Proposed Intervenors' Motion for Administrative Stay — East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr

Record facts

U.S. District Court, N.D. California · No. 4:19-cv-04073-JST · Doc. 96 · 2020-10-16 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

PROPOSED INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 
ACTIVE 52841578v3 
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
Adam Siegler (SBN 116233) 
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 
1840 Century Park East 
Suite 1900 
Los Angeles, CA 90067 
Telephone: (310) 586-7700 
Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 
Email:sieglera@gtlaw.com 
 
Jonathan K. Ogata (SBN 325914) 
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP  
1201 K Street, Suite 1100 
Sacramento, CA 
Telephone: (916) 442-1111 
Email:ogataj@gtlaw.com 
 
Steven G. Barringer* 
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 
2101 L Street, NW, Suite 1000 
Washington, DC 20037 
Telephone: (202) 331-3108   
Facsimile: (202) 261-0114  
Email: barringers@gtlaw.com 
 
* Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming 
Caroline J. Heller*  
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 
200 Park Ave 
New York, NY 10166 
Telephone: (212) 801-9200 
Facsimile: (212) 801-6400 
Email: hellerc@gtlaw.com 
 
Gregory P. Copeland* 
Sarah T. Gillman* 
RAPID DEFENSE NETWORK 
11 Broadway, Suite 615 
New York, NY 10004-1490 
Telephone: (212) 843-0910 
Facsimile: (212) 257-7033 
Email: gregory@defensenetwork.org 
Email: sarah@defensenetwork.org 
 
Attorneys for Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors  
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
EAST BAY SANCTUARY 
COVENANT, et al.,  
 
Plaintiffs, 
         vs. 
 
WILLIAM BARR, et al., 
Defendants. 
 Case No. 4:19-cv-04073-JST 
[Judge:  Hon. Jon S. Tigar] 
PROPOSED INTERVENORS’ 
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION 
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY; 
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 
AUTHORITIES 
 
 
 
 
 
Date Action Filed: July 16, 2019 
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST   Document 96   Filed 10/16/20   Page 1 of 6

 
 
 1  
PROPOSED INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 
ACTIVE 52841578v3 
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
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:  
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors J.S.M.; D.M.S., a minor; 
S.L.V.; M.F.L., a minor; M.M.B.; N.M.M., a minor; M.M.V.; A.A.M.; a minor; I.F.L.; 
R.F.L., a minor; M.G.V.; A.R.G., a minor; R.P.F.; J.F.P., a minor; M.C.M.; S.M.C., a 
minor; M.A.A.; A.R.A., a minor; C.A.A., a minor; A.L.V.; I.G.L., a minor; A.G.L., a 
minor; M.R.A.; L.C.R., a minor; C.C.G.; E.C.G., a minor; K.N.E.; E.A.N., a minor; 
D.P.R.; S.B.P., a minor; R.L.A.; N.C.L., a minor; Y.V.O. E.P.V., a minor; S.L.R; 
A.V.L., a minor; I.H.L.; S.R.H., a minor; S.J.A.; W.A.A., a minor; E.V.M.; A.V.M., a 
minor; M.P.O.; G.G.L., a minor; O.T.G.; T.T.G.; a minor; B.H.I.; D.M.H., a minor; 
N.V.; Z.F., a minor; J.H.R.; A.M.H., a minor; I.C.T.; V.T.P., a minor; C.N.; B.L.; 
B.L.N., a minor; P.M.; M.N.; H.M.N., a minor; N.P.; R.D.P., a minor; Y.U.; F.G.U, a 
minor; Y.O.T.; V.L.O., a minor; D.L.O., a minor; L.H.H..; Y.F.H., a minor; A.B.C.; 
E.C.B, a minor; K.P.P.; M.P.P., a minor; I.P.P., a minor; M.H.; J.M.H., a minor; B.C.A.; 
G.S.C., a minor; L.M.P.; Y.M.M., a minor; L.P.M, a minor; A.S.G., a minor; E.G.; 
J.G.M., a minor; B.G.C.; S.M.G., a minor; T.S.J.; L.P.S, a minor; G.S.J., a minor; 
I.C.A.; S.P.C., a minor; M.T.T.; Y.L.T., a minor; R.C.H.; E.P.C., a minor; L.M.B.; 
Z.R.M., a minor; E.R.M., a minor; C.H.G.; M.G.H., a minor; T.R.M.; J.R.R., a minor; 
M.P.A.; G.S.P., a minor; M.T.B.; A.V.B., a minor; W.A.B., a minor; I.F.; Z.M.F., a 
minor; E.G.F., a minor; J.M.F., a minor; M.P.T.; A.A.P., a minor; H.A.P., a minor; 
M.C.P.; J.C.P.; a minor; M.R.C., a minor; M.L.M.; J.R.L., a minor; M.Z.L; F.P.Z., a 
minor; F.F.A.; D.A.B.; A.A.B., a minor; R.S.J.; S.A., a minor; L.G.G.; W.C.G., a minor, 
(“Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors”) by and through their counsel, Rapid Defense 
Network and Greenberg Traurig, LLP, will and hereby do make the following motion at 
Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building & United States Courthouse. 
Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors move for an emergency administrative stay 
pending the adjudication of their Motion to Intervene and Motion for a Temporary 
Restraining Order, filed October 16, 2020.    
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST   Document 96   Filed 10/16/20   Page 2 of 6

 
 
 2  
PROPOSED INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 
ACTIVE 52841578v3 
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
WHEREFORE, Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors respectfully prays that the Court: 
(a) Grant Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors’ Motion for an Administrative Stay 
pending the adjudication of Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion to 
intervene; and   
(b) Enjoin Defendants from taking any action to remove Proposed Plaintiff-
Intervenors pending the adjudication of Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion 
to intervene.  
BASIS FOR MOTION: This Motion is based upon this Notice and the 
following Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 
 
 
 
Dated: October 16, 2020 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 
Adam Siegler 
Jonathan K. Ogata  
Caroline Heller (Pro Hac Forthcoming) 
Steven G. Berringer (Pro Hac Forthcoming) 
 
RAPID DEFENSE NETWORK 
Gregory P. Copeland (Pro Hac Forthcoming) 
Sarah T. Gillman (Pro Hac Forthcoming) 
 
 
By 
/s/ Jonathan K. Ogata 
 
               Adam Siegler 
               Jonathan K. Ogata  
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenors  
 
 
 
 
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST   Document 96   Filed 10/16/20   Page 3 of 6

 
 
 3  
PROPOSED INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 
ACTIVE 52841578v3 
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
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 
Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors ask this Court to maintain the status quo pending the 
adjudication of Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion to intervene and motion for a 
temporary restraining order, filed October 16, 2020.   
Proposed Intervenors are mothers, fathers, and children who fled persecution in 
their home countries to seek asylum in the United States.  Upon arrival in the United 
States, they were subjected to an interim final rule entitled “Asylum Eligibility and 
Procedural Modifications,” 84 Fed. Reg. 33,829 (July 16, 2019) (the “Rule”), interviewed 
under the Rule’s “reasonable fear” standards, were found not to have reasonable fear, and 
issued final orders of removal.  Petitioners are detained either in the South Texas Family 
Residential Center in Dilley, Texas (“Dilley”) or Berks Family Residential Center in 
Leesport, Pennsylvania (“Berks”), or have been released into the United States and are 
subject to ongoing orders of supervision, monitoring, and electronic custody.   
Courts in this Circuit have issued stays of removal in order to preserve the status 
quo when the risk of deportation, as here, is present.  See Chaudhry v. Barr, No. 19-CV-
00682-TLN-DMC, 2019 WL 2009307, *5 (ED Cal. May 7, 2019) (granting Petitioner’s 
a stay of removal “pending briefing and disposition of Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary 
Injunction, or until further order of this Court.”); Abdul Mehamed Sied v. Duke, No. 17-
CV-06785-LB, 2017 WL 6316821 (ND Cal. Dec. 11, 2017) (staying Petitioner’s removal 
“pending the court’s determination as to…jurisdiction.”); Jimenez v. Napolitano, No. C-
12-03558 RMW, 2012 WL 3144026, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2012) (granting motion for 
stay of removal pending disposition of petition for writ of habeas corpus). 
Proposed Intervenors are informed and believe they face imminent deportation to 
countries where they fear persecution and torture.  Declaration of Bridget Cambria, Esq. 
dated October 16, 2020 (Cambria Decl.) ¶¶ 8, 9; Declaration of Shalyn Fluharty, Esq. 
dated October 16, 2020 (Fluharty Declaration) ¶¶ 3,4; D.A.M. v. Barr, 20-CV-1321 
(CRC), ECF No. 6.  This deportation could occur prior to this Court’s ruling on their 
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST   Document 96   Filed 10/16/20   Page 4 of 6

 
 
 4  
PROPOSED INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 
ACTIVE 52841578v3 
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
motion to intervene and as soon as 24 hours from the time the District of Columbia 
Circuit’s stay was dissolved this morning.  Id.   
Proposed plaintiff-intervenors in Dilley were recently clustered together in the 
same “neighborhood” within the facility. ICE regularly moves families within the facility 
when preparing them for removal.  Fluharty Declaration ¶ 3.  Additionally, today, October 
16, 2020, ICE spoke with proposed plaintiff-intervenors to secure contact information for 
the person who will receive them when they are removed and advised proposed plaintiff-
intervenors that this person should be immediately ready to receive them.  Id.  
Absent this Court’s intervention, Proposed Intervenors will be removed to their 
home countries where they fear persecution and torture.  Specifically, these families will 
be removed back to countries where they fear physical harm, sexual harms, psychological 
harms and torture based on their status as women, as children, and based on their familial 
associations and their political opinions.  Cambria Decl. ¶ 9; Fluharty Decl. ¶ 4.  Further, 
Proposed Intervenors fear being killed, physical beatings and torture, sexual assaults and 
rape, kidnappings, and other harms.  Id.  Should deportation occur, it would be the result 
of an illegal and void rule, improperly promulgated and enforced by Defendants, 
depriving Proposed Intervenors of the process due to them by law.  Id. ¶¶ 7, 8. 
Further, Proposed Intervenors removal would likely cause irreparable harm 
because if it is ultimately determined that Proposed Intervenors are entitled to access the 
asylum system, they will not be able to access such asylum relief in their home countries.  
See D.A.M., 2020 WL 5525056, at *14 (Proposed Intervenors demonstrated “a strong 
likelihood that if the Court denies the TRO and allows the government to carry out their 
removals, they will be unable to return, regardless of whether they are legally owed an 
opportunity to continue seeking asylum from inside the U.S.  Effectively, permanent 
removal from the U.S. to countries from which Petitioners fled from to seek safety in the 
United States would constitute irreparable injury.”); A.B.-B. v. Morgan, 20-CV-846 
(RJL), 2020 WL 51075 48, at *8 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2020) (“In the absence of preliminary 
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST   Document 96   Filed 10/16/20   Page 5 of 6

 
 
 5  
PROPOSED INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 
ACTIVE 52841578v3 
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
injunctive relief, plaintiffs would be subject to immediate removal from the United States 
to countries where they face significant risk of physical harm….  To say the least, this 
harm could not be remedied after the court has an opportunity to rule on the merits of 
plaintiffs’ complaint.). For this reason, just as this Court and its sister district did in 
Chaudhry, Sied, and Jimenez, this Court too should enter a stay of removal, preventing 
Proposed Intervenors from suffering the irreparable harm of deportation prior to this 
Court’s adjudication of Proposed Intervenors pending motion.  
Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors are informed and believe their removal is imminent 
and will occur before this Court has the opportunity to rule on Proposed Plaintiff-
Intervenors’ motion to intervene and motion for a temporary restraining order.  Indeed, 
their removal will likely occur immediately, if not within days of this filing.  Cambria 
Decl. ¶ 8; Fluharty Decl. ¶¶ 2-10.  For this reason, absent this Court’s intervention, the 
Proposed Intervenors face immediate irreparable harm absent an order from this Court.   
For these reasons, Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors respectfully request this Court 
grant their Motion for an Administrative Stay, pending the adjudication of Proposed 
Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion to intervene.  
 
 
Dated:  October 16, 2020 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 
Adam Siegler 
Jonathan K. Ogata  
Caroline Heller (Pro Hac Forthcoming) 
Steven G. Berringer (Pro Hac Forthcoming) 
 
RAPID DEFENSE NETWORK 
Gregory P. Copeland (Pro Hac Forthcoming) 
Sarah T. Gillman (Pro Hac Forthcoming) 
 
 
By 
/s/ Jonathan K. Ogata 
 
               Adam Siegler 
               Jonathan K. Ogata  
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenors  
 
 
 
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST   Document 96   Filed 10/16/20   Page 6 of 6

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.344869.96.0.pdf

Size

185,154 bytes

SHA-256

3aaa484def62ed2621d260f4dacea577d1af596914ee781e9cefd54e80c6776a

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.344869.96.0.pdf

Original

archive.org