBSC’s
clients enter the United States outside the Ninth Circuit’s geographic boundaries and then end up in
California, where they apply for asylum. More than 22% of EBSC’s affirmative asylum applications
filed in 2019 were on behalf of clients who transited through Mexico without applying for protection
there and then entered the United States in Texas or New Mexico, i.e., outside the Ninth Circuit. If
the organization is unable to serve a sizable portion of its client base in affirmative asylum cases, its
mission will be frustrated, and a core part of its operations will be undermined. Id. ¶¶ 5, 7.
For the same reason, an injunction limited to the Ninth Circuit also jeopardizes EBSC’s
funding streams. Pursuant to a grant from the California Department of Social Services (“CDSS”),
EBSC receives $2,000 for every affirmative asylum case it files. If, because of the Rule, EBSC is no
longer able to handle affirmative asylum cases for individuals who transit through a third country en
route to the southern border and enter outside the Ninth Circuit, the organization likely will face a
marked decrease in its budget. Indeed, if the Rule is allowed to remain in effect outside the Ninth
Circuit, EBSC estimates that it could lose up to $50,000 under the terms of its CDSS grant during
the rest of 2019 and up to $100,000 in 2020. Id. ¶ 8.
Because of the strain imposed on EBSC if the Rule remains in effect outside of the Ninth
Circuit, EBSC will either have to significantly cut its affirmative asylum program and staff, or
overhaul its program to provide types of assistance it is not currently equipped or trained to provide.
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-1 Filed 08/19/19 Page 6 of 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Memo in Support of Mot. to Supplement the Record and Restore Nationwide Relief
Case No.: 3:19-cv-04073
Id. ¶ 9. Notably, EBSC does not currently have sufficient capacity or expertise to handle
applications for humanitarian relief in the removal context. Yet to continue serving clients affected
by the Rule, EBSC will have to shift to representing those individuals in removal cases. Doing so
would be extremely resource intensive for EBSC. Id. ¶ 10. EBSC will also be burdened by having
to provide different services to those subject to the Rule and those not subject to the Rule. Id. ¶¶ 12-
13.
CARECEN: The injuries inflicted on CARECEN by the Rule, see ECF No. 3-5, will persist
if the Rule is not enjoined nationwide, see Alvarez Decl. ¶ 4. CARECEN represents Central
American asylum seekers regardless of where they enter the United States. Nearly all of
CARECEN’s current asylum clients entered through the southern border after transiting through a
third country without applying for protection there, and at least 60% of those individuals entered
outside of the Ninth Circuit. Id. ¶ 5. Thus, the majority of CARECEN’s asylum clients could still be
subject to the Rule’s categorical bar on asylum under an injunction limited to the Ninth Circuit. Id.
CARECEN would be forced to divert significant resources to serve these clients, as they would only
be eligible for far more resource-intensive forms of relief, such as withholding and CAT protection.
Id. ¶¶ 8-9. Despite having to devote significantly increased resources to such applications,
CARECEN’s main source of funding for its asylum work pays a fixed amount per case. This will
significantly strain the organization’s budget. Id. ¶ 9.
In addition, CARECEN will have to undertake time consuming screening efforts to
determine whether a prospective client is subject to the Rule under a geographically limited
injunction. Prospective clients who call CARECEN’s offices for representation frequently do not
have paperwork showing where they entered the country or have other geographical information that
may be relevant to the applicability of the Rule. Id. ¶ 11. CARECEN staff therefore will have to do
additional investigation and screening to determine whether the Rule is likely to apply. Id. It will
also have to bifurcate its operations to provide different services to those subject to the Rule and
those not subject to it. Id. ¶¶ 10-11.
Al Otro Lado: Al Otro Lado will continue to suffer injuries if the Rule is enjoined only in the
Ninth Circuit. See ECF No. 3-3; Ramos Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. Of the thousands of noncitizens Al Otro Lado
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-1 Filed 08/19/19 Page 7 of 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Memo in Support of Mot. to Supplement the Record and Restore Nationwide Relief
Case No.: 3:19-cv-04073
serves through its offices in Tijuana, Mexico, not all cross the border in the Ninth Circuit. Rather,
some ultimately enter the United States elsewhere, including Texas and New Mexico. Id. ¶ 5. It is
impossible for Al Otro Lado to know with certainty ex ante where a given asylum seeker whom they
serve will ultimately enter the United States. Id. ¶¶ 5-8.3 As a result, they will now have to provide
burdensome additional guidance to ensure that individuals understand the Rule’s impact in different
parts of the United States. Id. ¶¶ 9-10.
Likewise, Al Otro Lado serves individuals who end up outside the Ninth Circuit for their
asylum proceedings. Al Otro Lado clients who entered the United States along the southern border
in California have ended up in Colorado, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin. Id. ¶ 6. This cross-circuit movement happens because of where the government chooses
to detain a given asylum seeker, or because of where a given asylum seeker goes to live after release
from detention. Id. See also Reichlin-Melnick Decl. In Al Otro Lado’s experience, this cross-
circuit movement is quite common, particularly for unaccompanied minors. Ramos Decl. ¶ 7. As
with the uncertainty about ultimate border-crossing locations, it is impossible for Al Otro Lado to
know for certain where an individual they advise will end up once they are in the United States. Id.
¶ 8.
As a result, if the Rule is only enjoined in certain parts of the country, rather than nationwide,
Al Otro Lado will have to advise asylum seekers without knowing whether they will ultimately be
subject to the Rule’s categorical asylum bar or not. To fulfill their professional obligations, Al Otro
Lado will have to account for all possibilities in giving advice. Having to do so will require Al Otro
Lado to expend significant organizational resources regarding training materials, staff time, and
capacity, and would create a serious burden for the organization. Id. ¶¶ 9-10.
II.
Nationwide Relief Is Appropriate on the Record Here.
This Court and the Ninth Circuit concluded that the first asylum ban was likely unlawful and
enjoined it nationwide. The Supreme Court did not disturb that conclusion and let stand the
3 Likewise, Law Lab’s declaration makes the same point that the organization does not know
in advance where asylum seekers it serves in Mexico will enter the U.S. or where they will travel
around the country during the asylum process. Supp. Manning Decl. ¶¶ 12, 16.
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-1 Filed 08/19/19 Page 8 of 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Memo in Support of Mot. to Supplement the Record and Restore Nationwide Relief
Case No.: 3:19-cv-04073
injunction’s nationwide scope. See Trump v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, 139 S.Ct. 782 (2018)
(denying stay). The record of harm to Plaintiffs absent a nationwide injunction, as supplemented, is
even stronger than the record in that case. The Court should therefore reinstate the nationwide
injunction to remedy Plaintiffs’ injuries. Moreover, the public interest calculation—which the stay
panel did not disturb—strongly favors a nationwide injunction given the grave harm individual
migrants will face.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion should be granted.
Dated: August 19, 2019
Katrina Eiland (SBN 275701)
Cody Wofsy (SBN 294179)
Spencer Amdur (SBN 320069)
Julie Veroff (SBN 310161)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 343-1198
F: (415) 395-0950
keiland@aclu.org
cwofsy@aclu.org
samdur@aclu.org
jveroff@aclu.org
Melissa Crow**
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
1101 17th Street, NW Suite 705
Washington, D.C. 20036
T: (202) 355-4471
F: (404) 221-5857
melissa.crow@splcenter.org
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Lee Gelernt
Lee Gelernt*
Omar Jadwat*
Anand Balakrishnan*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
125 Broad St., 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
T: (212) 549-2660
F: (212) 549-2654
lgelernt@aclu.org
ojadwat@aclu.org
abalakrishnan@aclu.org
Christine P. Sun (SBN 218701)
Vasudha Talla (SBN 316219)
Angélica Salceda (SBN 296152)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 621-2493
F: (415) 255-8437
csun@aclunc.org
vtalla@aclunc.org
asalceda@aclunc.org
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-1 Filed 08/19/19 Page 9 of 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Memo in Support of Mot. to Supplement the Record and Restore Nationwide Relief
Case No.: 3:19-cv-04073
Mary Bauer**
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
1000 Preston Avenue
Charlottesville, VA 22903
T: (470) 606-9307
F: (404) 221-5857
mary.bauer@splcenter.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
*Admitted Pro hac vice
** Pro hac vice application forthcoming
Baher Azmy**
Angelo Guisado**
Ghita Schwarz**
CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
666 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10012
Telephone: (212) 614-6464
Facsimile: (212) 614-6499
bazmy@ccrjustice.org
aguisado@ccrjustice.org
gschwarz@ccrjustice.org
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-1 Filed 08/19/19 Page 10 of 10
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF STEPHEN W. MANNING, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, INNOVATION LAW LAB
I, Stephen W. Manning, declare as follows:
1.
I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Oregon and am a member in
good standing of the bars of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States. I am a
member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”), a former member of the
Board of Governors of AILA, and a former Chair of the Oregon Chapter of AILA. I am over 18
and have personal knowledge of the facts described herein.
2.
I am the Executive Director of the Innovation Law Lab (“Law Lab”), a nonprofit
in Oregon that I founded to improve the legal rights of immigrants and refugees in the United
States.
3.
I previously submitted a declaration in this matter. See East Bay Sanctuary
Covenant v. Barr, No. 3:19-cv-04073-JST (N.D. Cal.) ECF No. 3-4 (July 17, 2019). This
declaration supplements that first declaration.
4.
As I described in my previous declaration, Law Lab has an office in Oakland,
California, in addition to offices throughout the United States, including Portland, Oregon; Atlanta,
Georgia; San Diego, California; Kansas City, Missouri and San Antonio and El Paso, Texas.
5.
Law Lab operates pro bono representation projects called Centers of Excellence,
which provide support to noncitizens and their pro bono attorneys including legal, technical, and
strategic assistance in the preparation and presentation of claims, in Georgia, Kansas, Missouri,
North Carolina, and Oregon, with expansion underway to New Mexico and California. Our
BorderX project uses technology and collaboration tools to provide support to legal service
providers at immigrant detention centers throughout the United States and, under a recent
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-2 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 9
1
expansion, at several sites on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. On August 1, 2019, we opened
an office in El Paso, Texas as part of our membership in the El Paso Immigration Collaborative
(EPIC), which provides legal services and representation to all release-eligible asylum seekers
detained at five detention centers in the El Paso jurisdiction. We also provide direct representation
to persons applying for asylum inside the Ninth Circuit and outside the Ninth Circuit.
6.
If the asylum transit ban went into effect in jurisdictions outside of the Ninth
Circuit, there would be an immediate and significant detrimental effect on Law Lab’s ability to
serve clients and maintain its programs across the country.
7.
Law Lab’s programming has a national reach not only because of our diverse
geographic locations, but also because we operate our programs collaboratively across program
sites. For example, Law Lab operates pro se asylum workshops in Atlanta, Georgia; Kansas City,
Missouri; Portland, Oregon; Tijuana, Mexico; and at the U.S.-Mexico border. Our Atlanta project
was the first to launch the asylum workshop concept, and templates and materials developed there
are used across our other program sites. If for example people fleeing persecution in Atlanta were
subject to the asylum transit ban, while people fleeing persecution in Portland were not, Law Lab
could no longer use synchronized materials across its asylum workshops.
8.
Law Lab employees also regularly staff these workshops at all of our sites,
particularly in Atlanta, Portland, and Tijuana. We hold asylum workshops on a monthly basis in
Atlanta and Portland, and, in collaboration with partner organization Al Otro Lado, several times
a month in Tijuana. Law Lab attorneys and accredited representatives coordinate and implement
the workshops, and also directly provide some legal services and advice to immigrant attendees.
Our workshops in Atlanta and Portland almost always have attendees who have crossed the border
both within and outside of the Ninth Circuit. If the asylum transit ban were in place in parts of the
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-2 Filed 08/19/19 Page 2 of 9
2
border, but not others, our asylum workshops would have to be meaningfully restructured in order
to effectively serve persons who are subject to the transit ban and persons who are not.
9.
Providing legal guidance and asylum application assistance to persons subject to
the transit ban at these workshops would be a significant burden on Law Lab employee time and
program operations. The majority of persons served at these workshops are Central American
asylum seekers who would be subject to the asylum transit ban. First, Law Lab would have to
spend additional time developing the facts and legal theories for asylum applicants subject to the
transit ban, as these applicants would be eligible only for withholding of removal and relief under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Withholding and CAT have a higher burden of proof than
asylum, and these applications would require the development of entirely distinct and more in-
depth legal analyses. Law Lab staff supervise and train attorney and accredited representative
volunteers at these workshops, and would have to devote significant time to re-training these
volunteers on the new standards and how to screen for attendees who might be subject to the ban.
10.
For example, just this weekend, Law Lab operated a pro se asylum workshop in
Atlanta for persons seeking asylum. The workshop is part of a regular series of programming. Our
staff—based in Georgia, California, Missouri, Florida, Washington, and Oregon--spent many
hours training volunteers on law, process, and our materials; preparing technology for use in the
workshops; and preparing individual clients and client applications in order for the workshop to
be successful. However, because we used a centralized set of training materials and technology—
all of which are designed around a uniform application of the asylum regulations—the workshop
was likely for nothing and will have to be redone. Before it can be redone, though, we will have
to divert resources from other projects to re-programming because the injunction does not apply
nationwide.
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-2 Filed 08/19/19 Page 3 of 9
3
11.
Additionally, most of the persons fleeing persecution who we serve at our
workshops are in family units. Often a nuclear family can file a single asylum application, with
the spouse and minor children benefiting as derivatives. But because withholding of removal and
CAT do not allow derivative relief, every member of a family subject to the transit ban would have
to file a separate application. This would limit Law Lab’s workshop capacity significantly—
instead of completing eight applications for eight families, for example, we might only have
capacity to complete eight applications for two families with four members each.
12.
The workshops in Tijuana, which provide legal guidance to persons who are about
to seek asylum, would also be hindered because we would have to provide guidance about a rule
that might apply to people at different points throughout their asylum cases. In my experience, it
is not uncommon for a person fleeing persecution to cross the border at a different location than
the one in which they had sought legal advice. Additionally, the state in which a person initially
requests asylum is often not the same state where they will be detained, have their credible fear
interview, or have their case heard on the merits in immigration court. Therefore, even at our
workshops in Tijuana, where most people anticipate seeking asylum at a border within the Ninth
Circuit, we would need to create and provide guidance about the implications of the asylum transit
ban for every individual seeking assistance. Specifically, there has been a significant increase of
asylum seekers that Law Lab has provided guidance to in Tijuana that end up in detention centers
in Louisiana and Mississippi, despite the fact that they entered the US to request asylum in the
Ninth Circuit.
13.
We intend to replicate the Tijuana workshops, materials and specialized technology
that Law Lab developed to serve asylum seekers along the U.S.-Mexico border—both inside and
outside the Ninth Circuit. For example, in late July, Law Lab began to implement an expansion of
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-2 Filed 08/19/19 Page 4 of 9
4
its services to asylum seekers using the Tijuana project as our model with a focus on Ciudad Juarez.
Given our very limited financial resources and staff, the program expansion would likely only be
scalable if we could replicate our Tijuana workshops, materials, and specialized technology at the
sites in Ciudad Juarez.
14.
In addition to materials used at nationwide asylum workshops, Law Lab creates
written materials and technology for use across our Centers of Excellence pro bono programs, our
BorderX detention project, and other initiatives that serve people fleeing persecution throughout
the United States. These materials include printed guides, worksheets, training videos, self-help
videos, and other resources that are used around the country. If the asylum transit ban were to
apply to people fleeing persecution outside of the Ninth Circuit, Law Lab would have to
substantially revise its materials across programs, and create bifurcated resources going forward.
For example, Law Lab is just finishing several months of work on a short client-targeted video
that explains the elements of asylum in plain language. We planned to use this video as an
educational tool and distribute it widely amongst our partners and amongst communities of persons
fleeing persecution. If the asylum transit ban is allowed to go into effect, the video will be
essentially useless, since the ban adds an additional element to asylum eligibility that the video
does not discuss. To create an effective resource going forward, Law Lab would have to entirely
re-work the initial video, and likely create two versions for use inside and outside the Ninth Circuit.
15.
Though Law Lab focuses its work on building effective and scalable representation
programs, we also engage in direct representation cases when necessary to serve our mission. For
example, I represented eighty men fleeing persecution who were held at the Sheridan Federal
Correctional Institute in Sheridan, Oregon, in the summer of 2018; 100% of my clients passed
their credible fear interviews and 97% were subsequently released from detention on bond or
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-2 Filed 08/19/19 Page 5 of 9
5
parole. Law Lab continues to directly represent clients who were previously detained at Sheridan,
and also directly represents clients in jurisdictions outside of the Ninth Circuit. If the asylum
transit ban were to go into effect outside the Ninth Circuit, our limited direct representation work
would become significantly more complicated and burdensome.
16.
Additionally, the clients served by Law Lab’s programs do not complete their
immigration case in a single jurisdiction. It is possible that a client would move seamlessly
between our program sites—and thus between different judicial circuits—as their case progresses.
A person fleeing persecution might receive a legal orientation and services at a workshop
supported by Law Lab in Tijuana, Mexico; obtain release on bond or parole from a detention center
in Texas with assistance from our BorderX project; and complete their asylum application at a
Law Lab-run legal workshop in Atlanta, Georgia. Many persons served by Law Lab programs
move between jurisdictions throughout the lifetime of their asylum case as well. In my experience,
such movement between jurisdictions is common for asylum seekers.
17.
Law Lab’s programs within the Ninth Circuit will also be adversely impacted if the
asylum transit ban rule goes into effect in other jurisdictions. Law Lab coordinates the Equity
Corps of Oregon, which is the region’s first government-funded universal representation program.
A high number—likely close to 90 percent—of the Equity Corps’ clients are people who are
fleeing persecution, many of whom arrived recently to the United States. Equity Corps’ asylum
clients enter the United States to seek protection at or in between ports of entry across the U.S.-
Mexico border, and a significant percentage of these clients first entered the United States in Texas
or New Mexico. If the asylum transit ban rule went into effect outside the Ninth Circuit, Equity
Corps might have to shift significant resources towards representation of clients who entered the
country in Texas or New Mexico and are subject to the ban. These resources would include both
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-2 Filed 08/19/19 Page 6 of 9
6
the devotion of additional time to withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture
applications for these clients, who would not be eligible for asylum, and also re-working of case
templates, resources, and materials to account for eligibility differences based on place of entry.
This resource diversion would negatively affect other clients within the Equity Corps program,
and also would harm the program as a whole, which could be forced to serve fewer people overall
because of the increased time burden required for a subset of cases.
18.
Law Lab’s work providing strategic support, limited legal assistance, and advocacy
in the cases of people fleeing persecution who were forcibly returned to Mexico under the “Migrant
Protection Protocols” (MPP) program would be dramatically impacted if the asylum transit ban
rule went into effect outside of the Ninth Circuit. Law Lab works directly with people subject to
MPP whose cases are heard in San Diego, California and El Paso, Texas; we also consult with
projects that are providing assistance in Laredo, Texas and Brownsville, Texas. Because Mexican
nationals cannot be subject to MPP, all of the cases we support in this work are asylum cases where
the applicant traveled or resided in a country other than their country of origin before seeking
asylum in the United States. Therefore, nearly all individuals subject to MPP outside of the Ninth
Circuit would potentially be subject to the asylum transit ban while also facing the significant
challenges that the MPP poses in litigating their asylum cases. This combination would make our
work in El Paso and our consulting in Laredo and Brownsville significantly more burdensome.
19.
Finally, our BorderX and EPIC programs would be significantly harmed if the
asylum transit ban rule went into effect outside the Ninth Circuit. BorderX works regularly in
seven immigrant detention centers, six of which are outside of the Ninth Circuit. As I noted in my
prior declaration, 100% of the noncitizens BorderX serves are asylum seekers, the majority of
whom transited through a third country before arriving to the United States. If the rule were to go
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-2 Filed 08/19/19 Page 7 of 9
7
into effect outside of the Ninth Circuit, work in at least six of BorderX’s program sites would
significantly increase in difficulty, as release eligibility would be severely limited, if not
eliminated, for many of our clients, and the program would have to develop alternative (and time
consuming) release strategies for clients detained in those facilities. That is because release
eligibility turns to a significant degree on eligibility for asylum. BorderX, like our other programs,
would also have to change its templates, materials, and guidance to account for the different
eligibility regimes that would govern clients based on place of entry to the United States and place
of detention.
20.
In short, Law Lab’s work is national, not only in terms of program sites and direct
representation of clients where necessary, but also the ways that our projects work together to
provide high-quality resources to unrepresented asylum seekers, pro bono attorneys, and other
representation projects. Allowing the asylum transit ban to go into effect outside the Ninth Circuit
would not only harm our multiple programs in place outside the Ninth Circuit, but would also harm
our organization’s ability to employ a unified approach to our strategic programs. To fully remedy
the harms the Rule will inflict on Law Lab, the Rule would need to be enjoined nationwide, not
just in the Ninth Circuit.
21.
Finally, had Law Lab been provided the opportunity to comment on the Rule
before it went into effect, Law Lab would have submitted comments about why the Rule is
unlawful and factually unsupported, and why it must be rescinded nationwide.
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-2 Filed 08/19/19 Page 8 of 9
8
I hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States that
the above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
EXECUTED this 18th day of August, 2019.
Stephen W. Manning, OSB #013373
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-2 Filed 08/19/19 Page 9 of 9
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-3 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-3 Filed 08/19/19 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-3 Filed 08/19/19 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-3 Filed 08/19/19 Page 4 of 4
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-4 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-4 Filed 08/19/19 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-4 Filed 08/19/19 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-4 Filed 08/19/19 Page 4 of 4
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-5 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-5 Filed 08/19/19 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-5 Filed 08/19/19 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-5 Filed 08/19/19 Page 4 of 4
1
DECLARATION OF AARON REICHLIN-MELNICK
1.
I, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, make the following declaration based on my personal
knowledge and declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the
following is true and correct.
2.
I am a policy analyst at the American Immigration Council (“Immigration Council”), a
nonprofit and non-partisan organization whose mission includes the use of facts to educate the
public on the important and enduring contributions that immigrants make to America. At the
Immigration Council, I track and analyze immigration-related statistics produced by the
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review
(“EOIR”), including trends in the processing of asylum seekers and the case outcomes for
individuals placed in removal proceedings.
3.
I am familiar with the relevant public statistics published by DHS and EOIR and the
methodology that DHS and EOIR use to produce statistics relating to the processing of asylum
seekers and to the outcomes of immigration court proceedings. I have previously submitted
declarations analyzing government-produced immigration statistics in Innovation Law Lab v.
McAleenan, 3:19-cv-00807-RS (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 14, 2019) and Padilla v. ICE, No. 2:18-cv-
00928-MJP (W.D. Wash. filed June 25, 2018).
4.
In preparation for this declaration I have extensively reviewed public statistics on motions to
change venue or transfer in immigration court, as well as information on asylum seekers’
movements inside the United States after entry. I have also reviewed the Ninth Circuit’s stay
decision in this case, as well as this Court’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction.
5.
The data I analyzed reveals that motions to change venue or transfer in immigration court
are routine. Immigrants frequently move from one jurisdiction to another, either of their own free
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-6 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 5
2
will or because Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) transfers them from one detention
center to another.
6.
In addition, the location where an asylum seeker enters the United States does not
necessarily correspond to his or her final location once inside the country. Many asylum seekers
who arrive at the border in California or Arizona will move outside the Ninth Circuit’s
jurisdiction, just as many asylum seekers who arrive at the border in New Mexico or Texas will
move inside the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction. Some asylum seekers in DHS custody may even be
moved into and out of the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction more than once.
Immigrants Routinely Change Venue in Immigration Court
7.
Initial jurisdiction for an immigration court proceeding is set by DHS with the filing of a
Notice to Appear. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a). Once the Notice to Appear has been filed, “venue shall
lie at the Immigration Court where jurisdiction vests,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20(a), and may only be
changed following a motion by one of the parties. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20(b).
8.
Where DHS moves a detained immigrant to a new immigration court jurisdiction, it is
required to notify EOIR of the transfer. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(g). EOIR reports that change in
jurisdiction as a “transfer.” EOIR has defined “transfer” as “The Department of Homeland
Security’s moving of detained aliens between detention facilities or the administrative transfer of
an alien’s case from one hearing location to another.” EOIR, 2016 Statistics Yearbook (2017), at
Glossary 12. Because EOIR reports “changes of venue” separately from “transfers,” it is possible
to determine the minimum percentage of jurisdictional changes that occurred at DHS’s behest
following the physical transfer of an individual in DHS custody from one jurisdiction to another.
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-6 Filed 08/19/19 Page 2 of 5
3
9.
In fiscal year 2017—the most recent year where statistics are available—a total of 115,533
motions to change venue or transfer were granted in immigration court, divided between 68,949
successful change of venue motions and 46,584 transfers. EOIR, 2017 Statistics Yearbook
(2018), at 15.
10. As shown in Figure 1, between 2008 and 2017, changes in jurisdiction (successful changes
of venue and transfers) grew by 182 percent. EOIR, 2012 Statistics Yearbook (2013), at D5.
Changes of venue increased by 193 percent (from 23,550 in 2008), and transfers increased by
168 percent (from 17,386 in 2008). This growth corresponds with the overall growth of both
immigration detention and the immigration court backlogs as a whole.
Figure 1: Motions to Change Venue/Transfer by Fiscal Year
Source: EOIR, Statistics Yearbook 2017 (2018), at 15; EOIR, Statistics Yearbook 2012 (2013), at D5.
11. EOIR also provides court-level data on changes of venue and transfers. Using this data, it is
possible to determine what percent of jurisdictional changes are granted inside the Ninth Circuit
and outside the Ninth Circuit.
17386
23485
23317
36781
39618
37826
40895
37662
41868
46584
23550
24927
30398
38729
43867
50909
64520
50303
56239
68949
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Changes of Venue
Transfers
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-6 Filed 08/19/19 Page 3 of 5
4
12. In Fiscal Year 2017, 24.4 percent of motions to change venue or transfer (28,237) were
granted in immigration courts inside the Ninth Circuit, compared to 75.6 percent (87,296)
granted in immigration courts outside the Ninth Circuit (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Change of Venue and Transfers by Fiscal Year, by Immigration Court Location
Source: EOIR, Statistics Yearbook 2017 (2018), at 16; EOIR, Statistics Yearbook 2016 (2017), at C8;
EOIR, Statistics Yearbook 2015 (2016), at C8; EOIR, Statistics Yearbook 2014 (2015), at C7, EOIR,
Statistics Yearbook 2013 (2014), at C7.
13. DHS’s authority to transfer asylum seekers from one jurisdiction to another also means that
individuals may be transferred outside the Ninth Circuit. There are significantly more ICE
detention centers outside of the Ninth Circuit (113) than inside of it (19). See Detention Facility
Locator, ICE.gov, https://www.ice.gov/detention-facilities (last accessed August 18, 2019). ICE
detention data produced through FOIA revealed that as of November 2017, ICE had an average
daily population of 35,350 people detained outside of the Ninth Circuit, compared to 9,908
people detained inside the Ninth Circuit. Nat’l Immigrant Justice Center, ICE Detention
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Inside 9th Circuit
Outside 9th Circuit
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-6 Filed 08/19/19 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-6 Filed 08/19/19 Page 5 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Katrina Eiland (SBN 275701)
Cody Wofsy (SBN 294179)
Spencer Amdur (SBN 320069)
Julie Veroff (SBN 310161)
ACLU FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 343-0770
F: (415) 395-0950
keiland@aclu.org
cwofsy@aclu.org
samdur@aclu.org
jveroff@aclu.org
Lee Gelernt*
Omar C. Jadwat*
Anand Balakrishnan*
ACLU FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
T: (212) 549-2660
F: (212) 549-2654
lgelernt@aclu.org
ojadwat@aclu.org
abalakrishnan@aclu.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
(Additional counsel listed on following page)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant; Al Otro Lado;
Innovation Law Lab; and Central American
Resource Center in Los Angeles,
Plaintiffs,
v.
William Barr, Attorney General, in his official
capacity; U.S. Department of Justice; James
McHenry, Director of the Executive Office for
Immigration Review, in his official capacity; the
Executive Office for Immigration Review; Kevin
McAleenan, Acting Secretary of Homeland
Security, in his official capacity; U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; Ken Cuccinelli, Acting
Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, in his official capacity; U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services; John Sanders,
Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, in his official capacity; U.S. Customs
and Border Protection; Matthew Albence, Acting
Director of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, in his official capacity; Immigration
and Customs Enforcement,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:19-cv-04073-JST
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY
MOTION TO CONSIDER
SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE AND
RESTORE THE NATIONWIDE
SCOPE OF THE INJUNCTION
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-7 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Melissa Crow**
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
1101 17th Street, NW Suite 705
Washington, D.C. 20036
T: (202) 355-4471
F: (404) 221-5857
melissa.crow@splcenter.org
Mary Bauer**
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
1000 Preston Avenue
Charlottesville, VA 22903
T: (470) 606-9307
F: (404) 221-5857
mary.bauer@splcenter.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
*Admitted Pro hac vice
**Pro hac vice application forthcoming
Baher Azmy**
Angelo Guisado**
Ghita Schwarz**
CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
666 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10012
T: (212) 614-6464
F: (212) 614-6499
bazmy@ccrjustice.org
aguisado@ccrjustice.org
gschwarz@ccrjustice.org
Christine P. Sun (SBN 218701)
Vasudha Talla (SBN 316219)
Angélica Salceda (SBN 296152)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, INC.
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 621-2493
F: (415) 255-8437
csun@aclunc.org
vtalla@aclunc.org
asalceda@aclunc.org
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-7 Filed 08/19/19 Page 2 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
[Proposed] Order Granting Mot. to Supplement the Record and Restore Nationwide Relief
Case No.: 3:19-cv-04073
Plaintiffs’ motion to consider supplemental evidence and restore the nationwide scope of the
injunction came before this Court for consideration on August __, 2019. Upon consideration of the
motion, and for good cause shown, Plaintiffs’ motion is hereby GRANTED.
Date:
____________________
United States District Judge
Case 3:19-cv-04073-JST Document 57-7 Filed 08/19/19 Page 3 of 3File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.344869.57.0_1.pdf
- Size
- 2,403,300 bytes
- SHA-256
- 80a1754f81d7217035c8ae7fb296f07965775924eff7107d4dade84975eb24ea
- Original
- archive.org