Declaration of Bridget Cambria — Aldea People's Justice Center — East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr (N.D. Cal.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal. · No. 4:19-cv-04073-JST · Doc. 97 · 2020-10-16 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

DECLARATION OF BRIDGET CAMBRIA, ESQ. 
 
I, Bridget Cambria, declare that the following information is true and correct to the best 
of my knowledge and belief: 
 
1. 
My name is Bridget Cambria, Esq. and I am an attorney with, and the 
Executive Director of, Aldea – The People’s Justice Center (“Aldea”), a non-
profit located in Reading, Pennsylvania in the County of Berks. Our 
organization, Aldea, offers universal representation to families detained at the 
Berks County Residential Center in Leesport, Pennsylvania. In the last five 
years, we have represented more than one thousand parents and children who 
have been detained in family detention in the Berks County Residential Center 
(“BCRC”). 
 
2. 
Our organization currently represents two families at the Berks Country 
Residential Center for immigration purposes who are Plaintiffs in the instant 
intervention request. They include parents and children ages two years old and 
three years old. The removal of these parents and children are imminent.  They 
are currently without a stay of removal and can be removed at any time. 
 
3. 
They are subject to orders of removal which were obtained pursuant to fear 
interviews conducted under the third country-transit asylum eligibility bar, 8 
C.F.R. § 1208.13(c)(4) (the “Rule). Each parent and child were denied the right 
to request asylum in the United States pursuant to 8 § U.S.C. 1158 as a direct 
result of the application of the Rule regulation. Therefore, they have never 
received credible fear interviews under the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 208.30 
which require “significant possibility … the alien can establish eligibility for 
asylum,” requiring only some chance of demonstrating at least a ten percent 
chance of persecution or harm. 
 
4. 
Pursuant to the Rule regulation, my clients were required to establish 
“reasonable fear” which is a far higher burden than credible fear and is usually 
applied only to those persons deemed an aggravated felon or a person who is 
subject to a prior order of removal.  However, reasonable fear interviews have 
a number of protections that my clients were not afforded under the statute and 
regulations such as the right to obtain counsel prior to the interview and a 
proper orientation explaining proper legal standards. 
 
5. 
The credible fear process in expedited removal involves review by an 
immigration judge. In my clients’ cases, their review by the immigration judge 
was also pursuant to the heightened “reasonable fear” standard mandated by 
the Rule regulation. Their final orders of removal are based on the application 
of an unlawfully heightened standard that has now been vacated, but the 
government refuses to process them under the correct legal standard. 
 
6. 
Neither Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) nor the staff at BCRC 
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST   Document 97   Filed 10/16/20   Page 1 of 2

provide any notice to the families’ attorneys as to when ICE intends to remove 
a family will.  We have requested notice prior to removal both from ICE and 
BCRC and both refuse to provide this information.  We learn that ICE has 
removed a family only when we attempt to communicate with the family 
concerning their case and are told that they are no longer at the facility. 
 
7. 
Once the removal process begins, ICE takes the families from BCRC and 
transfers them to a staging ground for removal by plane.  They are then 
comingled with other detained persons subject to removal.  Without a stay of 
removal, the deportation of these parents and children can happen at any 
moment.  
 
8. 
The removal of these families, if effectuated, will occur as a direct result of the 
third country-transit asylum eligibility bar. Immigration authorities were made 
aware that this bar was unlawful pursuant to Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights 
(CAIR) Coalition et. al. v. Trump, No. 19-2117 (TJK), 1:19-cv-02117-TJK, 
Doc. 72 (D.C. Dist. Ct. Jun. 30, 2020); I.A. v. Barr, No. 19-2530 (TJK), 1:19-
cv-02117-TJK, Doc. 72 (D.C. Dist. Ct. Jun. 30, 2020).  
 
9. 
Despite the change in law, on information and belief, immigration authorities 
still intend to effectuate our client families’ removal based on an order received 
pursuant to the unlawfully heightened standard in the now vacated Rule. That 
removal can happen at any moment. Based on my experience and my clients’ 
countries of origin, I expect the government to begin action to remove them 
immediately if not within days. 
 
10. 
If removal is effectuated for these families, they fear physical harms, sexual 
harms, psychological harms and torture based on their status as women, as 
children, based on their familial associations and their political opinions. They 
fear being killed, physical beatings and torture, sexual assaults and rape, 
kidnappings and other harms. Because they were subject to the Rule, and 
barred from requesting asylum, they have been completely denied the right to 
seek asylum or to be protected from refoulement.  
 
 
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 
foregoing is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ¶ 1746. 
 
 
Date: October 16, 2020 
 
 
 
___________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bridget Cambria, Esq.  
 
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST   Document 97   Filed 10/16/20   Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.344869.97.0.pdf

Size

209,545 bytes

SHA-256

5728aba857a297be9173c886e89b342c8424160106c03aad27f0f170e5c7f1bb

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.344869.97.0.pdf

Original

archive.org