Court filing
Motion — East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump
Filed December 12, 2018 in East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump; one of 67 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2018-12-12 |
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST · Doc. 88 · 2018-12-12 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
Case No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
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
JOSEPH H. HUNT
Assistant Attorney General
SCOTT G. STEWART
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
AUGUST E. FLENTJE
Special Counsel
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
Director
EREZ REUVENI
Assistant Director
CHRISTINA P. GREER
Trial Attorney
Office of Immigration Litigation
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Tel: (202) 598-8770
Email: Christina.P.Greer@usdoj.gov
PATRICK GLEN
Senior Litigation Counsel
JOSEPH DARROW
FRANCESCA GENOVA
KATHRYNE GRAY
BENTON YORK
Trial Attorneys
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
)
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
)
EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE
)
v.
)
Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
)
Donald J. Trump, President of the United )
States, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 88 Filed 12/12/18 Page 1 of 19
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
i
Case No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 1
STANDARDS GOVERNING APA REVIEW ......................................................................... 3
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................... 5
I.
Plaintiffs Have Not Established that the Record Is Incomplete or that Their
Extra-Record Evidence Meets an Exception to the Record Rule. .............................. 6
A.
Plaintiffs May Not Submit Extra-Record Evidence.............................................. 6
B.
All of Plaintiffs’ Extra-Record Evidence Submitted in Support of Their
Merits Arguments or Issues Not Properly Before the Court Should Be
Struck .................................................................................................................... 9
1.
Plaintiffs’ Declarations ............................................................................. 9
2.
News Articles and Internet Documents .................................................. 11
II.
The Court Should Not Consider Extra-Record Evidence Cited by Amici. ............. 11
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 12
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 88 Filed 12/12/18 Page 2 of 19
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
ii
Case No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
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
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASE LAW
Asarco, Inc. v. EPA,
616 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1980) .............................................................................................. 4, 7
Bar MK Ranches v. Yuetter,
994 F.2d 735 (10th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................. 6
Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of Colusa Indian Cmty. v. Zinke,
889 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................ 4, 6, 7
Camp v. Pitts,
411 U.S. 138 (1973) .............................................................................................................. 1, 3
Children’s Hosp. Ass’n of Texas v. Azar,
300 F. Supp. 3d 190 (D.D.C. 2018) .......................................................................................... 5
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe,
401 U.S. 402 (1971) .................................................................................................................. 3
Cook Inletkeeper v. EPA,
400 F. App’x 239 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................. 6
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump,
No. 18-17274 (9th Cir. Dec. 7, 2018) ................................................................................. 9, 10
Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion,
470 U.S. 729 (1985) ...................................................................................................... 2, 3, 4, 6
Friends of the Earth v. Hintz,
800 F.2d 822 (9th Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................... 3
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project,
561 U.S. 1 (2010) ...................................................................................................................... 9
Jiahao Kuang v. U.S. Dep’t of Def.,
--- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2018 WL 6025611 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2018) ................................ 4, 6, 11
Lands Council v. Powell,
395 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2005) .............................................................................................. 4, 5
Malek-Marzban v. INS,
653 F.2d 113 (4th Cir. 1981) .................................................................................................... 8
Marsh v. Ore. Nat. Res. Council,
490 U.S. 360 (1989) .................................................................................................................. 4
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 88 Filed 12/12/18 Page 3 of 19
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
iii
Case No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
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
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers v. State Farm,
463 U.S. 29 (1983) .................................................................................................................... 2
Nat’l Pork Producers Council v. Bergland,
631 F.2d 1353 (8th Cir. 1980) .................................................................................................. 5
Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs,
817 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Ore. 2011) ........................................................................................ 5
Occidental Eng’g Co. v. INS,
753 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1985) .................................................................................................... 3
Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n,
135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015) .............................................................................................................. 7
Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste v. Pruitt,
293 F. Supp. 3d 1062 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .................................................................................... 8
Rajah v. Mukasey,
544 F.3d 427 (2d Cir. 2008)...................................................................................................... 8
San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Locke,
776 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................ 4, 5
Sorenson Commc’ns Inc. v. FCC,
755 F.3d 702 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................. 8
Tri-Valley CAREs v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy,
671 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 7
United States v. Dean,
604 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................ 8
United States v. Johnson,
632 F.3d 912 (5th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 8
United States v. Valverde,
628 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 8
Yassini v. Crosland,
618 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1980) .................................................................................................. 8
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 88 Filed 12/12/18 Page 4 of 19
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
iv
Case No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
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
STATUTES
5 U.S.C. § 553 ................................................................................................................................. 8
5 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1) ........................................................................................................................ 8
5 U.S.C. § 553(b) ............................................................................................................................ 1
5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(B) ....................................................................................................................... 8
5 U.S.C. § 553(c) ............................................................................................................................ 1
5 U.S.C. § 553(d) ............................................................................................................................ 1
5 U.S.C. § 706 ......................................................................................................................... 1, 2, 7
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D)....................................................................................................................... 7
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1) ...................................................................................................................... 1
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) .......................................................................................................................... 1
FEDERAL REGISTER
83 Fed. Reg. 55934 ......................................................................................................................... 1
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 88 Filed 12/12/18 Page 5 of 19
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
1
Case No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
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
INTRODUCTION
Defendants hereby move to strike numerous extra-record materials Plaintiffs submit (or
incorporate by reference) in support of their motion for preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs’ challenge to the Departments of Justice’s and Homeland Security’s rule, Aliens
Subject to a Bar on Entry Under Certain Presidential Proclamations, 83 Fed. Reg. 55934 (Nov. 9,
2018), arises exclusively under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706.
Accordingly, review of the merits of their claims in this Court, including at the preliminary
injunction stage, is limited to the administrative record produced by the agencies. 5 U.S.C. § 706
(“the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party”); see Camp v. Pitts,
411 U.S. 138, 142 (1973). Defendants submitted the administrative record for the rule on
November 29, 2018. See Notice of Filing of Administrative Record, ECF No. 60. Plaintiffs have
not challenged that record in any way and thus concede that it is complete. Nevertheless, in support
of their pending and prior motions, Plaintiffs have submitted and cited to numerous extra-record
materials—including declarations and news articles—without acknowledging that these
documents are outside the record and thus not properly before the Court in this APA case.
Defendants do not challenge the consideration of Plaintiffs’ extra-record evidence to the
extent it relates to and is cited in support of their efforts solely to demonstrate organizational
standing or cognizable irreparable harm. But the Court should strike this extra-record evidence—
and citations to it—to the extent that it is offered for any other purpose.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges two claims under the APA: (1) that the rule conflicts with the asylum
statute—in particular, its provision 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 . . . ), irrespective
of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable,
[8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)],” conflicts with 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1)—and so is “contrary to law” under the
APA, Compl. ¶¶ 101-06; see 5 U.S.C. § 706; and (2) that the rule violates the APA because it was
improperly issued without notice and an opportunity to comment and was published less than 30
days before its effective date, Compl. ¶¶ 108-10; see 5 U.S.C. § 553(b), (c), (d).
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 88 Filed 12/12/18 Page 6 of 19
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
2
Case No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
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
Under the APA, the Court’s review of merits issues must be “based on the record the
agency presents to the reviewing court.” Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743-44
(1985). The Court’s function is to assess the lawfulness of the agency’s action based on the reasons
offered by the agency. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29, 50 (1983). Thus,
the Court may not create a new record for purposes of review of the merits of the agencies’ decision
to promulgate the rule without notice and comment. 5 U.S.C. § 706. Plaintiffs do not dispute the
rule and have not moved to depart from it.
Even so, Plaintiffs have put forth (1) declarations cited only in support of their arguments
regarding organizational standing and irreparable harm1; (2) declarations cited only in relation to
the merits of the case2; (3) declarations cited in support of organizational standing and irreparable
harm arguments as well as merits arguments3; (4) declarations not cited at all in Plaintiffs’
1 Corrected Supplemental Declaration of Erika Pinheiro (ECF No. 71-2); Declaration of Camila
Alvarez, Managing Attorney, Central American Resource Center (ECF No. 71-3); Declaration of
Lisa Mitchell-Bennet (ECF No. 71-6); Supplemental Declaration of Madeleine Penman (ECF No.
71-9); Declaration of Michael Smith, Refugee Rights Program Director, East Bay Sanctuary
Covenant (ECF No. 71-10); Supplemental Declaration of Stephen W. Manning, Executive
Director, Innovation Law Lab (ECF No. 71-11).
2 Declaration of Adam Isacson (ECF No. 8-2); Declaration of Guy S. Goodwin-Gill (ECF No. 8-
5); Declaration of Rená Cutlip-Mason (ECF No. 35-2); Declaration of Brian Griffey (ECF No. 35-
3); Supp. Supplemental Declaration of Adam Isacson (ECF No. 35-4); Declaration of Allegra
Love, Executive Director, Santa Fe Dreamers Project (ECF No. 35-5); Supplemental Declaration
of Stephen W. Manning, Executive Director, Innovation Law Lab (ECF No. 35-6); Declaration of
Leon Rodriguez (ECF No. 35-9); Declaration of Michelle Seyler, Accredited Representative,
Central American Resource Center (ECF No. 35-10).
3 Declaration of Daniel Sharp, Legal Director, Central American Resource Center (ECF No. 8-3);
Declaration of Erika Pinheiro (ECF No. 8-4); Declaration of Stephen W. Manning, Executive
Director, Innovation Law Lab (ECF No. 8-6); Declaration of Michael Smith, Refugee Rights
Program Director, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant (ECF No. 8-7); Supplemental Declaration of
Erika Pinheiro (ECF No. 35-8); Joint Declaration of Madeleine K. Albright, William J. Burns,
John Feeley, Jonathan Finer, Chuck Hagel, John Kerry, Cecilia Muñoz, Janet A. Napolitano, James
C. O’Brien, Thomas R. Pickering, Amy Pope, Jeffrey Prescott, Anne C. Richard, and Wendy R.
Sherman (ECF No. 71-4) (“Joint Declaration of Former Officials”); Declaration of Jeremy Slack,
Ph.D (ECF No. 71-5); Declaration of Michelle Brané of the Women’s Refugee Commission (ECF
No. 71-7); Declaration of Nicole Ramos (ECF No. 71-8).
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 88 Filed 12/12/18 Page 7 of 19
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
3
Case No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
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
briefing 4; (5) news articles 5; (6) an internet document 6; and (7) a non-record government
document.7 The declarations were submitted along with Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 8-1), Reply in Support of Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 35), and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 71).
While the TRO pleadings were filed on November 9 and 16, 2018, before the administrative record
was produced on November 29, 2018, the December 6, 2018 motion for preliminary injunction
was filed after. Regardless, Plaintiffs specifically incorporated by reference the “TRO record” in
their preliminary injunction motion. ECF No. 71 at 2 n.1.
STANDARDS GOVERNING APA REVIEW
Ordinarily, judicial review under the APA is confined to “the full administrative record
that was before the [agency] at the time [it] made [its] decision.” Citizens to Preserve Overton
Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420 (1971); see also Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d
822, 829 (9th Cir. 1986). When a court reviews an agency determination, “there are no disputed
facts that the district court must resolve.” Occidental Eng’g Co. v. INS, 753 F.2d 766, 769 (9th
Cir. 1985). “[T]he function of the district court is to determine whether or not as a matter of law
the evidence in the administrative record permitted the agency to make the decision it did.” Id.
The Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have emphasized that “the focal point for judicial review
should be the administrative record already in existence, not some new record made initially in the
reviewing court.” Camp, 411 U.S. at 142; Fla. Power, 470 U.S. at 743-44 (“The task of the
reviewing court is to apply the appropriate APA standard of review to the agency decision based
4 Declaration of Leah Jahan Chavla of the Women’s Refugee Commission (ECF No. 35-1);
Declaration of Madeleine Penman (ECF No. 35-7).
5 Nick Miroff & Missy Ryan, Army assessment of migrant caravans undermines Trump’s rhetoric,
Wash. Post (Nov. 2, 2018); Vanessa Romo, LGBT Splinter Group from Migrant Caravan is the
1st to Arrive in Tijuana, NPR (Nov. 13, 2018).
6 Comment of American Immigration lawyers Association on proposed immigration appeal
regulation (Aug. 18, 2008), available at
http://americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/general_litigation/BIAAWO-
regcmts.pdf.
7 USCIS, Credible Fear Workload Summary,
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Outreach/Notes%20from%20Previous%20Enga
gements/PED_CredibleFearWorkloadReport.pdf.
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 88 Filed 12/12/18 Page 8 of 19
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
4
Case No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
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
on the record the agency presents to the court.”); Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1029-
30 (9th Cir. 2005) (similar). The administrative record rule “ensures that the reviewing court
affords ‘sufficient deference to the agency’s action.’” San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v.
Locke, 776 F.3d 971, 992 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Marsh v. Ore. Nat. Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360,
378 (1989)); see Fla. Power, 470 U.S. at 743-44 (“The task of the reviewing court is to apply the
appropriate APA standard of review to the agency decision based on the record the agency presents
to the reviewing court.”) (internal citation omitted). This is important because the APA gives
agencies “substantial discretion ‘to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts
even if, as an original matter, a court might find contrary views more persuasive.’” San Luis, 776
F.3d at 992 (quoting Marsh, 490 U.S. at 378). Additionally, “[w]hen a reviewing court considers
evidence that was not before the agency, it inevitably leads the reviewing court to substitute its
judgment for that of the agency.” Asarco, Inc. v. EPA, 616 F.2d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir. 1980).
The Ninth Circuit has identified four “narrow circumstances” in which material outside the
administrative record may be considered: (1) “where the extra-record evidence is ‘necessary to
determine whether the agency has considered all relevant factors and has explained its decision’”;
(2) “where ‘the agency has relied on documents not in the record’”; (3) “where ‘supplementing the
record is necessary to explain technical terms or complex subject matter’”; or (4) “where ‘plaintiffs
make a showing of agency bad faith.’” Jiahao Kuang v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., --- F. Supp. 3d ----,
2018 WL 6025611 at *27 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2018) (Tigar, J.) (quoting Cachil Dehe Band of
Wintun Indians of Colusa Indian Cmty. v. Zinke, 889 F.3d 584, 600 (9th Cir. 2018)).
The Ninth Circuit has explained that these exceptions to record review are “narrowly
construed and applied”:
The scope of these exceptions permitted by our precedent is
constrained, so that the exception does not undermine the general
rule. Were the federal courts routinely or liberally to admit new
evidence when reviewing agency decisions, it would be obvious that
federal courts would be proceeding, in effect, de novo rather than
with the proper deference to agency process, expertise, and
decision-making.
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 88 Filed 12/12/18 Page 9 of 19
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
5
Case No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
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
Lands Council, 395 F.3d at 1030. It is the burden of the party challenging the record to either
establish that the record is incomplete or that the extra-record evidence fits a recognized exception
to the record rule. San Luis, 776 F.3d at 992-93.
Although plaintiffs challenging agency action and seeking preliminary injunctive relief can
introduce de novo evidence to support their allegations of Article III injury or irreparable harm,
such evidence cannot be considered by the court in determining plaintiff’s “likelihood of success
on the merits.” Nat’l Pork Producers Council v. Bergland, 631 F.2d 1353 (8th Cir. 1980)
(questioning district court taking evidence on merits at preliminary injunction hearing); Nw. Envtl.
Def. Ctr. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1290, 1300 (D. Ore. 2011) (when
evaluating the admissibility of an extra-record declaration, considering whether it meets one of the
four record-rule exceptions such that it can be considered for merits purposes but looking only at
its relevance when addressing its use for irreparable harm purposes). Cf. Children’s Hosp. Ass’n
of Texas v. Azar, 300 F. Supp. 3d 190, 202 (D.D.C. 2018) (where summary judgment and
preliminary injunction motions are consolidated, and thus the only issues relate to the merits of the
claim, extra-record evidence relating to irreparable harm cannot be considered).
ARGUMENT
The Court should strike Plaintiffs’ extra-record submissions introduced in support of their
efforts to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their APA claims. First, Plaintiffs
have neither asserted nor shown that the record is incomplete and thus does not represent the
evidence before the agencies when they made their decisions—a claim for which remand to the
agency is the appropriate remedy. Second, Plaintiffs have made no attempt to assert that their
extra-record evidence meets one of the four narrow exceptions to the record rule. Defendants do
not challenge Plaintiffs’ evidence submitted in support of their assertions of organizational
standing and irreparable harm to those organizations, but the Court should strike all evidence going
to other issues and all citations thereto. And because such evidence from actual parties is
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 88 Filed 12/12/18 Page 10 of 19
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
6
Case No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
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
inappropriate, it follows that the Court should not consider the extra-record evidence cited by amici
either.8
I.
Plaintiffs Have Not Established that the Record Is Incomplete or that Their Extra-
Record Evidence Meets an Exception to the Record Rule.
When the government certifies an administrative record, the government is entitled to a
presumption that the record is the full, complete record, a presumption that can only be rebutted
with “clear evidence to the contrary.” Cook Inletkeeper v. EPA, 400 F. App’x 239, 240 (9th Cir.
2010) (quoting Bar MK Ranches v. Yuetter, 994 F.2d 735, 740 (10th Cir. 1993)). Plaintiffs have
not alleged that the record is incomplete, and, even if they had, the usual remedy in such a case is
remand to the agency for additional explanation, Fla. Power, 470 U.S. at 744, which Plaintiffs
have not requested. Thus, it appears that Plaintiffs seek admission of extra-record evidence to
challenge the agencies’ decision-making.
A.
Plaintiffs May Not Submit Extra-Record Evidence
Extra-record evidence is not permitted in the normal course. The Ninth Circuit has
identified four “narrow circumstances” in which material outside the administrative record may
be considered: (1) “where the extra-record evidence is ‘necessary to determine whether the agency
has considered all relevant factors and has explained its decision’”; (2) “where ‘the agency has
relied on documents not in the record’”; (3) “where ‘supplementing the record is necessary to
explain technical terms or complex subject matter’”; or (4) “where ‘plaintiffs make a showing of
agency bad faith.’” Jiahao Kuang, 2018 WL 6025611 at *27 (quoting Cachil, 889 F.3d at 600).
“Even where the Court allows such supplementary evidence, ‘[c]onsideration of the evidence to
determine the correctness or wisdom of the agency’s decision is not permitted, even if the court
has also examined the administrative record.’” Jiahao Kuang, 2018 WL 6025611 at *27 (quoting
8 Specifically, the Court should not consider any of the following documents: (1) any document
cited in footnotes in the Brief of Amici Curiae National Center for Lesbian Rights et al. (ECF No.
75-1); (2) the documents cited in footnotes 3, 7-10, 12-14, 16-17, 20-35, 37-40, and 43-47 in the
Amicus Curiae Brief of Twenty-Three Organizations Representing Asylum Seekers (ECF No. 78-
2); and (3) the extra-record documents cited in footnotes 7-8, 10, 12-17, 19-35, 37-38, 47, 49, 51,
and 54-57 in Amicus Curiae Brief of the States of California, et al (ECF No. 82-1). While
Defendants consented to the filing of amicus briefs, they did not agree to the submission of extra-
record evidence.
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 88 Filed 12/12/18 Page 11 of 19
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
7
Case No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
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
Asarco, Inc., 616 F.2d at 1160). Additionally, “‘exceptions to the normal rule regarding
consideration of extra-record materials only apply to information available at the time, not post-
decisional information.’” Cachil, 889 F.3d at 600-01 (quoting Tri-Valley CAREs v. U.S. Dep’t of
Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1130 (9th Cir. 2012)). “[P]ost-decision information may not be advanced
as a new rationalization either for sustaining or attacking an agency’s decision because it inevitably
leads the reviewing court to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Tri-Valley CAREs,
671 F.3d at 1130-31 (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Defendants do not object to Plaintiffs’ use of extra-record evidence to support their
arguments for organizational standing and alleged irreparable harm to those organizations. But
Plaintiffs’ submission of and citation to documents that are clearly outside the record for merits
purposes defies longstanding precedent and should not be permitted. They bear the burden of
proving the existence of an applicable limited exception permitting consideration of extra-record
materials. They have not even attempted to do that here.
To the extent that Plaintiffs assert that they can submit evidence to challenge Defendants’
invocation of the good-cause and foreign-affairs exceptions to the notice-and-comment
requirement, they are mistaken. If Plaintiffs are challenging the failure of the rule to undergo
notice-and-comment, then they are claiming that the rule was issued “without observance of
procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D). But the APA itself makes clear that judicial
review of such a claim should be limited to the administrative record: “In making the foregoing
determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and
due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.” Id. § 706. Given this plain statutory
language, there is no basis for dispensing with the “record review” requirement even for procedural
claims. Cf. Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1207 (2015) (“Time and again, we
have reiterated that the APA sets forth the full extent of judicial authority to review executive
agency action for procedural correctness. Beyond the APA’s minimum requirements, courts lack
authority to impose upon an agency its own notion of which procedures are best or most likely to
further some vague, undefined public good.” (citations and modifications omitted)).
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 88 Filed 12/12/18 Page 12 of 19
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
8
Case No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
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
Consistent with the above, courts in the Ninth Circuit review procedural APA claims under
the record review rule. See, e.g., Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste v. Pruitt, 293 F.
Supp. 3d 1062, 1066-67 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (reviewing the administrative record to determine
whether good cause existed). That review is subject to the arbitrary and capricious standard. See
also United States v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 912, 928 (5th Cir. 2011) (applying arbitrary and capricious
standard to an agency’s assertion of “good cause”); United States v. Dean, 604 F.3d 1275, 1278
(11th Cir. 2010) (same). And even were de novo review of the record appropriate where good
cause or the foreign affairs exception is challenged—an issue the Ninth Circuit has not decided,
see United States v. Valverde, 628 F.3d 1159, 1162 (9th Cir. 2010)—the Court still “defer[s] to an
agency’s factual findings and expert judgments therefrom, unless such findings and judgments are
arbitrary and capricious.” Sorenson Commc’ns Inc. v. FCC, 755 F.3d 702, 706 & n.3 (D.C. Cir.
2014); see Valverde, 628 F.3d at 1162 (invocation of “good cause” must be “rational”).
To be sure, there are some cases where courts have relied on extra-record evidence to
resolve procedural claims, including in the context of the foreign-affairs exception. See, e.g.,
Yassini v. Crosland, 618 F.2d 1356, 1361 (9th Cir. 1980). But that appears to be only when the
rulemaking itself is silent on the issue, and the evidence is submitted by the Government. Cf.
Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 437 (2d Cir. 2008) (“There is . . . no requirement that the rule
itself state the undesirable [international] consequences.”). Here, given that the rule did expressly
invoke the foreign-affairs exception, the Court’s review should be limited to the administrative
record. Cf. Malek-Marzban v. INS, 653 F.2d 113, 116 (4th Cir. 1981) (upholding foreign affairs
exemption based on statement in rulemaking). “This is particularly so when the consequences are
seemingly as evident as they are in this case.” Rajah, 544 F.3d at 437.
That rule makes eminent sense. Unlike the good cause exception under 5 U.S.C. § 553,
which includes a requirement that the agency “incorporate[] the finding [of good cause] and a brief
statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued,” id. § 553(b)(B), there is no requirement of a
written record or any other language that contemplates subsequent judicial review: “This section
applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that there is involved . . . a military
or foreign affairs function of the United States.” Id. § 553(a)(1). Given that Congress was surely
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 88 Filed 12/12/18 Page 13 of 19
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
9
Case No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
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
aware of the Article II intrusions that would be required for judicial review over “military or
foreign affairs function[s],” and given that Congress clearly knew how to enable judicial review
with respect to other types of exemptions to the APA’s procedural requirements, it is reasonable
to assume that, at a minimum, Congress did not intend for expansive or searching judicial review
into an agency’s invocation of the “military or foreign affairs function” exception. Cf. Holder v.
Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 34 (2010) (“The Government, when seeking to prevent
imminent harms in the context of international affairs and national security, is not required to
conclusively link all the pieces in the puzzle before we grant weight to its empirical conclusion.”).
Finally, because the Ninth Circuit has determined that Plaintiffs do not have third-party
standing, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, No. 18-17274, slip op. 27-28 (9th Cir. Dec. 7,
2018), evidence relating to third-party standing and the harms to those third parties is not properly
before the Court. Accordingly, the Court should consider only Plaintiffs’ extra-record documents
to the extent that they go to their arguments regarding organizational standing or alleged
irreparable harm to those organizations. Citations to those documents and their contents relating
to any other issue should be stricken as should all the documents offered for any other purpose and
the citations thereto.
B.
All of Plaintiffs’ Extra-Record Evidence Submitted in Support of Their
Merits Arguments or Issues Not Properly Before the Court Should Be Struck
1.
Plaintiffs’ Declarations
Plaintiffs’ extra-record declarations fall into four categories: those cited only in support of
their arguments regarding organizational standing and the alleged irreparable harm to those
organizations; those cited only in relation to the merits of the case; those cited in support of both
the merits and standing or harm; and those not cited at all. See supra nn.1-4. The Court should
strike the declarations and citations to them to the extent that they relate to the merits of the case
rather than Plaintiffs’ standing arguments or their assertions of irreparable harm for purposes of
the preliminary injunction question.
The declarations cited only for merits purposes or not at all should be struck in their entirety
along with any and all citations to those declarations in Plaintiffs’ TRO and PI pleadings. The
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 88 Filed 12/12/18 Page 14 of 19
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
10
Case No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
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
declarations cited only relating to merits issues are: Isacson Declaration (ECF No. 8-2); Goodwin-
Gill Declaration (ECF No. 8-5); Cutlip-Mason Declaration (ECF No. 35-2); Griffey Declaration
(ECF No. 35-3); Supplemental Isacson Declaration (ECF No. 35-4); Love Declaration (ECF No.
35-5); Supplemental Manning Declaration (ECF No. 35-6); Rodriguez Declaration (ECF No. 35-
9); and Seyler Declaration (ECF No. 35-10). The uncited declarations are: Chavla Declaration
(ECF No. 35-1) and Penman Declaration (ECF No. 35-7).
The Court should also strike citations to the remaining declarations to the extent that they
are made in support of merits arguments as well as the information in those declarations relating
to the merits of the case. From Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (ECF No. 8-1), the citations to the Pinheiro Declaration (ECF No. 8-4) on pages
8 and 15 and the citation to the Manning Declaration (ECF No. 8-6) at page 8 should be stricken.
From Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 35), the
Court should strike the citation to the Pinheiro Declaration (ECF No. 8-4) at page 10 and the
citation to the Supplemental Pinheiro Declaration (ECF No. 35-8) at page 14. Finally, from
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 71), the Court should strike the citations
to the Sharp Declaration (ECF No. 8-3), Pinheiro Declaration (ECF No. 8-4), Manning Declaration
(ECF No. 8-6), and Smith Declaration (ECF No. 8-7) at page 14; to the Slack Declaration (ECF
No. 71-5), Brané Declaration (ECF No. 71-7), and Ramos Declaration (ECF No. 71-8) at page 79;
and to the Former Officials’ Joint Declaration (ECF No. 71-4) at pages 5, 6, 18, and 19.
Moreover, because the Ninth Circuit has determined that Plaintiffs do not have third-party
standing, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, slip op. 27-28, the extra-record evidence submitted or
cited in support of that argument and any harms to those third parties should also be struck.
Because of this, the following are not cited for any proper purpose and so should be entirely struck:
Former Officials’ Joint Declaration (ECF No. 71-4), the Slack Declaration (ECF No. 71-5), the
Mitchell-Bennet Declaration (ECF No. 71-6), the Brané Declaration (ECF No. 71-7), and the
Supplemental Penman Declaration (ECF No. 71-9). Additionally, the following individual
9 Plaintiffs have filed a corrected version of this declaration at ECF No. 84-1. It should be struck
to the extent that it is offered for merits purposes as well.
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 88 Filed 12/12/18 Page 15 of 19
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
11
Case No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
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
citations should be stricken: to the Pinheiro Declaration (ECF No. 8-4) at ECF No. 35 at 14 and
ECF No. 71 at 12; to the Supplemental Pinheiro Declaration (ECF No. 35-8) at ECF No. 35 at 7-
8; to the Corrected Supplemental Pinheiro Declaration (ECF No. 71-2) at ECF No. 71 at 10 and
12-13; and to the Ramos Declaration (ECF No. 71-8) at ECF No. 71 at 10, 12-13 and 17.
2.
News Articles and Internet Documents
The Court should also strike two news articles, an online document from the American
Immigration Lawyers Association, and a publicly available USCIS document Plaintiffs cite in
support of merits arguments. Plaintiffs cite a Washington Post article from November 2, 2018 in
both their TRO motion and reply for information about military estimates of how many members
of the caravan would reach the United States. Nick Miroff & Missy Ryan, “Army assessment of
migrant caravans undermines Trump’s rhetoric,” Washington Post (Nov. 2, 2018), cited at ECF
No. 8-1 at 10 n.5; ECF No. 35 at 9. And they cite to an NPR article for the proposition that “many
of the caravan’s members were already expected to seek asylum at a port of entry, contrary to the
rule’s unsupported claim that they will seek to enter unlawfully.” ECF No. 35 at 9 n.8 (citing
Vanessa Romo, “LGBT Splinter Group from Migrant Caravan is the 1st to Arrive in Tijuana,”
NPR (Nov. 13, 2018)). The citations to these articles are clearly an attempt to second-guess the
correctness or wisdom of the agency’s decision, which is not permitted in an APA case. See Jiahao
Kuang, 2018 WL 6025611 at *27.
Plaintiffs cite two other extra-record documents that should be struck—a comment by the
American Immigration Lawyers Association cited at ECF No. 35 at 4 n.3, and charts produced by
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services cited at ECF No. 71 at 19 n.4. Neither are included in
the administrative record, and Plaintiffs have provided no reason to justify their inclusion.
II.
The Court Should Not Consider Extra-Record Evidence Cited by Amici.
The Court also should not consider the extra-record evidence cited by amici as that
evidence was not before the decision-maker and so is not properly considered in a record review
case. Specifically, the Court should not consider: the documents cited in every footnote in the
Brief of Amici Curiae National Center for Lesbian Rights et al. at ECF No. 75-1; the documents
cited in footnotes 3, 7-10, 12-14, 16-17, 20-35, 37-40, and 43-47 in the Amicus Curiae Brief of
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 88 Filed 12/12/18 Page 16 of 19
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
12
Case No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
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
Twenty-Three Organizations Representing Asylum Seekers at ECF No. 78-2; and the extra-record
documents cited in footnotes 7-8, 10, 12-17, 19-35, 37-38, 47, 49, 51, and 54-57 in Amicus Curiae
Brief of the States of California, et al at ECF No. 82-1.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs neither acknowledge that they have submitted extra-record evidence nor attempt
to explain how the evidence meets one of the established exceptions. Thus, the evidence they have
submitted or cited for any purpose other than in support of their arguments regarding
organizational standing or the alleged harm to those organizations is not properly before the Court.
To the extent that they move to include it, Defendants request the opportunity to respond to
Plaintiffs’ motion.
Respectfully submitted,
JOSEPH H. HUNT
Assistant Attorney General
SCOTT G. STEWART
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
AUGUST E. FLENTJE
Special Counsel
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
Director
EREZ REUVENI
Assistant Director
By: /s/ Christina P. Greer
CHRISTINA P. GREER
Trial Attorney
Office of Immigration Litigation
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Tel: (202) 598-8770
Email: Christina.P.Greer@usdoj.gov
PATRICK GLEN
Senior Litigation Counsel
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 88 Filed 12/12/18 Page 17 of 19
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
13
Case No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
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
JOSEPH DARROW
FRANCESCA GENOVA
KATHRYNE GRAY
BENTON YORK
Trial Attorneys
Dated: December 12, 2018
Attorneys for Defendants
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 88 Filed 12/12/18 Page 18 of 19
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
14
Case No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
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
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 12, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing document
with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of for the Northern District of California
by using the CM/ECF system. Counsel in the case are registered CM/ECF users and service will
be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.
By: /s/ Christina P. Greer
CHRISTINA P. GREER
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 88 Filed 12/12/18 Page 19 of 19File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.334557.88.0.pdf
- Size
- 215,954 bytes
- SHA-256
- 672d8fdb093b90ccdf00f629ff66e06ceb175f75fea7eda57ac7b1582e856479
- Original
- archive.org