Supplemental Declaration of Edna Yang — East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump

Record facts

N.D. Cal. · No. 4:18-cv-06810-JST · Doc. 181-1 · 2023-06-23 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF EDNA YANG,  
AMERICAN GATEWAYS 
 
I, Edna Yang, declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1726, as follows: 
1. My name is Edna Yang, and I am currently the co-executive Director of American 
Gateways. I have worked at American Gateways since 2002. I have personal knowledge of the 
matters set forth herein, and I can and will testify thereto if called upon to do so. 
2. In my earlier declaration submitted in this case, I addressed the substantive harm that 
American Gateways will experience because of a new Rule issued by the Department of 
Homeland Security and the Department of Justice titled Circumvention of Lawful Pathways (“the 
Rule”). This declaration addresses the similar harms that the previous transit ban, Asylum 
Eligibility and Procedural Modifications, 84 Fed. Reg. 33,829 (July 16, 2019), inflicted on 
American Gateways while it was in effect between September 2019 and June 2020. This 
declaration is meant to supplement my prior declaration and does not repeat prior content unless 
relevant. 
3. As previously stated (at ¶ 3), the mission of American Gateways is to champion the 
dignity and human rights of immigrants, refugees, and survivors of persecution, torture, conflict, 
or human trafficking. Many aspects of our work were impacted by the prior transit ban.  
4. For example, American Gateways provides direct representation to people appearing in 
the San Antonio Immigration Court. Many of these clients were subject to and harmed by the 
transit ban when it was in place. We also provide legal orientation, immigration workshops, and 
pro bono legal representation at three immigrant detention facilities in Central Texas: the T. Don 
Hutto Residential Center in Taylor, Texas; the South Texas Residential Center in Pearsall, 
Texas; and the Karnes County Residential Center in Karnes City, Texas. We also provide pro se 
support to detained people through our federally-funded Legal Orientation Program. We 
Case 4:18-cv-06810-JST   Document 181-1   Filed 06/23/23   Page 1 of 3

2 
 
routinely encountered people subject to the transit ban in our detained legal services work in all 
of these capacities, and that ban had a detrimental impact on that work.   
The Transit Bar Seriously and Irreparably Harmed American Gateways 
5. The transit bar frustrated the mission of American Gateways, forced us to divert 
organizational resources, and caused irreparable harm to the organization.  
6. Our representation of clients subject to the transit ban took significantly more time and 
labor than our representation of other clients. This was for three reasons: First, we had to litigate 
adversarial, defensive Form I-589 applications in immigration court for clients who would 
otherwise would have been granted asylum affirmatively after non-adversarial interviews. 
Second, those clients were ineligible for asylum in immigration court and could pursue only 
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture, which involve higher 
standards of proof, and which require separate applications for each family member. And third, 
these higher standards forced us to litigate more appeals for clients subject to the transit ban who 
otherwise would have been granted relief in immigration court. As stated in my earlier 
declaration (at ¶¶ 18-25), the Rule will have similar effects. Indeed, because we will also have to 
screen clients covered by the Rule for potential exceptions—and then work to gather evidence 
and develop arguments for those who might plausibly satisfy an exception—the new Rule will 
divert even more of our time and resources. 
7. The transit ban also forced American Gateways to divert resources in other ways. In 
particular, we were forced to revise many of our Legal Orientation Program materials to explain 
the bar—and the need to seek withholding or CAT relief—to participants.  This consumed 
significant staff time and effort. As discussed in my earlier declaration (at ¶¶ 26-27), the Rule 
will again have similar effects.  
Case 4:18-cv-06810-JST   Document 181-1   Filed 06/23/23   Page 2 of 3

3 
 
8. The transit ban also had an adverse impact on our work representing people in the 
credible fear interview process and in helping people understand removal proceedings via our 
Legal Orientation Program. Many more of the people we saw in this line of work were ineligible 
for asylum because of the transit ban, and we did not have the capacity to advocate for all of 
these people to overcome the bar.  This caused significant frustration and burnout amongst our 
staff as we tried to fight a barrier that was often insurmountable.  Here too, I expect the effect of 
the new Rule to be the same. 
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 
 
Executed this 23rd day of June 2023. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 4:18-cv-06810-JST   Document 181-1   Filed 06/23/23   Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.334557.181.1.pdf

Size

91,214 bytes

SHA-256

4f7d3d78f51928adeb78427ad43586e6a97eac88f2463296deacaad4d5c7402e

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.334557.181.1.pdf

Original

archive.org