Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 1 of 37
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Jose) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:18−cv−02349−BLF

Doe 1 et al v. McAleenan et al Assigned to: Judge Beth Labson Freeman Referred to: Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi Cause: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/18/2018 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 465 Other Immigration Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Jane Doe 1

represented by Ariel E Rogers Latham & Watkins LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111−6538 415−391−0600 Email: ariel.rogers@lw.com TERMINATED: 08/29/2019

Caroline Nicole Esser Latham and Watkins LLP 505 Montgomery Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 391−0600 Fax: (415) 395−8095 Email: Caroline.Esser@lw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deepa Alagesan International Refugee Assistance Project One Battery Park Plaza 4th Floor New York, NY 10004 United Sta 516−838−7044 Email: dalagesan@refugeerights.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Devon Aubry Diggs Latham & Watkins LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 415−391−0600 Email: devon.diggs@lw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Maureen Larkin−Wong Latham & Watkins LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 415−391−0600 Fax: 415−395−8095 Email: katherine.larkin−wong@lw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Claire Meyer International Refugee Assistance Project One Battery Park Plaza 4th Floor New York, NY 10004 United Sta

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 2 of 37

Plaintiff John Doe 2

516−838−1975 Fax: 212−533−4598 Email: kmeyer@refugeerights.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith L Williams Latham and Watkins LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd. Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 464−653−5500 Fax: 464−653−5501 Email: keith.williams@lw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mariko Hirose One Battery Park Plaza 4th Floor New York, NY 10004 516.701.4620 Email: mhirose@refugeerights.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa L. Keaney International Refugee Assistance Project P.O. Box 2291 Fair Oaks, CA 95628 (916) 546−6125 Email: mkeaney@refugeerights.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Oliver Rocos Latham and Watkins 10250 Constellation Blvd. Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 424−653−5500 Email: oliver.rocos@lw.com TERMINATED: 02/04/2019
Thomas E Golding Latham and Watkins 10250 Constellation Blvd Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 424−653−5500 Email: thomas.golding@lw.com TERMINATED: 02/04/2019
Belinda S Lee Latham & Watkins LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 415−391−0600 Fax: 415−395−8095 Email: Belinda.Lee@lw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ariel E Rogers (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2019
Caroline Nicole Esser

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 3 of 37

Plaintiff Jane Doe 3

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Devon Aubry Diggs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Maureen Larkin−Wong (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Claire Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith L Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mariko Hirose (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa L. Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Oliver Rocos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2019
Thomas E Golding (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2019
Belinda S Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ariel E Rogers (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2019
Caroline Nicole Esser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Devon Aubry Diggs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Maureen Larkin−Wong (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Claire Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith L Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 4 of 37

Plaintiff Jane Doe 4

Mariko Hirose (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa L. Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Oliver Rocos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2019
Thomas E Golding (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2019
Belinda S Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ariel E Rogers (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2019
Caroline Nicole Esser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Devon Aubry Diggs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Maureen Larkin−Wong (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Claire Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith L Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mariko Hirose (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa L. Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Oliver Rocos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2019
Thomas E Golding (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2019
Belinda S Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 5 of 37

Plaintiff Jane Doe 5

represented by Ariel E Rogers (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/29/2019
Caroline Nicole Esser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Devon Aubry Diggs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Maureen Larkin−Wong (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Claire Meyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keith L Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mariko Hirose (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa L. Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Oliver Rocos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2019
Thomas E Golding (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2019
Belinda S Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Kevin K. McAleenan in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security

represented by Stacey Ilene Young United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 305−7171 Fax: (202) 305−7000 Email: stacey.young@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 07/01/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christopher W Hollis U.S. Dept. of Justice,Civil Division

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 6 of 37
Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−305−0899 Fax: 202−616−8962 Email: christopher.hollis@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Paul Chung Department of Justice Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 United Sta 202−305−1263 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: Daniel.P.Chung@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 01/08/2020
David W White U.S. Department of Justice OIL/DCS P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−616−4863 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: David.W.White@USDOJ.GOV TERMINATED: 06/11/2019
Frank P Menna U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, OIL−DCS P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−598−6499 Email: frank.p.menna@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 05/13/2019
James J Wen Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation − District Court Section P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4142 Email: james.j.wen@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sergio Francis Sarkany Attorney at Law PO BOX 878 BEN FRANKLIN STATION Washington, DC 20009 202−598−8175 Fax: 202−616−9366 Email: sergio.f.sarkany@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven A. Platt U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation−District

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 7 of 37

Defendant L. Francis Cissna in his official capacity as the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Defendant Jennifer B. Higgins in her official capacity as the Associate Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations

Court Section P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4074 Email: steven.a.platt@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Benton York United States Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation, District Court Section P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 598−6073 Fax: (202) 305−7000 Email: thomas.b.york@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stacey Ilene Young (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/01/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christopher W Hollis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Paul Chung (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/2020
David W White (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/11/2019
Frank P Menna (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2019
James J Wen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sergio Francis Sarkany (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven A. Platt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Benton York (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stacey Ilene Young (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/01/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 8 of 37

Directorate
Defendant John Sullivan in his official capacity as the Acting Secretary of State

Christopher W Hollis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Paul Chung (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/2020
David W White (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/11/2019
Frank P Menna (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2019
James J Wen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sergio Francis Sarkany (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven A. Platt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Benton York (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stacey Ilene Young (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/01/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christopher W Hollis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Paul Chung (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/2020
David W White (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/11/2019
Frank P Menna (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2019
James J Wen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sergio Francis Sarkany (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven A. Platt (See above for address)

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 9 of 37

Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Defendant U.S. Department of State

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Benton York (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stacey Ilene Young (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/01/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christopher W Hollis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Paul Chung (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/2020
David W White (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/11/2019
Frank P Menna (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2019
James J Wen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sergio Francis Sarkany (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven A. Platt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Benton York (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stacey Ilene Young (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/01/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christopher W Hollis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Paul Chung (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/2020
David W White (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/11/2019
Frank P Menna (See above for address)

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 10 of 37
TERMINATED: 05/13/2019
James J Wen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sergio Francis Sarkany (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven A. Platt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Benton York (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/18/2018
04/18/2018 04/18/2018 04/18/2018 04/18/2018
04/18/2018 04/18/2018 04/18/2018 04/18/2018 04/18/2018 04/19/2018 04/19/2018

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Mandamus Relief against L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971−12283444.). Filed byJane Doe 3, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/18/2018) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
2 Certificate of Interested Entities by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5 (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/18/2018) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
3 Proposed Summons. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/18/2018) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
4 MOTION for Leave to File Under Pseudonyms filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/18/2018) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
5 Declaration of Thomas Golding in Support of 4 MOTION for Leave to File Under Pseudonyms filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Related document(s) 4 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/18/2018) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
6 Declaration of Jane Doe 1 in Support of 4 MOTION for Leave to File Under Pseudonyms filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Related document(s) 4 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/18/2018) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
7 Declaration in Support of 4 MOTION for Leave to File Under Pseudonyms filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Related document(s) 4 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/18/2018) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
8 Declaration of Jane Doe 3 in Support of 4 MOTION for Leave to File Under Pseudonyms filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Related document(s) 4 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/18/2018) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
9 Declaration of Jane Doe 4 in Support of 4 MOTION for Leave to File Under Pseudonyms filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Related document(s) 4 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/18/2018) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
10 Declaration of Jane Doe 5 in Support of 4 MOTION for Leave to File Under Pseudonyms filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Related document(s) 4 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/18/2018) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
11 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971−12286488.) filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Meyer, Kathryn) (Filed on 4/19/2018) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
12 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971−12286596.) filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Hirose,

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 11 of 37

04/19/2018 04/19/2018

Mariko) (Filed on 4/19/2018) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
13 Amended Civil Cover Sheet by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5 . (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/19/2018) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
14 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd.

Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E−Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.

04/19/2018 04/19/2018 04/20/2018 04/20/2018 04/20/2018
04/20/2018 04/20/2018 04/20/2018 04/20/2018 04/20/2018 04/20/2018 04/20/2018

Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5−1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 5/3/2018. (srnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2018) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
15 Immigration Mandamus Case Procedural Order, (dhmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2018) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
16 Summons Issued as to L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (dhmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2018) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
17 Order granting 11 Motion for Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 4/20/2018. (hrllc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
18 Order granting 12 Motion for Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 4/20/2018. (hrllc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
19 MOTION to Shorten Time for: (1) Motion for Class Certification and (2) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Belinda S Lee, # 2 Exhbiit A to Lee Decl., # 3 Exhibit B to Lee Decl., # 4 Exhibit C to Lee Decl., # 5 Exhibit D to Lee Decl., # 6 Exhibit E to Lee Decl., # 7 Exhibit F to Lee Decl., # 8 Proposed Order)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/20/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
20 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. Motion Hearing set for 5/11/2018 10:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 2, 5th Floor before Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd. Responses due by 5/4/2018. Replies due by 5/8/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/20/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
21 Declaration of Belinda S Lee in Support of 20 MOTION to Certify Class filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Related document(s) 20 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/20/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
22 Declaration of Mariko Hirose in Support of 20 MOTION to Certify Class filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 20 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/20/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
23 Declaration of Samuel Witten in Support of 20 MOTION to Certify Class filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 20 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/20/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
24 Declaration of Adam Bates in Support of 20 MOTION to Certify Class filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 20 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/20/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
25 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. Motion Hearing set for 5/11/2018 10:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 2, 5th Floor before Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd. Responses due by 5/4/2018. Replies due by 5/8/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/20/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
26 Declaration of Belinda S Lee in Support of 25 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H,

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 12 of 37

04/20/2018 04/20/2018 04/20/2018 04/20/2018
04/20/2018 04/20/2018 04/20/2018 04/20/2018 04/20/2018 04/20/2018

# 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T)(Related document(s) 25 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/20/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
27 Declaration of Samuel Witten in Support of 25 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 25 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/20/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
28 Declaration of Adam Bates in Support of 25 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 25 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/20/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
29 EXHIBITS (Corrected Exhibits B and S to 26 Declaration of Belinda S Lee in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment) filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B, # 2 Exhibit S)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/20/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
30 ***INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED WHEN POSTING DOCUMENT*** AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons in a Civil Action; Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Mandamus Relief; Administrative Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonyms and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support served on Alex G. Tse, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California on April 19, 2018, filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/20/2018) Modified text on 4/23/2018 (dhmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2018)
31 ***INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED WHEN POSTING DOCUMENT*** AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons in a Civil Action; Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Mandamus Relief; Administrative Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonyms and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support served on Attorney General Jeff Sessions on April 20, 2018, filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/20/2018) Modified text on 4/23/2018 (dhmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2018)
32 ***INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED WHEN POSTING DOCUMENT*** AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons in a Civil Action; Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Mandamus Relief; Administrative Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonyms and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support served on Jennifer B. Higgins on April 20, 2018, filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/20/2018) Modified text on 4/23/2018 (dhmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2018)
33 ***INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED WHEN POSTING DOCUMENT*** AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons in a Civil Action; Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Mandamus Relief; Administrative Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonyms and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support served on John Sullivan on April 20, 2018, filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/20/2018) Modified text on 4/23/2018 (dhmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2018)
34 ***INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED WHEN POSTING DOCUMENT*** AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons in a Civil Action; Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Mandamus Relief; Administrative Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonyms and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support served on Kirstjen Nielsen on April 20, 2018, filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/20/2018) Modified text on 4/23/2018 (dhmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2018)
35 ***INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED WHEN POSTING DOCUMENT*** AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons in a Civil Action; Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Mandamus Relief; Administrative Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonyms and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support served on L. Francis Cissna on April 20, 2018, filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/20/2018) Modified text on 4/23/2018 (dhmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2018)
36 ***INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED WHEN POSTING DOCUMENT*** AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons in a Civil Action; Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Mandamus Relief; Administrative Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonyms and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support served on U.S. Department of State on April 20, 2018, filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/20/2018) Modified text on 4/23/2018 (dhmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2018)

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 13 of 37

04/20/2018
04/23/2018
04/23/2018
04/23/2018 04/23/2018 04/23/2018 04/23/2018 04/23/2018 04/23/2018 04/23/2018 05/03/2018 05/03/2018 05/03/2018

37 ***INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED WHEN POSTING DOCUMENT*** AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons in a Civil Action; Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Mandamus Relief; Administrative Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonyms and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support served on U.S. Department of Homeland Security on April 20, 2018, filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/20/2018) Modified text on 4/23/2018 (dhmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2018)
CLERK'S NOTICE. Reminder Re: Consent to Magistrate Judge. All parties must file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge. Civil L.R. 73−1. Note that any party is free to withhold consent to proceed before a magistrate judge without adverse substantive consequences. The forms are available at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (hrllc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2018) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
Electronic filing error. Incorrect event used. [err101]Please re−file in its entirety selecting the correct event Summons Returned Executed. Re: 37 Affidavit of Servic e, filed by Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe 3, 32 Affidavit of Service, filed by Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe 3, 30 Affidavit of Service, filed by Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe 3, 35 Affidavit of Service, filed by Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe 3, 34 Affidavit of Service, filed by Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe 3, 36 Affidavit of Service, filed by Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe 3, 33 Affidavit of Service, filed by Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe 3, 31 Affidavit of Service, filed by Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe 3 (dhmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2018) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
38 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5.. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/23/2018) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
39 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. L. Francis Cissna served on 4/20/2018, answer due 6/19/2018. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/23/2018) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
40 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. Jennifer B. Higgins served on 4/20/2018, answer due 6/19/2018. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/23/2018) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
41 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. Kirstjen Nielsen served on 4/20/2018, answer due 6/19/2018. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/23/2018) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
42 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. John Sullivan served on 4/20/2018, answer due 6/19/2018. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/23/2018) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
43 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. U.S. Department of Homeland Security served on 4/20/2018, answer due 6/19/2018. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/23/2018) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
44 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. U.S. Department of State served on 4/20/2018, answer due 6/19/2018. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/23/2018) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
45 NOTICE of Appearance by Stacey Ilene Young (Young, Stacey) (Filed on 5/3/2018) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
46 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State.. (Young, Stacey) (Filed on 5/3/2018) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
47 CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned.

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 14 of 37

ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE−NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED.

05/04/2018
05/04/2018 05/09/2018 05/10/2018
05/10/2018 05/11/2018 05/11/2018 05/14/2018 05/15/2018 05/16/2018 05/16/2018 05/16/2018 05/18/2018

This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (pmc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2018) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
48 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Beth Labson Freeman for all further proceedings. This case is assigned to a judge who participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd remains as referral judge assigned to the case. Reassignment Order signed by Executive Committee on 5/4/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(bwS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2018) (Entered: 05/04/2018)
49 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER regarding Hearing and Briefing Schedule for Motions for Partial Summary Judgment and for Class Certification filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 5/4/2018) (Entered: 05/04/2018)
51 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher W Hollis (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 5/9/2018) (Entered: 05/09/2018)
52 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Beth Labson Freeman: Telephonic Case Management Conference held on 5/10/2018.FTR Time: 1:31 − 1:59. Plaintiff Attorney: Mariko Hirose via CourtCall, Belinda Lee via Courtcall. Defendant Attorney: Christopher Hollis via CourtCall, Stacey Young via Courtcall. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tshS, COURT STAFF)(Date Filed: 5/10/2018) Modified on 5/11/2018 (tshS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/11/2018)
53 PDF with attached Audio File. Court Date & Time [ 5/10/2018 1:30:48 PM ]. File Size [ 13792 KB ]. Run Time [ 00:28:44 ]. (courtspeak). (Entered: 05/11/2018)
54 STIPULATION AND ORDER AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT, AND AS STATED ON THE RECORD AT THE MAY 10, 2018 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER by Judge Beth Labson Freeman. (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2018) (Entered: 05/11/2018)
55 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYMS by Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Granting 4 Motion for Leave to File. (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2018) (Entered: 05/11/2018)
56 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Briefing Schedule and Hearing Date filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 5/14/2018) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
57 ORDER REQUESTING RESPONSE FROM PARTIES ON OR BEFORE MAY 18, 2018 REGARDING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFFS' PENDING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/15/2018. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2018) (Entered: 05/15/2018)
58 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Re: Briefing and Hearing Schedule on Plaintiffs' Pending Motions filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 5/16/2018) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
59 ORDER GRANTING 58 STIPULATION RE: BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFFS' PENDING MOTIONS. The hearing on Plaintiffs' pending motions is hereby RESET to June 22, 2018 at 9:00 A.M. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/16/2018. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2018) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
Set Hearing re 59 Order on Stipulation, 54 Order on Stipulation, Order on Motion to Shorten Time. Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Class Certification set for 6/22/2018 09:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor before Judge Beth Labson Freeman. (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2018) (Entered: 05/17/2018)
60 Amended MOTION to Certify Class filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. Motion Hearing set for 6/22/2018 09:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor before Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 6/4/2018. Replies due by 6/11/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 5/18/2018) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 15 of 37

05/18/2018 05/18/2018 05/18/2018 05/18/2018 05/18/2018 05/18/2018 05/18/2018 05/18/2018 05/18/2018 06/04/2018
06/04/2018
06/11/2018
06/11/2018 06/11/2018 06/15/2018 06/15/2018 06/18/2018

61 Declaration of Belinda S Lee in Support of 60 Amended MOTION to Certify Class filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Related document(s) 60 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 5/18/2018) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
62 Declaration of Mariko Hirose in Support of 60 Amended MOTION to Certify Class filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Related document(s) 60 ) (Hirose, Mariko) (Filed on 5/18/2018) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
63 Declaration of Samuel Witten in Support of 60 Amended MOTION to Certify Class filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Related document(s) 60 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 5/18/2018) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
64 Declaration of Adam Bates in Support of 60 Amended MOTION to Certify Class filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Related document(s) 60 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 5/18/2018) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
65 Declaration of Jane Doe 1 in Support of 60 Amended MOTION to Certify Class filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Related document(s) 60 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 5/18/2018) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
66 Declaration of John Doe 2 in Support of 60 Amended MOTION to Certify Class filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Related document(s) 60 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 5/18/2018) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
67 Declaration of Jane Doe 3 in Support of 60 Amended MOTION to Certify Class filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Related document(s) 60 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 5/18/2018) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
68 Declaration of Jane Doe 4 in Support of 60 Amended MOTION to Certify Class filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Related document(s) 60 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 5/18/2018) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
69 Declaration of Jane Doe 5 in Support of 60 Amended MOTION to Certify Class filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Related document(s) 60 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 5/18/2018) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
71 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 25 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment ) filed byL. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Joanna Ruppel, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Stacey I. Young)(Young, Stacey) (Filed on 6/4/2018) (Entered: 06/04/2018)
72 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 60 Amended MOTION to Certify Class ) filed byL. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Joanna Ruppel)(Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 6/4/2018) (Entered: 06/04/2018)
73 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Virginia K DeMarchi for all further discovery proceedings. Judge Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd no longer assigned to the case. Signed by The Executive Committee on 6/7/2018. (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2018) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
74 REPLY (re 25 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment ) filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Hirose, Mariko) (Filed on 6/11/2018) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
75 REPLY (re 60 Amended MOTION to Certify Class ) filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 6/11/2018) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
76 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Schedule for Answer and Summary Judgment filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Belinda S Lee)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 6/15/2018) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
77 Statement (Joint Statement Regarding Discovery) by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 6/15/2018) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
78 ORDER GRANTING 76 STIPULATION REGARDING SCHEDULE FOR ANSWER AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/18/2018. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2018) (Entered: 06/18/2018)

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 16 of 37

06/18/2018 06/22/2018
06/25/2018 06/27/2018 06/29/2018 07/03/2018
07/06/2018 07/09/2018 07/10/2018 07/10/2018 07/12/2018 07/19/2018 07/19/2018

79 ORDER REFERRING 77 PARTIES' DISCOVERY DISPUTE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/18/2018. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2018) (Entered: 06/18/2018)
80 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Beth Labson Freeman: Motion Hearing held on 6/22/2018 re 20 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe 3, 25 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe 3, 60 Amended MOTION to Certify Class filed by Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe 3. Parties present oral arguments.The court takes matter under submission; written order to be issued. Total Time in Court: 1:25 (9:01 − 10:26). Court Reporter: Summer Fisher. Plaintiff Attorney: Kathryn Meyer, Mariko Hirose, Oliver Rocos, Belinda Lee. Defendant Attorney: Christopher Hollis, Stacey Young. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/22/2018) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
81 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 06/22/2018 before Judge Beth Labson Freeman by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5, for Court Reporter Summer Fisher. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 6/25/2018) (Entered: 06/25/2018)
82 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 6/22/2018 before Judge Beth Labson Freeman by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, for Court Reporter Summer Fisher. (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 6/27/2018) (Entered: 06/27/2018)
83 Proposed Order re 25 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment ([Amended Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment) by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 6/29/2018) (Entered: 06/29/2018)
84 Transcript of Proceedings held on 06/22/2018, before Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Court Reporter/Transcriber Summer Fisher, telephone number 408−288−6150 summer_fisher@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 81 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/1/2018. (Related documents(s) 81 ) (Fisher, Summer) (Filed on 7/3/2018) (Entered: 07/03/2018)
85 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Class Notice filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Proposed Class Notice)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 7/6/2018) (Entered: 07/06/2018)
86 Joint Discovery Letter Brief filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 7/9/2018) (Entered: 07/09/2018)
87 ORDER GRANTING 60 PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; GRANTING 25 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/10/2018. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2018) (Entered: 07/10/2018)
88 ORDER GRANTING 85 STIPULATION REGARDING CLASS NOTICE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/10/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2018) (Entered: 07/10/2018)
89 ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ON OCTOBER 4, 2018 AT 11:00 A.M. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/12/2018. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2018) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
90 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Virginia K DeMarchi re 86 Discovery Letter Brief. Defendants to produce administrative record by 8/3/2018 unless otherwise stipulated. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2018) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
91 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel Paul Chung (Chung, Daniel) (Filed on 7/19/2018) (Entered: 07/19/2018)

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 17 of 37

07/20/2018

92 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Enlarge Defendants' Time to Respond to the Complaint filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Christopher W. Hollis)(Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 7/20/2018) (Entered: 07/20/2018)

07/23/2018 93 ORDER GRANTING 92 STIPULATION TO ENLARGE DEFENDANTS' TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/23/2018. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2018) (Entered: 07/23/2018)

07/31/2018

94 NOTICE by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State Notice of Filing of Declaration in Compliance with the Court's July 10, 2018 Order (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Ex.A−Declaration of Mary Margaret Stone)(Chung, Daniel) (Filed on 7/31/2018) (Entered: 07/31/2018)

08/03/2018

95 NOTICE by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State NOTICE OF FILING OF DECLARATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S JULY 19, 2018 ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Chung, Daniel) (Filed on 8/3/2018) (Entered: 08/03/2018)

08/14/2018

96 MOTION to Dismiss filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. Motion Hearing set for 9/20/2018 09:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor before Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 8/28/2018. Replies due by 9/4/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 8/14/2018) (Entered: 08/14/2018)

08/14/2018

97 Declaration of Christopher W. Hollis in Support of 96 MOTION to Dismiss filed byL. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Declaration of Mary Margaret Stone in Support of Defendants' Response to the July 19, 2018 Order Regarding the Joint Discovery Letter Brief (ECF No. 95−1), # 2 Exhibit B − Declaration of Mary Margaret Stone in Response to the Court's July 10, 2018 Order (ECF No. 94−1))(Related document(s) 96 ) (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 8/14/2018) (Entered: 08/14/2018)

08/15/2018

98 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING MOTION HEARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Motion Hearing as to 96 MOTION to Dismiss set for 11/1/2018 09:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor before Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Case Management Statement due by 10/25/2018. Initial Case Management Conference set for 11/1/2018 11:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.). (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2018) (Entered: 08/15/2018)

08/24/2018

99 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 96 MOTION to Dismiss , Stipulation to Enlarge Time to Oppose the Motion filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mariko Hirose)(Hirose, Mariko) (Filed on 8/24/2018) (Entered: 08/24/2018)

08/27/2018 100 Joint Discovery Letter Brief filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 8/27/2018) (Entered: 08/27/2018)

08/27/2018 101 ORDER GRANTING 99 STIPULATION TO EXTEND MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING SCHEDULE AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/27/2018.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2018) (Entered: 08/27/2018)

09/07/2018 102 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K DeMarchi re 100 Discovery Letter Brief. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2018) (Entered: 09/07/2018)

09/07/2018 103 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. Appeal of Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Certify Class 87 (Appeal fee FEE WAIVED.) (Chung, Daniel) (Filed on 9/7/2018) (Entered: 09/07/2018)

09/10/2018 104 USCA No. 18−16702. USCA Scheduling Order as to 103 Notice of Appeal, filed by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B.

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 18 of 37
Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan.
The schedule is set as follows: Mediation Questionnaire due on 09/17/2018. Transcript ordered by 10/09/2018. Transcript due 11/06/2018. Appellants L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Department of State opening brief due 12/17/2018. Appellee Jane Doe answering brief due 01/17/2019. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. (sfbS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2018) (Entered: 09/11/2018)
10/04/2018 105 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery , MOTION for Protective Order filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. Motion Hearing set for 11/15/2018 09:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor before Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 10/18/2018. Replies due by 10/25/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Ex. A − Declaration of Mary Margaret Stone in Support of Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Discovery Timeframe, # 2 Declaration Ex. B − Declaration of Kelly A. Gauger in Support of Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Discovery Timeframes, # 3 Declaration Ex. C − Declaration of Christopher W. Hollis in Support of Defendants' Motoin for Enlargement of Discovery Timeframes, # 4 Proposed Order Ex. D − Defendants' Proposed Protective Order, # 5 Proposed Order Ex. E − Defendants' Proposed Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Discovery Timeframes)(Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 10/4/2018) (Entered: 10/05/2018)
10/09/2018 106 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 105 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery MOTION for Protective Order ) filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 10/9/2018) (Entered: 10/09/2018)
10/09/2018 107 Declaration of Oliver Rocos in Support of 106 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 106 ) (Rocos, Oliver) (Filed on 10/9/2018) (Entered: 10/09/2018)
10/11/2018 108 ORDER REFERRING 105 DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/11/2018. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2018) (Entered: 10/11/2018)
10/11/2018 109 ORDER re 105 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; MOTION for Protective Order: Motion Hearing set for 11/6/2018 10:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 2, 5th Floor before Magistrate Judge Virginia K DeMarchi. If defendants have served written responses to plaintiffs' discovery requests, defendants must file copies of those responses by 10/15/2018. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 10/11/2018. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2018) (Entered: 10/11/2018)
10/11/2018 110 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 96 MOTION to Dismiss ) filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Meyer, Kathryn) (Filed on 10/11/2018) (Entered: 10/11/2018)
10/11/2018 111 Declaration of Kathryn Meyer in Support of 110 Opposition/Response to Motion filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 110 ) (Meyer, Kathryn) (Filed on 10/11/2018) (Entered: 10/11/2018)
10/12/2018 112 NOTICE of Appearance by David W White (White, David) (Filed on 10/12/2018) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
10/12/2018 113 NOTICE by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State re 109 Order Setting Hearing on Motion,, Set Hearings, Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Jurisdictional Discovery Requests (Attachments: # 1 Def Resp to Pls Interrogatories, # 2 Def Resp to Pls Req for Production)(Chung, Daniel) (Filed on 10/12/2018) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
10/12/2018 114 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 105 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery MOTION for Protective Order ) filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 10/12/2018) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
10/12/2018 115 Declaration of Oliver Rocos in Support of 114 Opposition/Response to Motion for Entry of a Protective Order filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 114 ) (Rocos,

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 19 of 37

Oliver) (Filed on 10/12/2018) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

10/12/2018 116 STIPULATION (Joint Stipulation Dismissing Plaintiffs Does 1 and 2s Fifth Cause of Action) filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 10/12/2018) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

10/16/2018 117 First MOTION to Stay Motion to Dismiss Schedule filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. Motion Hearing set for 12/6/2018 09:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor before Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 10/30/2018. Replies due by 11/6/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Young, Stacey) (Filed on 10/16/2018) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

10/17/2018 118 ORDER DENYING 117 OPPOSED MOTION TO STAY REMAINING MOTION TO DISMISS DEADLINES. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/17/2018.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2018) (Entered: 10/17/2018)

10/22/2018 119 MOTION to Withdraw 96 MOTION to Dismiss , 118 Order on Motion to Stay filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. Motion Hearing set for 12/6/2018 09:00 AM before Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 11/5/2018. Replies due by 11/13/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Young, Stacey) (Filed on 10/22/2018) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/22/2018 120 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 96 MOTION to Dismiss , 118 Order on Motion to Stay filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Young, Stacey) (Filed on 10/22/2018) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/22/2018 121 ORDER GRANTING 119 MOTION TO WITHDRAW 96 MOTION TO DISMISS, 120 STIPULATION; VACATING NOVEMBER 1, 2018 HEARING. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/22/2018. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2018) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/24/2018 122 MOTION to Appear by Telephone filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (White, David) (Filed on 10/24/2018) (Entered: 10/24/2018)

10/24/2018 123 Declaration of David W. White in Support of 122 Motion to Appear by Telephone filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (White, David) (Filed on 10/24/2018) Modified on 10/25/2018 (sfbS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2018)

10/24/2018 124 Proposed Order Re 122 Motion to Appear by Telephone by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (White, David) (Filed on 10/24/2018) Modified on 10/25/2018 (sfbS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2018)

10/24/2018

Electronic filing error. Documents not properly linked to Motion. [err102]Corrected by Clerk's Office. No further action is necessary.

Re: 123 Declaration in Support, f iled by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, 124 Proposed Order, filed by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan (sfbS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2018) (Entered: 10/25/2018)
10/25/2018 125 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 10/25/2018) (Entered: 10/25/2018)
10/25/2018 126 ORDER GRANTING 122 MOTION TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/25/2018.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2018) (Entered: 10/25/2018)
10/26/2018 127 Joint MOTION to Appear by Telephone filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(White, David) (Filed on 10/26/2018) (Entered: 10/26/2018)

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 20 of 37
10/26/2018 128 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K DeMarchi granting 127 Joint Motion to Appear by Telephone. Counsel shall arrange appearances via CourtCall, 866−582−6878. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2018) (Entered: 10/26/2018)
11/01/2018 129 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Beth Labson Freeman: Initial Case Management Conference held on 11/1/2018. FTR Time: 11:01 − 11:19. Plaintiff Attorney: Ariel Rogers, Belinda Lee, Kate Meyer, Mariko Hirose, Kathryn Meyers. Defendant Attorney: Stacey Young via Courtcall, Daniel Chung via Courtcall, Christopher Hollis via Courtcall, David White via Courtcall. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/1/2018) (Entered: 11/01/2018)
11/01/2018 130 PDF with attached Audio File. Court Date & Time [ 11/1/2018 11:01:34 AM ]. File Size [ 8296 KB ]. Run Time [ 00:17:17 ]. (courtspeak). (Entered: 11/01/2018)
11/06/2018 131 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi: Motion Hearing − Telephonic held on 11/6/2018. re 105 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery MOTION for Protective Order filed by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan Hearing held. Court to issue written rulings. FTR Time: 10:04−10:57. Plaintiff Attorney: Mariko Hirose, Belinda Lee, Oliver Rocos. Defendant Attorney: Stacey Young, David White, Daniel CHung, Christopher Hollis. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (pmcS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/6/2018) (Entered: 11/06/2018)
11/06/2018 132 PDF with attached Audio File. Court Date & Time [ 11/6/2018 10:04:37 AM ]. File Size [ 25288 KB ]. Run Time [ 00:52:41 ]. (courtspeak). (Entered: 11/06/2018)
11/06/2018 133 Order re Schedule for Jurisdictional Discovery by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 105 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Defendants to begin producing documents immediately and to continue production on a rolling basis. Deadline to complete production of responsive documents: 12/7/2018. Deadline for completion of jurisdictional discovery: 1/7/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2018) (Entered: 11/06/2018)
11/07/2018 134 Joint Discovery Letter Brief filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 11/7/2018) (Entered: 11/07/2018)
11/07/2018 135 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 11/7/2018. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2018) (Entered: 11/07/2018)
11/21/2018 136 ORDER of USCA. Appellants unopposed motion (Docket Entry No. 8 ) for voluntary dismissal is granted. This appeal is dismissed. See Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). A copy of this order sent to the district court shall act as and for the mandate of this court.(sfbS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2018) (Entered: 11/21/2018)
12/07/2018 137 NOTICE by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State re 133 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery,, Order on Motion for Protective Order, Partial Compliance with Court's Order Re: Schedule Jurisdictional Discovery (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration)(Chung, Daniel) (Filed on 12/7/2018) (Entered: 12/07/2018)
12/11/2018 138 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING DISCOVERY TELEPHONE CONFERENCE. Telephone Conference set for 12/14/2018 09:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 2, 5th Floor before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi. Parties shall arrange for appearances via CourtCall (866−582−6878). (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2018) (Entered: 12/11/2018)
12/14/2018 139 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi: Telephone Conference held on 12/14/2018. Court to issue written order. FTR Time: 9:04−10:05. Plaintiff Attorney: Oliver Rocos, Mariko Hirose, Belinda Lee. Defendant Attorney: Daniel Chung, Stacy Young, David White, Colleen, Ronald Whitney, Margaret Pickering. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (pmcS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/14/2018) (Entered:

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 21 of 37
12/14/2018)
12/14/2018 140 PDF with attached Audio File. Court Date & Time [ 12/14/2018 9:04:00 AM ]. File Size [ 29336 KB ]. Run Time [ 01:01:07 ]. (courtspeak). (Entered: 12/14/2018)
12/14/2018 141 Order re Defendants' Jurisdictional Discovery Review and Production. Parties to confer by 12/31/2018. Defendants to submit report re schedule for completing remaining production by 12/31/2018. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 12/14/2018. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2018) (Entered: 12/14/2018)
12/20/2018 142 NOTICE of Appearance by Frank P Menna (Menna, Frank) (Filed on 12/20/2018) (Entered: 12/20/2018)
12/26/2018 143 First MOTION to Stay the Case filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. Responses due by 1/9/2019. Replies due by 1/16/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Chung, Daniel) (Filed on 12/26/2018) (Entered: 12/26/2018)
12/28/2018 144 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 143 First MOTION to Stay the Case ) filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Hirose, Mariko) (Filed on 12/28/2018) (Entered: 12/28/2018)
12/31/2018 145 STATUS REPORT Re: Jurisdictional Discovery by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Chung, Daniel) (Filed on 12/31/2018) (Entered: 12/31/2018)
12/31/2018 146 REPLY (re 143 First MOTION to Stay the Case ) to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay the Case filed byL. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Chung, Daniel) (Filed on 12/31/2018) (Entered: 12/31/2018)
01/03/2019 147 ORDER DENYING 143 MOTION TO STAY. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/3/2019.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2019) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
01/15/2019 148 Order Requiring Status Report. Defendants' Status Report due by 1/22/2019. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 1/15/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2019) (Entered: 01/15/2019)
01/22/2019 149 STATUS REPORT FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY Re: Dkt. 148 by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Chung, Daniel) (Filed on 1/22/2019) (Entered: 01/22/2019)
01/23/2019 150 Order Requiring Further Status Report. Further Status Report due by 2/13/2019. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 1/23/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2019) (Entered: 01/23/2019)
01/25/2019 151 STATUS REPORT Plaintiffs' Request for a Status Conference Pursuant to the Court's January 23, 2019 Order and Response to Defendants' Status Report Re Jurisdictional Discovery by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 1/25/2019) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
01/28/2019 152 Order Setting Discovery Status Conference. Parties to meet and confer re listed issues by 1/31/2019. Discovery Status Conference set for 2/5/2019 10:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 2, 5th Floor before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi. Parties may arrange for telephonic appearances via CourtCall (866−582−6878). Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 1/28/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2019) (Entered: 01/28/2019)
01/31/2019 153 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 1/31/2019) (Entered: 01/31/2019)
02/01/2019 154 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Grant Remote Electronic Access to the Court's July 10, 2018 Order (1) Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; and (2) Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. Responses due by 2/5/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Belinda S Lee, # 2 Proposed Order)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 2/1/2019) (Entered: 02/01/2019)
02/04/2019 155 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Belinda S Lee (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 2/4/2019) (Entered: 02/04/2019)

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 22 of 37
02/04/2019 156 NOTICE of Appearance by Caroline Nicole Esser on behalf of Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5 and the Class (Esser, Caroline) (Filed on 2/4/2019) (Entered: 02/04/2019)
02/05/2019 157 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi: Status Conference held on 2/5/2019. Hearing held. FTR Time: 11:25−12:24. Plaintiff Attorney: Mariko Hirose and Belinda Lee. Defendant Attorney: Stacey Young, Daniel Chung, Chris Hollis. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (pmcS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/5/2019) (Entered: 02/05/2019)
02/05/2019 158 PDF with attached Audio File. Court Date & Time [ 2/5/2019 11:26:01 AM ]. File Size [ 27880 KB ]. Run Time [ 00:58:05 ]. (courtspeak). (Entered: 02/05/2019)
02/05/2019 159 Order re Defendants' Jurisdictional Discovery Review and Production. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 2/5/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2019) (Entered: 02/05/2019)
02/06/2019 160 ORDER GRANTING 154 PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO GRANT REMOTE ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO 87 THE COURT'S ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; AND (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/6/2019.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2019) (Entered: 02/06/2019)
02/12/2019 161 Joint Discovery Letter Brief & Joint Status Update Pursuant to the Court's February 5th Order (Dkt. No. 159) Regarding Defendants' Jurisdictional Discovery Review and Production filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 2/12/2019) (Entered: 02/12/2019)
02/13/2019 162 STATUS REPORT Defendants' Status Report Re Jurisdictional Discovery by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 2/13/2019) (Entered: 02/13/2019)
02/19/2019 163 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 161 Discovery Letter Brief and 162 Defendants' February 13, 2019 Status Report. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2019) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
02/19/2019 164 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Postpone Discovery Dispute Regarding Policy Documents filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Belinda S Lee)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 2/19/2019) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
02/20/2019 165 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granting 164 Stipulation to Postpone Discovery Dispute Regarding Policy Documents. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2019) (Entered: 02/20/2019)
02/22/2019 166 STATUS REPORT FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY Re: Dkt. 163, 159 by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Chung, Daniel) (Filed on 2/22/2019) (Entered: 02/22/2019)
02/22/2019 167 Order Requiring Compliance with Court Order. Further Status Report due by 2/25/2019. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 2/22/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2019) (Entered: 02/22/2019)
02/25/2019 168 STATUS REPORT FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY Re: Dkt. 167 by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Chung, Daniel) (Filed on 2/25/2019) (Entered: 02/25/2019)
02/27/2019 169 Order Setting Deadline for Completion of Jurisdictional Discovery. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 2/27/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2019) (Entered: 02/27/2019)
03/01/2019 170 NOTICE of Appearance by Keith L Williams on behalf of Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5, and the Class (Williams, Keith) (Filed on 3/1/2019) (Entered: 03/01/2019)
03/15/2019 171 Joint Discovery Letter Brief regarding Defendants' Clawback filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 3/15/2019) (Entered: 03/15/2019)

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 23 of 37
03/18/2019 172 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING HEARING re 171 Joint Discovery Letter Brief regarding Defendants' Clawback. Motion Hearing set for 3/26/2019 10:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 2, 5th Floor before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi. The parties may appear by telephone if they wish by arranging appearances via CourtCall (866−582−6878). (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2019) (Entered: 03/18/2019)
03/20/2019 173 NOTICE of Change of Address by Kathryn Claire Meyer (Meyer, Kathryn) (Filed on 3/20/2019) (Entered: 03/20/2019)
03/26/2019 174 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi: Discovery Hearing held on 3/26/2019. Court defers ruling on this discovery motion. FTR Time: 10:06−10:38. Plaintiff Attorney: Mariko Hirose, Keith Williams, Belinda Lee and Caroline Esser. Defendant Attorney: Daniel Chung, Stacey Young, Frank Menna, Chris Hollis. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (pmc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/26/2019) (Entered: 03/26/2019)
03/26/2019 175 PDF with attached Audio File. Court Date & Time [ 3/26/2019 10:06:29 AM ]. File Size [ 15368 KB ]. Run Time [ 00:32:01 ]. (courtspeak). (Entered: 03/26/2019)
03/27/2019 176 Interim Order re 171 Joint Discovery Letter Brief regarding Defendants' Clawback. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 3/27/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2019) (Entered: 03/27/2019)
04/22/2019 177 First MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971−13278515.) filed by Jane Doe 1. (Alagesan, Deepa) (Filed on 4/22/2019) (Entered: 04/22/2019)
04/22/2019 178 ORDER GRANTING 177 APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE by Alagesan. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/22/2019.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2019) (Entered: 04/22/2019)
05/07/2019 179 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Caroline N. Esser, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Redacted Version of Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Privilege Redactions, # 4 Unredacted Version of Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Privilege Redactions)(Esser, Caroline) (Filed on 5/7/2019) Modified text on 5/8/2019 (dhmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2019)
05/07/2019 180 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Privilege Redactions [Redacted] filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 5/7/2019) (Entered: 05/07/2019)
05/07/2019 181 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Confidentiality of Govt Employee Names filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 5/7/2019) (Entered: 05/07/2019)
05/07/2019 182 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5 re 179 Joint Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 5/7/2019) (Entered: 05/07/2019)
05/08/2019 183 Interim Order re 181 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Confidentiality of Govt Employee Names, 180 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Privilege Redactions [Redacted]. Supporting declarations and in camera documents due by 5/10/2019. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 5/8/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2019) (Entered: 05/08/2019)
05/08/2019 184 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING HEARING re 180 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Privilege Redactions, 181 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Confidentiality of Govt Employee Names. Discovery Hearing set for 5/21/2019 10:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 2, 5th Floor before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi. The parties may arrange for telephonic appearances via CourtCall (866−582−6878). (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2019) (Entered: 05/08/2019)
05/09/2019 185 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE. Telephonic Status Conference set for 5/14/2019 02:00 PM in San Jose, Courtroom 2, 5th Floor before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi. Parties shall arrange for appearances via CourtCall (866−582−6878). (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2019) (Entered: 05/09/2019)

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 24 of 37
05/13/2019 186 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Frank P Menna (Menna, Frank) (Filed on 5/13/2019) (Entered: 05/13/2019)
05/14/2019 187 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi: Status Conference held on 5/14/2019. Transcript is ordered sealed. FTR Time: 2:03−2:30. Plaintiff Attorney: Caroline Esser, Belinda Lee, Katheryn Meyer, Keith Williams. Defendant Attorney: Daniel Chung, Christopher Hollis. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (pmc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/14/2019) (Entered: 05/14/2019)
05/21/2019 188 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi: Discovery Hearing held on 5/21/2019. Matters taken under submission. Court to issue written order. FTR Time: 11:24−12:19. Plaintiff Attorney: Caroline Esser, Keith Williams, Katheryn Meyer. Defendant Attorney: Daniel Chung; Chri Hollis. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (pmc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/21/2019) (Entered: 05/21/2019)
05/21/2019 189 PDF with attached Audio File. Court Date & Time [ 5/21/2019 11:24:33 AM ]. File Size [ 26608 KB ]. Run Time [ 00:55:26 ]. (courtspeak). (Entered: 05/21/2019)
05/21/2019 190 Second Interim Order re May 7, 2019 Joint Discovery Dispute Letters. Defendants' Status Report due by 6/7/2019. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 5/21/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2019) (Entered: 05/21/2019)
05/28/2019 191 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 181 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Confidentiality of Govt Employee Names. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2019) (Entered: 05/28/2019)
06/03/2019 192 Declaration of Matthew Lenkowsky in Support of 180 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Privilege Redactions [Redacted] Declaration of Matthew Lenkowsky in Support of Defendants' Position in the Joint Dispute Letter Filed May 7, 2019 as Regards the Law Enforcement Privilege filed byL. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Related document(s) 180 ) (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 6/3/2019) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
06/03/2019 193 Declaration of Joanna Ruppel in Support of 180 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Privilege Redactions [Redacted] Declaration of Joanna Ruppel in Support of Defendants' Position in the Joint Dispute Letter Filed May 7, 2019 as Regards the Deliberative Process Privilege filed byL. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Related document(s) 180 ) (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 6/3/2019) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
06/03/2019 194 Declaration of Lawrence E. Bartlett in Support of 180 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Privilege Redactions [Redacted] Declaration of Lawrence E. Bartlett in Support of Assertion of the Law Enforcement Privilege filed byL. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Related document(s) 180 ) (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 6/3/2019) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
06/03/2019 195 Declaration of Lawrence E. Bartlett in Support of 180 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Privilege Redactions [Redacted] Declaration of Lawrence E. Bartlett in Support of Assertion of the Deliberative Process Privilege filed byL. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Related document(s) 180 ) (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 6/3/2019) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
06/03/2019 196 NOTICE by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State re 180 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Privilege Redactions [Redacted] Defendants' Notice of Lodging In Camera, Ex Parte Materials (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 6/3/2019) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
06/03/2019 197 STATUS REPORT Defendants' Status Report Regarding Review of Classified Information by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 6/3/2019) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
06/04/2019 198 RESPONSE (Plaintiffs' Request to Supplement 180 Joint Discovery Letter and Response to Defendants' June 3, 2019 197 Status Report Regarding Classified Information) by Jane Doe 1,

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 25 of 37
John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Belinda S Lee)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 6/4/2019) (Entered: 06/04/2019)
06/05/2019 199 Third Interim Order re 180 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Privilege Redactions [Redacted]. Plaintiffs' supplemental letter brief portion due by 6/12/2019. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 6/5/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2019) (Entered: 06/05/2019)
06/05/2019 200 ORDER REQUESTING STIPULATION TO CHANGE THE CASE CAPTION. Stipulation due by June 14, 2019. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/5/2019. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2019) (Entered: 06/05/2019)
06/07/2019 201 STATUS REPORT (2nd) by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Chung, Daniel) (Filed on 6/7/2019) (Entered: 06/07/2019)
06/10/2019 202 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 200 Order Stipulation to Change Case Caption filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 6/10/2019) (Entered: 06/10/2019)
06/11/2019 203 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by David W White (White, David) (Filed on 6/11/2019) (Entered: 06/11/2019)
06/11/2019 204 ORDER GRANTING 202 STIPULATION TO CHANGE CASE CAPTION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/11/2019.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2019) (Entered: 06/11/2019)
06/12/2019 205 Supplemental Brief re 180 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Privilege Redactions [Redacted] filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Related document(s) 180 ) (Meyer, Kathryn) (Filed on 6/12/2019) (Entered: 06/12/2019)
06/14/2019 206 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING DISCOVERY HEARING re 180 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Privilege Redactions. Discovery Hearing set for 7/9/2019 10:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 2, 5th Floor before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2019) (Entered: 06/14/2019)
06/30/2019 207 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Stacey Ilene Young (Young, Stacey) (Filed on 6/30/2019) (Entered: 06/30/2019)
07/09/2019 208 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi: Discovery Hearing held on 7/9/2019. Counsel present arguments. Matter taken under submission. Court to issue written order. FTR Time: 11:27−12:48. Plaintiff Attorney: Kathryn Meyer, Mariko Hirose, Caroline Esser and Keith Williams. Defendant Attorney: Christopher Hollis and Daniel Chung. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (pmcS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/9/2019) (Entered: 07/09/2019)
07/09/2019 209 PDF with attached Audio File. Court Date & Time [ 7/9/2019 11:27:16 AM ]. File Size [ 39128 KB ]. Run Time [ 01:21:31 ]. (courtspeak). (Entered: 07/09/2019)
07/09/2019 210 Order re Submission of Documents for In Camera Review. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 7/9/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2019) (Entered: 07/09/2019)
07/10/2019 211 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 7/9/2019 before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, for Court Reporter FTR − San Jose. (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 7/10/2019) (TRANSCRIBER: ECHO REPORTING) Modified on 7/10/2019 (lmh, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2019)
07/13/2019 212 Transcript of Proceedings of the official sound recording held on 07/09/19, before Magistrate Judge Virginia K DeMarchi. FTR/Transcriber Echo Reporting, Inc., telephone number (858) 453−7590. Tape Number: FTR 11:27 − 12:48. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 211 Transcript Order, ) Redaction Request due 8/5/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 26 of 37
8/13/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/11/2019. (Related documents(s) 211 ) (tgb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2019) (Entered: 07/13/2019)
07/16/2019 213 NOTICE by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State re 210 Order Defendants' Notice of Filing Pursuant to the Court's July 9, 2019 Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A − Redacted Version of Defendants' May 9, 2019 Ex Parte Letter)(Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 7/16/2019) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
08/07/2019 214 NOTICE of Appearance by Melissa Shay Keaney on behalf of all plaintiffs. (Keaney, Melissa) (Filed on 8/7/2019) (Entered: 08/07/2019)
08/08/2019 215 NOTICE by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State Joint Notice Re: Grant of Austrian Asylum to Certain Class Members (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 8/8/2019) (Entered: 08/08/2019)
08/09/2019 216 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 7/9/2019 before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5, for Court Reporter FTR − San Jose. (Esser, Caroline) (Filed on 8/9/2019) (TRANSCRIBER: ECHO REPORTING) Modified on 8/9/2019 (lmh, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/09/2019)
08/26/2019 217 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Declaration and Exhibit filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Caroline N. Esser, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Redacted Declaration of Mariko Hirose, # 4 Unredacted Declaration of Mariko Hirose, # 5 Redacted Exhibit S, # 6 Unredacted Exhibit S)(Esser, Caroline) (Filed on 8/26/2019) (Entered: 08/26/2019)
08/26/2019 218 MOTION to Compel Unredacted Document (Sanctions Requested) filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. Motion Hearing set for 10/1/2019 10:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 2, 5th Floor before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi. Responses due by 9/9/2019. Replies due by 9/16/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 8/26/2019) (Entered: 08/26/2019)
08/26/2019 219 Declaration of Mariko Hirose in Support of 218 MOTION to Compel Unredacted Document (Sanctions Requested) filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S [Redacted Version], # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X)(Related document(s) 218 ) (Hirose, Mariko) (Filed on 8/26/2019) (Entered: 08/26/2019)
08/26/2019 220 Declaration of Belinda S Lee in Support of 218 MOTION to Compel Unredacted Document (Sanctions Requested) filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Related document(s) 218 ) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 8/26/2019) (Entered: 08/26/2019)
08/26/2019 221 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5 re 217 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Declaration and Exhibit (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 8/26/2019) (Entered: 08/26/2019)
08/29/2019 222 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Belinda S Lee (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 8/29/2019) (Entered: 08/29/2019)
09/06/2019 223 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 180 Discovery Letter Brief re Privilege Redactions [Redacted]. Defendants' reproduction of the 57 documents consistent with the Court's order due by 9/20/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix) (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2019) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
09/06/2019 224 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL by Court Staff. Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 180 Discovery Letter Brief re Privilege Redactions [Redacted]. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2019) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/9/2019: # 2 Envelope) (pmcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/06/2019)
09/09/2019 225 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 171 Joint Discovery Letter Brief regarding Defendants' Clawback. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2019) (Entered: 09/09/2019)

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 27 of 37
09/09/2019 226 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granting 179 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2019) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
09/09/2019 227 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Enlargment of Time to Respond to Motion to Compel Unredacted Document (Sanctions Requested) re 218 MOTION to Compel Unredacted Document (Sanctions Requested) Defendants' Administrative Motion to Enlarge Time in Which to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Unredacted Document (Sanctions Requested) filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. Responses due by 9/13/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Christopher W. Hollis, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 9/9/2019) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
09/10/2019 228 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi denying 227 Administrative Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to 218 Motion to Compel Unredacted Document (Sanctions Requested). Defendants shall file their responsive brief by 9/11/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2019) (Entered: 09/10/2019)
09/11/2019 229 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 218 MOTION to Compel Unredacted Document (Sanctions Requested) ) filed byL. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Eric P. Griffin, # 2 Declaration Bryan Lonegan, # 3 Declaration Ronald W.Whitney, # 4 Declaration Margaret S. Pickering, # 5 Exhibit Email (4/26/19), # 6 Exhibit Claw back letter)(Chung, Daniel) (Filed on 9/11/2019) (Entered: 09/11/2019)
09/18/2019 230 REPLY (re 218 MOTION to Compel Unredacted Document (Sanctions Requested) ) filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 9/18/2019) (Entered: 09/18/2019)
09/18/2019 231 Declaration of Caroline N. Esser in Support of 230 Reply to Opposition/Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Unredacted Document (Sanctions Requested) filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 230 ) (Esser, Caroline) (Filed on 9/18/2019) (Entered: 09/18/2019)
09/20/2019 232 NOTICE by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State re 223 Order on Discovery Letter Brief, Defendants' Notice of Discovery Dispute Regarding Amendment of the Parties' Stipulated Protective Order (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 9/20/2019) (Entered: 09/20/2019)
09/20/2019 233 NOTICE by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State re 223 Order on Discovery Letter Brief, Defendants' Notice of Non−compliance with the Court's Order re May 7, 2019 Joint Discovery Letter (Chung, Daniel) (Filed on 9/20/2019) (Entered: 09/20/2019)
09/23/2019 234 Statement Plaintiffs' Statement in (1) Response to Defendants' Notice of Non−Compliance 233 ; (2) Opposition to Defendants' Notice of Discovery Dispute 232 ; and (3) Request for a Court Conference by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 9/23/2019) (Entered: 09/23/2019)
09/23/2019 235 Order re Defendants' September 20, 2019 Notices; Order to Show Cause re Sanctions for Non−Compliance. Show Cause Response due by 9/27/2019. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 10/1/2019 10:00 AM. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 9/23/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2019) (Entered: 09/23/2019)
09/24/2019 236 NOTICE by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State re 235 Order to Show Cause, Defendants' Notice of Compliance with the Court's Order, Dkt. 235 (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 9/24/2019) (Entered: 09/24/2019)
09/25/2019 237 MOTION to Appear by Telephone at the Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Unredacted Document (Sanctions Requested) and the Court's Order to Show Cause filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 9/25/2019) (Entered: 09/25/2019)
09/26/2019 238 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granting 237 Motion to Appear by Telephone. Counsel shall arrange for appearances via CourtCall (866−582−6878). (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2019) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 28 of 37
09/27/2019 239 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State Re: Dkt. 235. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Lawrence L. Williams, # 2 Declaration Daniel P. Chung)(Chung, Daniel) (Filed on 9/27/2019) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
09/30/2019 240 Statement Plaintiffs' Statement in Advance of October 1 Hearing and Proposal for Remainder of Jurisdictional Discovery by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 9/30/2019) (Entered: 09/30/2019)
10/01/2019 241 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi: Motion Hearing held on 10/1/2019. re 218 MOTION to Compel Unredacted Document (Sanctions Requested), Show Cause Hearing held on 10/1/2019. Counsel present arguments. Matters taken under submission. Court to issue written order. FTR Time: 10:05−11:47. Plaintiff Attorney: Caroline Esser; Keith Williams; Belinda Lee; Mariko Hirose. Defendant Attorney: Christopher Holllis; Daniel Chung. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (pmcS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/1/2019) (Entered: 10/01/2019)
10/01/2019 242 PDF with attached Audio File. Court Date & Time [ 10/1/2019 10:05:04 AM ]. File Size [ 49064 KB ]. Run Time [ 01:42:13 ]. (courtspeak). (Entered: 10/01/2019)
10/01/2019 243 Interim Order re 218 MOTION to Compel Unredacted Document (Sanctions Requested) and Further Discovery. Proposed protective order and joint discovery plan due by 10/9/2019. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 10/1/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2019) (Entered: 10/01/2019)
10/02/2019 244 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 10/01/2019 before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, for Court Reporter FTR − San Jose. (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 10/2/2019) (TRANSCRIBER: AD HOC REPORTING) Modified on 10/2/2019 (lmh, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/02/2019)
10/03/2019 245 Transcript of Proceedings held on 10/01/2019, before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi. Court Reporter/Transcriber Peggy Schuerger/Ad Hoc Reporting, telephone number (619) 228−3774/adhocreporting@aol.com. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 244 Transcript Order, ) Redaction Request due 10/24/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/4/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/2/2020. (Related documents(s) 244 ) (pls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2019) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
10/04/2019 246 Order Discharging 235 Order to Show Cause. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 10/4/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2019) (Entered: 10/04/2019)
10/08/2019 247 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granting 217 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2019) (Entered: 10/08/2019)
10/08/2019 248 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL by Court Staff. Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granting in part and denying in part 218 Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2019) (Entered: 10/08/2019)
10/08/2019 249 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granting in part and denying in part 218 Motion to Compel Unredacted Document (Sanctions Requested). (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2019) (Entered: 10/08/2019)
10/09/2019 250 Discovery Letter Brief(re Proposed Amended Protective Order) filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − [Plaintiffs' Proposed] Amended Protective Order)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 10/9/2019) (Entered: 10/09/2019)
10/09/2019 251 NOTICE by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5 (Joint Jurisdictional Discovery Plan) (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 10/9/2019) (Entered: 10/09/2019)
10/09/2019 252 Letter from Defendants Defendants' Discovery Dispute Letter Pursuant to the Court's October 1, 2019 Order [Dkt. 243]. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Defendants' Proposed Amended Protective Order)(Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 10/9/2019) (Entered: 10/09/2019)

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 29 of 37
10/10/2019 253 Interim Order re Parties' Proposed Protective Orders. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 10/10/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2019) (Entered: 10/10/2019)
10/15/2019 254 Order re Discovery Plan. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 10/15/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2019) (Entered: 10/15/2019)
10/16/2019 255 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 250 252 Discovery Letter Brief re Amended Protective Order. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2019) (Entered: 10/16/2019)
10/16/2019 256 AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 10/16/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2019) (Entered: 10/16/2019)
10/22/2019 257 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Enlargement of Defendants' Time to Re−Produce Agreed Documens per the Order Re Discovery Plan, Dkt. 254 re 254 Discovery Order filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. Responses due by 10/28/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Christopher Hollis in Support of Administrative Motion to Enlarge Time to Re−Produce Agreed Documents per the Order Re Discovery Plan, Dkt. 254, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 10/22/2019) (Entered: 10/22/2019)
10/23/2019 258 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 257 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Enlargement of Defendants' Time to Re−Produce Agreed Documens per the Order Re Discovery Plan, Dkt. 254 re 254 Discovery Order ) filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Keith L. Williams)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 10/23/2019) (Entered: 10/23/2019)
10/23/2019 259 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi denying 257 Administrative Motion for Enlargement of Defendants' Time to Re−Produce Agreed Documents per the Order Re Discovery Plan. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2019) (Entered: 10/23/2019)
10/29/2019 260 NOTICE by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State re 259 Order on Administrative Motion per Civil Local Rule 7−11, 254 Discovery Order Defendants' Notice of Re−Production of Agreed Documents to Plaintiffs per the Court's Orders, Dkts. 254, 259 (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 10/29/2019) (Entered: 10/29/2019)
10/31/2019 261 Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs to Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 10/31/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2019) (Entered: 10/31/2019)
11/27/2019 262 STATUS REPORT (Joint Status Report as per 254 Order re Discovery Plan) by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 11/27/2019) (Entered: 11/27/2019)
11/27/2019 263 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER regarding Discovery filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 11/27/2019) (Entered: 11/27/2019)
12/02/2019 264 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granting 263 Stipulation re Discovery. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2019) (Entered: 12/02/2019)
12/10/2019 265 NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas Benton York (York, Thomas) (Filed on 12/10/2019) (Entered: 12/10/2019)
12/10/2019 266 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Re: Payment of Sanctions Award filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 12/10/2019) (Entered: 12/10/2019)
12/11/2019 267 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granting 266 Stipulation re Payment of Sanctions Award. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2019) (Entered: 12/11/2019)
12/11/2019 268 NOTICE of Appearance by James J Wen (Wen, James) (Filed on 12/11/2019) (Entered: 12/11/2019)
12/27/2019 269 NOTICE of Appearance by Sergio Francis Sarkany for Plaintiff (Sarkany, Sergio) (Filed on 12/27/2019) (Entered: 12/27/2019)

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 30 of 37
01/08/2020 270 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Daniel Paul Chung (Chung, Daniel) (Filed on 1/8/2020) (Entered: 01/08/2020)
01/17/2020 271 STATUS REPORT ORDER. Status Report due by 1/31/2020. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 1/17/2020. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2020) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
01/31/2020 272 STATUS REPORT (Joint Status Report as per 271 Order re Discovery) by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 1/31/2020) (Entered: 01/31/2020)
02/03/2020 273 Order re Discovery Dispute Resolution Schedule. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 2/3/2020. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2020) (Entered: 02/03/2020)
02/06/2020 274 NOTICE of Appearance by Devon Aubry Diggs on behalf of Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5 and the Class (Diggs, Devon) (Filed on 2/6/2020) (Entered: 02/06/2020)
02/18/2020 275 *** FILED IN ERROR. DOCUMENT LOCKED. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 279 . *** Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Christopher W. Hollis in Support of Defendants' Administrative Motion to File under Seal Portions of the Joint Discovery Dispute Letter Regarding Privilege Redaction, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Redacted Version of Joint Discovery Dispute Letter Regarding Privilege Redaction, # 4 Unredacted Version of Joint Discovery Dispute Letter Regarding Privilege Redaction)(Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 2/18/2020) Modified on 2/19/2020 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/2020)
02/18/2020 276 *** FILED IN ERROR. DOCUMENT LOCKED. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 280 . *** Joint Discovery Letter BriefRegarding Privilege Redaction [Redacted] filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 2/18/2020) Modified on 2/19/2020 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/2020)
02/18/2020 277 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Clawbacks filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 2/18/2020) (Entered: 02/18/2020)
02/18/2020 278 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document (ECF Nos. 275−3 and 276) filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 2/18/2020) (Entered: 02/18/2020)
02/18/2020 279 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 275 filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Christopher W. Hollis in Support of Defendants' Administrative Motion to File under Seal Portions of the Joint Discovery Dispute Letter Regarding Privilege Redaction, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Redacted Version of Joint Discovery Dispute Letter Regarding Privilege Redaction (Corrected), # 4 Unredacted Version of Joint Discovery Dispute Letter Regarding Privilege Redaction)(Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 2/18/2020) (Entered: 02/18/2020)
02/18/2020 280 Joint Discovery Letter BriefRegarding Privilege Redaction [Redacted] CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 276 filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 2/18/2020) (Entered: 02/18/2020)
02/19/2020 281 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granting 277 Stipulation re Clawbacks. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2020) (Entered: 02/19/2020)
02/19/2020 282 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING DISCOVERY HEARING re 280 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Privilege Redactions. Discovery Hearing set for 2/25/2020 10:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 2, 5th Floor before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2020) (Entered: 02/19/2020)
02/19/2020 283 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 278 Incorrectly Filed Documents. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2020) (Entered: 02/19/2020)

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 31 of 37
02/20/2020 284 Joint MOTION to Appear by Telephone at February 25, 2020 Discovery Hearing filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 2/20/2020) (Entered: 02/20/2020)
02/21/2020 285 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granting 284 Joint Motion to Appear by Telephone. The parties shall arrange for appearances via CourtCall (866−582−6878). (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2020) (Entered: 02/21/2020)
02/21/2020 286 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granting 279 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of the Joint Discovery Dispute Letter Regarding Privilege Redaction. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2020) (Entered: 02/21/2020)
02/25/2020 287 NOTICE of Change of Address by Keith L Williams (Williams, Keith) (Filed on 2/25/2020) (Entered: 02/25/2020)
02/25/2020 288 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi: Discovery Hearing held on 2/25/2020. Hearing held. Court to issue written order. Transcript ordered sealed. FTR Time: 10:36−11:05. Plaintiff Attorney: Belinda Lee, Keith Williams, Deepa Alagesan, Devon Diggs. Defendant Attorney: Christopher Hollis, James Wen. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (pmcS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/25/2020) (Entered: 02/25/2020)
02/25/2020 289 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 280 Joint Discovery Letter Brief Regarding Privilege Redaction. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2020) (Entered: 02/25/2020)
02/25/2020 290 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and Plaintiffs' Motion (1) for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint; (2) to Substitute Parties and Proceed by Pseudonym; and (3) to Amend Class Certification Order filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Devon A. Diggs, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Redacted Version of Motion (1) For Leave to File a First Amended Complaint; (2) to Substitute Parties and Proceed by Pseudonym; and (3) to Amend Class Certification Order, # 4 Unredacted Version of Motion (1) For Leave to File a First Amended Complaint; (2) to Substitute Parties and Proceed by Pseudonym; and (3) to Amend Class Certification Order, # 5 Redacted Version of Proposed First Amended Complaint, # 6 Unredacted Version of Proposed First Amended Complaint)(Diggs, Devon) (Filed on 2/25/2020) (Entered: 02/25/2020)
02/25/2020 291 MOTION to Amend/Correct (Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion (1) for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint; (2) to Substitute Parties and Proceed by Pseudonym; and (3) to Amend Class Certification Order) [Redacted] filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. Motion Hearing set for 5/21/2020 09:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor before Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 3/10/2020. Replies due by 3/17/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Keith L. Williams, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 [Proposed] First Amended Complaint [Redacted], # 4 Declaration of Jane Doe 6 and Exhibits A − B, # 5 Declaration of John Doe 7, # 6 Declaration of Jane Doe 8)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 2/25/2020) (Entered: 02/25/2020)
02/25/2020 292 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5 re 290 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 2/25/2020) (Entered: 02/25/2020)
02/26/2020 293 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION order transcript discovery hearing filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. Responses due by 3/2/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sarkany, Sergio) (Filed on 2/26/2020) (Entered: 02/26/2020)
03/02/2020 294 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granting 293 Administrative Motion to Order Transcript of Sealed Hearing. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2020) (Entered: 03/02/2020)
03/02/2020 295 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 293 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION order transcript discovery hearing ) filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 3/2/2020) (Entered: 03/02/2020)

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 32 of 37
03/02/2020 296 Declaration of Christopher W. Hollis in Support of 290 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and Plaintiffs' Motion (1) for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint; (2) to Substitute Parties and Proceed by Pseudonym; and (3) to Amend Class Ce filed byL. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Related document(s) 290 ) (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 3/2/2020) (Entered: 03/02/2020)
03/03/2020 297 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 2/25/2020 before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi by Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, for Court Reporter FTR − San Jose. (sp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2020) (TRANSCRIBER: ECHO REPORTING) Modified on 3/4/2020 (lmh, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/03/2020)
03/04/2020 298 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Filing Deadlines for Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (York, Thomas) (Filed on 3/4/2020) (Entered: 03/04/2020)
03/05/2020 299 298 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING FILING DEADLINES. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/5/2020. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2020) (Entered: 03/05/2020)
03/06/2020 300 ORDER DENYING 290 PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; (2) TO SUBSTITUTE PARTIES AND PROCEED BY PSEUDONYM; AND (3) TO AMEND CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/6/2020. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2020) (Entered: 03/06/2020)
03/09/2020 301 SEALED Transcript of Proceedings of the official sound recording held on 02/25/20, before Magistrate Judge Virginia K DeMarchi. FTR/Transcriber Echo Reporting, Inc., telephone number (858) 453−7590. Tape Number: FTR 10:36 − 11:05. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 297 Transcript Order, ) Redaction Request due 3/30/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/9/2020. (Related documents(s) 297 ) (tgj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2020) Modified on 3/13/2020 (sp, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/2020)
03/10/2020 302 MOTION to Amend/Correct (Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion (1) for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint; (2) to Substitute Parties and Proceed by Pseudonym; and (3) to Amend Class Certification Order) − Refiled Pursuant to 3/6/20 Order, Dkt. 300 filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. Motion Hearing set for 5/21/2020 09:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor before Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 4/9/2020. Replies due by 4/30/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amended Complaint)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 3/10/2020) (Entered: 03/10/2020)
03/11/2020 303 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Seal/Strike Dkt. 302 and Seal Portions of Plaintiffs' Proposed Amended Complaint and Supporting Motion filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. Responses due by 3/16/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Poling Declaration, # 2 Exhibit B −− Ruppel Declaration, # 3 Exhibit C −− Ingraham Declaration, # 4 Exhibit D −− York Declaration, # 5 Proposed Order Granting Defendants' Motion)(York, Thomas) (Filed on 3/11/2020) (Entered: 03/11/2020)
03/13/2020 304 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Re: Word Count Increase from 1500 to 3000 for Parties' Joint Discovery Dispute Letter filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 3/13/2020) (Entered: 03/13/2020)
03/13/2020 305 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of the Joint De−Designation Discovery Letter Brief filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Devon A. Diggs, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Redacted Version of Joint De−Designation Discovery Letter Brief, # 4 Unredacted Version of Joint De−Designation Discovery Letter Brief)(Diggs, Devon) (Filed on 3/13/2020) (Entered: 03/13/2020)
03/13/2020 306 Joint Discovery Letter Brief [Redacted] filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 3/13/2020) (Entered: 03/13/2020)
03/13/2020 307 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5 re 305 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of the Joint De−Designation Discovery

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 33 of 37
Letter Brief (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 3/13/2020) (Entered: 03/13/2020)
03/16/2020 308 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granting 304 Stipulation Re: Word Count Increase from 1500 to 3000 for 306 Parties' Joint Discovery Dispute Letter re De−Designation. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2020) (Entered: 03/16/2020)
03/16/2020 309 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY HEARING re 306 Joint Discovery Letter Brief. Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 3/31/2020 10:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 2, 5th Floor before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi. Counsel shall arrange for appearances via CourtCall (866−582−6878). (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2020) (Entered: 03/16/2020)
03/16/2020 310 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 303 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Seal/Strike Dkt. 302 and Seal Portions of Plaintiffs' Proposed Amended Complaint and Supporting Motion ) (Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Administrative Motion to Submit Supplemental Declarations Supporting Sealing of Portions of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and Plaintiffs' Motion (1) for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint; (2) to Substitute Parties and Proceed by Pseudonym; and (3) to Amend Class Certification Order) filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Keith L. Williams, # 2 Proposed Order)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 3/16/2020) (Entered: 03/16/2020)
03/17/2020 311 Declaration of Christopher Hollis in Support of 305 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of the Joint De−Designation Discovery Letter Brief filed byL. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Related document(s) 305 ) (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 3/17/2020) (Entered: 03/17/2020)
03/19/2020 312 Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granting 305 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal 306 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re De−designation. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2020) (Entered: 03/19/2020)
03/19/2020 313 CLERK'S NOTICE. The hearing on 3/31/2020 as to 306 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re De−Designation will be conducted by telephone conference (not CourtCall), under seal. All participants must dial in to the conference line at least 10 minutes before the start of the conference. In order to avoid disruption, late appearances will not be permitted. Judge DeMarchi's Courtroom Deputy will email all authorized participants the dial−in number, an access code, and a security code for the conference. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2020) (Entered: 03/19/2020)
03/23/2020 314 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing as to 306 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re De−Designation. The 3/31/2020 telephonic hearing is hereby CONTINUED to 4/7/2020 10:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 2, 5th Floor before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/23/2020) (Entered: 03/23/2020)
04/01/2020 315 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING TIME OF DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF HEARING. Hearing is now scheduled for 4/7/2020 at 11:00 am. Counsel will be emailed the call−in information as this hearing will be conducted under seal. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (pmcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2020) (Entered: 04/01/2020)
04/07/2020 316 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi: Discovery Hearing held on 4/7/2020. Matter taken under submission. Court to issue written order. Total Time in Court: 59 minutes. Court Reporter: Irene Rodriguez. Plaintiff Attorney: Kathryn Meyer; Mariko Hirose; Deepo Alagesan; Caroline Esser; Keith Williams; Devon Diggs; Melissa Keaney. Defendant Attorney: Christopher Hollis; Sergio Sarkany; Thomas York; William Silvis. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (pmcS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/7/2020) (Entered: 04/07/2020)
04/08/2020 317 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 4/7/20 before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, for Court Reporter Irene Rodriguez.

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 34 of 37
(Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 4/8/2020) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
04/09/2020 318 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Leave to File Renewed Motion to Dismiss filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. Responses due by 4/13/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Christopher Hollis in Support of Defendants' Administrative Motion for Leave to File Renewed Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 4/9/2020) (Entered: 04/09/2020)
04/09/2020 319 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 291 MOTION to Amend/Correct (Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion (1) for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint; (2) to Substitute Parties and Proceed by Pseudonym; and (3) to Amend Class Certification Order) [Redacted] ) Defendants Brief In Opposition Of Plaintiffs Motion (1) For Leave To File A First Amended Complaint; (2) To Substitute Parties And Proceed By Pseudonym; And (3) To Amend Class Certification Order (Dkt. 291) filed byL. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A − Declaration of Charles H. Kable, IV, # 2 Exhibit Ex. B − Excerpts of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Transcript of Joanna Ruppel)(Wen, James) (Filed on 4/9/2020) (Entered: 04/09/2020)
04/10/2020 320 NOTICE by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State re 306 Joint Discovery Letter Brief [Redacted] Defendants' Notice Regarding Dkt. 306 at Footnote 10 (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 4/10/2020) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
04/13/2020 321 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 318 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Leave to File Renewed Motion to Dismiss ) filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/13/2020) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
04/14/2020 322 NOTICE by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5 Regarding Dkt. No. 306 (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/14/2020) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
04/14/2020 323 ORDER DENYING 318 DEFENDANTS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/14/2020. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2020) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
04/16/2020 324 Transcript of Proceedings held on 04/07/2020, before Judge DeMarchi. Court Reporter Irene L. Rodriguez, email address Irene_Rodriguez@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/15/2020. (Rodriguez, Irene) (Filed on 4/16/2020) (Entered: 04/16/2020)
04/27/2020 325 NOTICE of Appearance by Katherine Maureen Larkin−Wong on behalf of Plaintiffs Does 1−8 and the Class (Larkin−Wong, Katherine) (Filed on 4/27/2020) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
04/30/2020 326 REPLY (re 291 MOTION to Amend/Correct (Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion (1) for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint; (2) to Substitute Parties and Proceed by Pseudonym; and (3) to Amend Class Certification Order) [Redacted], 302 MOTION to Amend/Correct (Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion (1) for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint; (2) to Substitute Parties and Proceed by Pseudonym; and (3) to Amend Class Certification Order) − Refiled Pursuant to 3/6/20 Or ) filed byJane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Keith L. Williams, # 2 Exhibit A − Ruppel Deposition)(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 4/30/2020) (Entered: 04/30/2020)
05/01/2020 327 NOTICE of Appearance by Steven A. Platt on behalf of all Defendants (Platt, Steven) (Filed on 5/1/2020) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
05/07/2020 328 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 303 DEFENDANTS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATIONS SUPPORTING SEALING OF PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND PLAINTIFFS MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; (2) TO SUBSTITUTE PARTIES AND PROCEED BY PSEUDONYM; AND (3) TO AMEND CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/7/2020. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2020) (Entered: 05/07/2020)

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 35 of 37
05/14/2020 329 Joint ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Clarification of Court's May 7, 2020 Order (ECF 328) filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. Responses due by 5/18/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− York Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Joint Administrative Motion)(York, Thomas) (Filed on 5/14/2020) (Entered: 05/14/2020)
05/14/2020 330 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO ENLARGE TIME TO FILE REVISED REDACTED DOCUMENTS filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support of Joint Stipulation)(York, Thomas) (Filed on 5/14/2020) (Entered: 05/14/2020)
05/14/2020 331 ORDER GRANTING 329 JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE COURTS MAY 7, 2020 ORDER. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/14/2020. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2020) (Entered: 05/14/2020)
05/14/2020 332 ORDER GRANTING 330 JOINT STIPULATION TO ENLARGE TIME TO FILE REVISED REDACTED VERSIONS OF MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; (2) TO SUBSTITUTE PARTIES AND PROCEED BY PSEUDONYM; AND (3) TO AMEND CLASS AND FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/14/2020. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2020) (Entered: 05/14/2020)
05/15/2020 333 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL by Court Staff. Order re 306 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Defendants' Confidentiality and HC−AEO Designations. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B, # 3 Appendix C) (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2020) (Entered: 05/15/2020)
05/15/2020 334 Order re Redaction of Appendices to 333 Order re 306 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Defendants' Confidentiality and HC−AEO Designations. Responses due by 5/22/2020 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 5/15/2020. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2020) (Entered: 05/15/2020)
05/19/2020 335 CLERK'S NOTICE CONVERTING THE LAW AND MOTION HEARING SET IN THIS CASE ON 5/21/2020 AT 9:00 AM TO A ZOOM WEBINAR.
***REGISTRATION OF COUNSEL IN ADVANCE IS REQUIRED, SEE BELOW***
Pre−registration by counsel with the clerk in advance of the Pretrial Conference must be done by emailing one list from each side of the names of counsel who will be participating in the hearing to blfcrd@cand.uscourts.gov no later than Wednesday, May 20, 2020, at 2:00 PM, PST.
All counsel, public, and press will join the webinar as attendees and be able to see and hear the proceedings but will not be able to actually participate in the proceedings until the Court switches them over to a participant. Before each case is called, counsel who have pre−registered with the clerk in advance of the hearing will be converted from attendee to participant. Once the hearing ends for their case, they will be switched back to attendee. The information below is for all counsel, members of the public and press to use for accessing the hearings set on May 21, 2020, at 9:00 AM.
***All Preregistered Counsel participating in the hearing shall sign in no later than 8:50 AM for check in.***
You are invited to a Zoom webinar. When: May 21, 2020 09:00 AM Pacific Time (US and Canada) Topic: Topic: Civil Law and Motion and Case Management Conference Hearings for May 21, 2020
Please use the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89607952811?pwd=a3lyYy9mcHg5MzJ5QjVwTHVGRkZqUT09 Password: 558586
Or go to: https://zoom.us/join Webinar ID: 896 0795 2811 Password: 558586

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 36 of 37
By Telephone by calling: 1 929 205 6099 Webinar ID: 896 0795 2811 Password: 558586
(This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2020 (Entered: 05/19/2020)
05/21/2020 336 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Beth Labson Freeman: Motion Hearing held on 5/21/2020 re 302 MOTION to Amend/Correct (Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion (1) for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint; (2) to Substitute Parties and Proceed by Pseudonym; and (3) to Amend Class Certification Order) − Refiled Pursuant to 3/6/20 Or filed by Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe 3. Matter taken under submission. A forthcoming Order will memorialize all relevant information, deadlines, and rulings from the hearing. Total Time in Court: 1:03. Court Reporter: Summer Fisher. Plaintiff Attorney: Kathryn Meyer, Mariko Hirose, Keith Williams, Katie Larkin−Wong, Caroline Esser, Melissa Keaney, Deepa Alagesan. Defendant Attorney: James Wen, Christopher Hollis. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/21/2020) (Entered: 05/21/2020)
05/22/2020 337 NOTICE by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5 re 336 Motion Hearing,,, Regarding Modified Class Definition (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 5/22/2020) (Entered: 05/22/2020)
05/22/2020 338 NOTICE by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5 re 334 Order, Non−Opposition to Unsealing of Appendices (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 5/22/2020) (Entered: 05/22/2020)
05/22/2020 339 RESPONSE re 334 Order, Defendants' Response to Order Re Redaction of Appendices to May 15, 2020 Order Re Discovery Dispute Re Defendants' Confidential and HC−AEO Designations by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 5/22/2020) (Entered: 05/22/2020)
05/26/2020 340 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 5/21/2020 before Judge Beth Labson Freeman by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, for Court Reporter Summer Fisher. (Platt, Steven) (Filed on 5/26/2020) (Entered: 05/26/2020)
05/26/2020 341 Sealed Transcript of Proceedings held on 05/21/2020, before Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Court Reporter/Transcriber Summer Fisher, Telephone number 408−288−6150 summer_fisher@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy,any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Redaction Request due 6/15/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/23/2020. (Fisher, Summer) (Filed on 5/26/2020) (Entered: 05/26/2020)
05/27/2020 342 REDACTION (Redacted Version of Plaintiffs' 302 Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to File A First Amended Complaint, Substitute Parties and Proceed by Pseudonym and to Amend Class Pursuant to 5/7/20 Order, Dkt. 328 ) by Jane Doe 3, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5. (Attachments: # 1 [Proposed] First Amended Complaint [Redacted])(Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 5/27/2020) (Entered: 05/27/2020)
05/27/2020 343 Order re 306 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Defendants' Confidentiality and HC−AEO Designations. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 5/15/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A (Redacted), # 2 Appendix B (Redacted), # 3 Appendix C (Redacted)) (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2020) (Entered: 05/27/2020)
05/29/2020 344 NOTICE by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State re 337 Notice (Other) Defendants' Notice Opposing Plaintiffs' Modified Proposed Amended Class Definition (Wen, James) (Filed on 5/29/2020) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
05/29/2020 345 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Defendants' Administrative Motion to File Portions of FBI Declaration under Seal filed by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan,

Case: 5:18-cv-2349 As of: 06/03/2020 11:12 AM PDT 37 of 37
John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Christopher W. Hollis in Support of Defendants' Administrative Motion to File Portions of FBI Declaration under Seal, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Jason V. Herring (REDACTED), # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Jason V. Herring (UNREDACTED))(Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 5/29/2020) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
05/29/2020 346 OBJECTIONS to re 343 Discovery Order, Defendants' Objections to/Rule 72(a) Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 343) by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A − Defendants' Table of Sixteen Objections to Order Re Discovery Dispute Re Defendants' Confidential and HC−AEO Designations (Re: Dkt. No. 306), Dkt. 343, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 5/29/2020) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
05/29/2020 347 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by L. Francis Cissna, Jennifer B. Higgins, Kevin K. McAleenan, John Sullivan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State re 345 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Defendants' Administrative Motion to File Portions of FBI Declaration under Seal (Hollis, Christopher) (Filed on 5/29/2020) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
06/01/2020 348 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on May 21, 2020 before Judge Beth Labson Freeman by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5, for Court Reporter Summer Fisher. (Lee, Belinda) (Filed on 6/1/2020) (Entered: 06/01/2020)
06/02/2020 349 NOTICE of Intent to Request Redaction of Transcript by Thomas Benton York (York, Thomas) (Filed on 6/2/2020) (Entered: 06/02/2020)

 
 Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 1 of 22

1 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

Belinda S Lee (Bar No. 199635)

2 Ariel E. Rogers (Bar No. 316910)

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000

3 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538

Tel: +1.415.391.0600

4 Fax: +1.415.395.8095

Email: Belinda.Lee@lw.com

5

Ariel.Rogers@lw.com

6 Oliver Rocos (Bar No. 319059)

Thomas Golding (Bar No. 308070)

7 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1100

Los Angeles, CA 90067

8 Tel: +1.424.653.5500

Fax: +1.424.653.5501

9 Email: Oliver.Rocos@lw.com

Thomas.Golding@lw.com

10

INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE

11 ASSISTANCE PROJECT

Mariko Hirose*

12 Kathryn C. Meyer*

40 Rector Street, 9th Fl.

13 New York, NY 10006

Tel: +1.646.459.3044

14 Fax: +1.212.533.4598

Email: mhirose@refugeerights.org

15

kmeyer@refugeerights.org

*pro hac vice application forthcoming

16

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Does 1 through 5

17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19 SAN JOSE DIVISION

20 JANE DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JANE DOE 3, CASE NO._______

JANE DOE 4, and JANE DOE 5, individually 21 and on behalf of all others similarly situated; COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY,

INJUNCTIVE, AND MANDAMUS RELIEF

22

Plaintiffs,

23

v.

IMMIGRATION MANDAMUS CASE

CLASS ACTION 24 KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, in her official capacity

as the Secretary of Homeland Security; L. 25 FRANCIS CISSNA, in his official capacity as

the Director of U.S. Citizenship and 26 Immigration Services; JENNIFER B.

HIGGINS, in her official capacity as the 27 Associate Director of U.S. Citizenship and

Immigration Services for Refugee, Asylum, 28 and International Operations Directorate;

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 2 of 22

1 JOHN SULLIVAN, in his official capacity as the Acting Secretary of State; U.S.
2 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
3 STATE,

4

Defendants.

5

6 I. INTRODUCTION

7

1. When proclaiming January 16, 2018, as Religious Freedom Day, President Trump

8 called the United States “the paramount champion for religious freedom around the world” and

9 promised to “be undeterred in our commitment to monitor religious persecution and implement

10 policies that promote religious freedom.”1 But just one month later, his administration took the

11 unprecedented step of denying en masse the refugee applications of nearly 90 Christians,

12 Mandaeans, and other persecuted religious minorities from Iran who had applied for refugee

13 status under the Vienna-based Lautenberg-Specter program (“Vienna Lautenberg-Specter

14 program”). They all received the same stock response—that their refugee applications had been

15 “denied as a matter of discretion.” Each such unexplained denial was contrary to law.

16

2. In 1989, Congress enacted the Lautenberg Amendment to facilitate refugee

17 admission of persecuted religious minorities and other vulnerable groups from certain specified

18 countries by lowering the evidentiary burden of eligibility and mandating certain procedural

19 protections. Congress specifically added Iranian religious minorities to these protections in 2004

20 through the Specter Amendment and has consistently reauthorized both Amendments, including

21 as recently as March 23, 2018. The Vienna Lautenberg-Specter program allows persecuted

22 religious minorities in Iran to have a U.S. person sponsor their refugee application process, travel

23 to Vienna after they pass initial screening, and apply for refugee status there under the special

24 protections of the Lautenberg Amendment. Until the mass denial, nearly 100% of the Iranian

25 refugee applicants who were invited to travel to Vienna were granted refugee admission within a

26 few months.

27 28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

1

Donald J. Trump, President Donald J. Trump Proclaims January 16, 2018, as Religious Freedom Day,

White House Proclamation (Jan. 16, 2018), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-

trump-proclaims-january-16-2018-religious-freedom-day/.

COMPLAINT
1

Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 3 of 22

1

3. Plaintiffs Does 1 and 2, and similarly situated putative class members, are U.S.

2 persons who paid thousands of dollars to sponsor the Vienna Lautenberg-Specter refugee

3 applications of their close family members and remain desperate to understand why their

4 government has prevented their family from their long-awaited reunion. Plaintiffs Does 3-5 and

5 other putative class members are refugee applicants currently in Vienna who are in danger of

6 deportation back to Iran, where they would be at an even greater risk of persecution than before

7 for having sought refuge in the United States as a religious minority.

8

4. Among the Plaintiffs are a mother in San Jose, California seeking to reunite with

9 her Mandaean diabetic daughter and young grandchild; a son who is eager to bring his Mandaean

10 mother and developmentally disabled adult brother to the United States for access to treatment

11 and caregiving support; and a Christian widow stranded in Vienna with her elderly father and

12 disabled toddler. Plaintiffs and putative class members seek the Court’s intervention to enforce

13 the Lautenberg Amendment and other laws, so that the refugee applicants whose futures hang in

14 the balance have the fair opportunity to reunite with their family members in the United States

15 and practice their religion in the safety of this country, as the Lautenberg Amendment intended.

16 II. PARTIES

17

5. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 is a U.S. citizen and a resident of San Jose, California. She

18 served as the U.S. tie for the refugee application of her daughter, Jane Doe 3, and young

19 grandson.

20

6. Plaintiff John Doe 2 is a U.S. citizen and a resident of West Chicago, Illinois. He

21 served as the U.S. tie for the refugee application of his mother, Jane Doe 4, and disabled brother.

22

7. Plaintiff Jane Doe 3 is an Iranian citizen currently located in Vienna, Austria. She

23 is Mandaean and applied for refugee status for herself and her eight-year-old son through the

24 Vienna Lautenberg-Specter program.

25

8. Plaintiff Jane Doe 4 is an Iranian citizen currently located in Vienna, Austria. She

26 is Mandaean and applied for refugee status with her developmentally disabled son through the

27 Vienna Lautenberg-Specter program.

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

COMPLAINT
2

Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 4 of 22

1

9. Plaintiff Jane Doe 5 is an Iranian citizen currently located in Vienna, Austria. She

2 is Armenian Christian, a widow, and applied for refugee status with her elderly father and her

3 disabled son through the Vienna Lautenberg-Specter program.

4

10. Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a cabinet-

5 level department of the United States federal government. DHS has authority to determine if

6 refugees are offered admission to the United States. United States Citizenship and Immigration

7 Services (“USCIS”), which is responsible for the review and adjudication of refugee

8 applications, is a component of DHS.

9

11. Defendant Kirstjen Nielsen is sued as a federal official in her official capacity as

10 Secretary of Homeland Security. Secretary Nielsen is responsible for managing DHS’s

11 operations and supervising officials who oversee DHS’s involvement in refugee processing,

12 including Vienna Lautenberg-Specter program adjudications.

13

12. Defendant L. Francis Cissna is sued as a federal officer in his official capacity as

14 Director of USCIS. Director Cissna is responsible for overseeing the Refugee, Asylum and

15 International Operations Directorate (“RAIO”), which determines eligibility, interviews, and

16 screens refugee applications, including for the Vienna Lautenberg-Specter program.

17

13. Defendant Jennifer B. Higgins is sued as a federal officer in her official capacity

18 as the Associate Director of USCIS for RAIO. Associate Director Higgins manages RAIO

19 operations, including refugee processing. She oversees the Refugee Affairs Division (“RAD”)

20 within RAIO, which adjudicates refugee applications, conducts refugee interviews with the

21 USCIS Refugee Corps, and oversees the determinations of refugee Requests for Review

22 (“RFR”). RAIO is the governmental entity that issued the mass denials to Vienna Lautenberg-

23 Specter program applicants in or around February 2018.

24

14. Defendant United States Department of State (“DOS”) is a cabinet-level

25 department of the United States federal government. DOS manages the United States Refugee

26 Admissions Program, which includes the Vienna Lautenberg-Specter program. Within DOS, the

27 Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration contracts with and supervises HIAS, Inc., a non-

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

COMPLAINT
3

Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 5 of 22

1 profit organization, that operates the Resettlement Support Center for Vienna Lautenberg-

2 Specter applicants in Vienna, Austria.

3

15. Defendant John Sullivan is sued as a federal official in his official capacity as

4 Acting Secretary of State. Acting Secretary Sullivan manages DOS’s operations and supervises

5 officials who oversee DOS’s involvement in refugee processing, including the Vienna

6 Lautenberg-Specter program.

7 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8

16. This court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal

9 question); 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (Mandamus Act); and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (Administrative

10 Procedure Act). This Court has additional remedial authority under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02

11 (Declaratory Judgment Act).

12

17. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. §

13 1391(e)(1), because plaintiff Jane Doe 1 resides within this District. Each Defendant is an

14 agency of the United States or an officer of the United States sued in his or her official capacity.

15 No real property is involved in this action.

16 IV. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

17

18. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-2(e), this matter should be assigned to the San Jose

18 Division, because Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 resides within Santa Clara County.

19 V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

20

A. Congress Passed the Lautenberg and Specter Amendments to Facilitate

21

Refugee Admissions Of Persecuted Religious Minorities

22

19. Congress enacted the Lautenberg Amendment in 1989 to facilitate the refugee

23 admission of certain persecuted categories of individuals, including Jews and Christians from the

24 Former Soviet Union. P.L. 101-167, Title V, § 599D. The Lautenberg Amendment lowers the

25 evidentiary burden for eligibility for refugee admissions, as it permits applicants in the specified

26 groups to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution by establishing membership in the

27 group, asserting a subjective fear of persecution, and asserting “a credible basis for concern

28 about the possibility of such persecution.” Id. (a). The Lautenberg Amendment further requires

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

COMPLAINT
4

Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 6 of 22

1 that “each decision to deny an application for refugee status . . . shall be in writing and shall

2 state, to the maximum extent feasible, the reason for the denial.” Id. (c); see also 8 U.S.C. §

3 1157 (note).

4

20. In passing the Amendment, Senator Lautenberg and the Immigration

5 Subcommittee made clear that it was intended to secure admission of persecuted religious

6 minorities to the United States and to curtail the exercise of discretion to deny applicants only to

7 “isolated” and “extremely limited” cases:

8

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, under this amendment, a

refugee applicant may choose to qualify for refugee status by

9

demonstrating that he or she has been the victim one of several acts

of mistreatment or prejudicial actions. I understand that the ranking

10

member of the Immigration Subcommittee believes that the

provision nonetheless reserves discretion to the Attorney General.

11

Would he agree that any discretion which this allows the AG to deny

cases is extremely limited in scope--that it is only for the isolated

12

case which cannot now be foreseen--in which a conferral of refugee

status, would not be appropriate, or otherwise not in the national

13

interest?

14

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.

15

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is that the Chairman's view as well?

16

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, it is.

17

101 Cong. R. S11,525 (daily ed. Sept. 20, 1989).

18

21. In 2004, Congress passed the Specter Amendment, adding Iranian religious

19 minorities to the categories of people eligible for the special protections of the Lautenberg

20 Amendment. P.L. 108-199, Division E, Title II, § 213.

21

22. Congress has reauthorized the Lautenberg and Specter Amendments consistently,

22 including as recently as March 23, 2018 as part of the FY 2018 Consolidated Appropriations

23 Act. P.L. 115-141, Division J, §7034(l)(5). Since its inception, approximately 30,000 Iranian

24 religious minorities have resettled in the United States under the Lautenberg Amendment.

25

23. The passing and continued re-authorization of the Lautenberg and Specter

26 Amendments reflect the dire reality for religious minorities in Iran, a country that is

27 approximately 99% Muslim and proclaims Shi’a Islam to be its official religion. Iranian law

28 prohibits Muslim citizens from changing or renouncing their religious beliefs, and the penal code

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

COMPLAINT
5

Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 7 of 22

1 specifies the death sentence for proselytizing, attempts by non-Muslims to convert Muslims, and

2 sabb al-nabi (“insulting the prophet”). The only Iranian state-recognized religious minorities are

3 Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians (excluding Evangelicals, but including Sabean-Mandaeans,

4 although the group does not consider themselves to be Christian).

5

24. The U.S. government has long recognized that Iran engages in particularly severe

6 violations of religious freedom. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom

7 (“USCIRF”) has designated Iran as a “Country of Particular Concern” under the International

8 Religious Freedom Act for 17 consecutive years.2 In 2017, the USCIRF found that in the

9 preceding year:

10

a. “[T]he government of Iran engaged in systematic, ongoing, and egregious

11

violations of religious freedom, including prolonged detention, torture, and

12

executions based primarily or entirely upon the religion of the accused.”

13

b. “Killings, arrests, and physical abuse of detainees have increased in recent

14

years, including for religious minorities . . . who dissent or express views

15

perceived as threatening the government’s legitimacy.”

16

c. Even government-recognized religious minorities face official harassment,

17

intimidation, discrimination, arrests, and imprisonment.

18

25. Last year, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Iran also found that religious minorities

19 in Iran face arbitrary arrests, harassment, and detention based on their religious beliefs.3

20

21

22

23

24 25 26 27 28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

2

U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Annual Report 2017 (“USCIRF”) at 13,

http://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2017.USCIRFAnnualReport.pdf. “USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan

U.S. federal government commission” that was created by created by the International Religious Freedom Act of

1998. The USCIRF “reviews the facts and circumstances of religious freedom violations abroad and makes policy

recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress. USCIRF Commissioners are appointed by

the President and the Congressional leadership of both political parties.” United States Commission on International

Religious Freedom, About USCIRF, http://www.uscirf.gov/about-uscirf (last visited April 12, 2018).

3

UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Report to the

Human Rights Council, A/HRC/34/65 at para. 78 (Mar. 17, 2017) available at http://undocs.org/A/HRC/34/65.

COMPLAINT
6

Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 8 of 22

1

B. Until the End of 2016, Nearly 100% of the Iranian Refugee Applicants Who

2

Had Already Traveled to Vienna in The Vienna Lautenberg-Specter

3

Program Were Admitted

4

26. Applications for refugee status generally are processed at a U.S. Department of

5 State facility, such as a U.S. embassy. However, because the United States does not have an

6 embassy in Iran, religious minorities in Iran who seek to apply for refugee status under the

7 Lautenberg Amendment may do so through the Vienna-based Lautenberg Specter program.4

8

27. The application process for this program begins with a U.S.-based person with

9 lawful status in the United States (“U.S. tie”), usually a close family member, submitting an

10 application on behalf of refugee applicants in Iran. The application is processed by HIAS, a non-

11 profit organization based in Maryland, which has an agreement with the U.S. State Department

12 to operate a Resettlement Support Center5 in Vienna, Austria, to aid the Iranian Lautenberg-

13 Specter applicants.

14

28. Before the application can proceed, the U.S. tie and the primary refugee applicant

15 must enter into a contract with HIAS to pay for all expenses associated with the application,

16 including a non-refundable $330 administrative fee per case, to pledge financial support for the

17 refugee applicants, and to cover any liabilities during processing in Vienna. With the contract,

18 the U.S. tie deposits a minimum of $3,000 per single applicant or $2,600 per applicant on a case

19 for a family of two or more, plus more if there are unique circumstances such as health concerns.

20

29. Once HIAS receives the application and the deposit and the refugee applicant

21 passes an initial screening process, the Austrian government issues a visa to the refugee

22 applicants at the request of the U.S. government, permitting them to travel to Austria to continue

23 processing for the Vienna Lautenberg-Specter program. At this point, most refugee applicants

24

25 26 27 28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

4

This program is distinct from the original Lautenberg program, which applies to groups

from Eurasia and the Baltics identified in the Lautenberg Amendment.

5

The DOS funds and manages nine Resettlement Support Centers around the world, which

are offices operated by international and nongovernmental organizations (and one U.S. interests

section), to prepare eligible refugee applications for U.S. resettlement consideration and provide

support to refugee applicants.

COMPLAINT
7

Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 9 of 22

1 sell their belongings and prepare to restart their lives in the United States. Refugee applicants

2 are responsible for paying for their own travel.

3

30. Once in Austria, HIAS assists the refugee applicants in preparing additional

4 application materials before USCIS officers interview the applicants. Refugee applicants also

5 undergo medical screening, attend cultural orientation, and receive an assurance of sponsorship

6 from a resettlement agency in the United States that has agreed to assist with their resettlement.

7

31. According to HIAS, Vienna Lautenberg-Specter applicants in the program prior

8 to the fall of 2016 typically stayed in Austria for only a few months before completing

9 processing. Both HIAS and the U.S. State Department have reported that nearly 100% of

10 applicants who made it to Vienna prior to fall of 2016 were approved for admission to the United

11 States.6

12

C. Undisclosed Program Changes Caused Applications of Nearly 100 Iranian

13

Religious Minorities to Stall Since the End Of 2016 and to be Denied En

14

Masse in February 2018

15

32. The end of 2016, however, marked a significant change—and perhaps even the

16 beginning of the end—to the Vienna-based Lautenberg-Specter program.

17

33. First, Lautenberg-Specter applicants arriving in Vienna began to experience

18 slower processing times.

19

34. Then, in January 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13769—the first

20 of many Executive actions taken by the Trump Administration in an attempt to ban refugees

21 from the United States. In response, and fearing that the United States would no longer allow

22 Iranians who travelled to Vienna for processing to depart for the United States, Austria revoked

23 the visas of Vienna Lautenberg-Specter applicants who had not yet left Iran and refused to issue

24 visas to new applicants.

25

26

27 28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

6

Nina Shea, America Shouldn’t Send Endangered Religious Minority Refugees Back to Iran, Hudson

Institute (Mar. 14, 2018), https://www.hudson.org/research/14210-america-shouldn-t-send-endangered-religious-

minority-refugees-back-to-iran; Department of State, July-December, 2010 International Religious Freedom Report,

Appendix G, https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2010_5/168190.htm.

COMPLAINT
8

Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 10 of 22

1

35. After Executive Order 13769 was enjoined by the courts, President Trump issued

2 Executive Order 13780, which again sought to ban refugees from the United States. The courts

3 enjoined that Executive Order too, although the Supreme Court allowed it to take effect with

4 respect to refugees without bona fide relationships to persons or entities in the United States

5 pending appeal. Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017).

6 The Supreme Court instructed that a person with a “close familial relationship” to a U.S. person

7 has a bona fide relationship. Id. at 2088. The Administration initially limited the application of

8 “close familial relationship” to parents, parents-in-law, spouses, fiancés, children, adult sons or

9 daughters, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, siblings (whole or half), and step-relationships, but the

10 Ninth Circuit held that grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles,

11 nieces, nephews, and cousins must be included within the meaning of a “close familial

12 relationship.” See Hawai’i v. Trump, 871 F.3d 646, 658-59 (9th Cir. 2017).

13

36. When Executive Order 13780 expired, the Administration issued an agency

14 memorandum in October 2017 suspending refugee processing and admissions for nationals of

15 certain countries, including Iran. On December 23, 2017, the Western District of Washington

16 enjoined this suspension for refugees with bona fide relationships.

17

37. In January 2018, the Administration announced further changes to refugee

18 processing that affect Iranian nationals. Although there is yet little known about the content of

19 those changes, one change mandated was to issue supplementary guidance and to train DHS

20 officers on when it may be appropriate to deny refugee applicants as a matter of discretion based

21 on the totality of the circumstances.

22

38. By February 2018, Defendants had marooned approximately 100 Vienna

23 Lautenberg Specter applicants (including both primary applicants and derivative relatives) in

24 Austria, having stalled their applications for nearly one year.

25

39. On or around February 19, 2018, DHS issued denials to approximately 87 of the

26 100 Iranian Lautenberg-Specter applicants who were in Vienna awaiting a decision on their

27 applications. At minimum, 38 of the applicants, including the Plaintiffs Does 3, 4 and 5, and

28 their derivative relatives named on their applications, received identical Notices of Ineligibility.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

COMPLAINT
9

Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 11 of 22

1 On information and belief, additional applicants—other members of the putative class—also

2 received the same Notices of Ineligibility as part of the mass denial.

3

40. The Notices of Ineligibility that the Plaintiffs received as part of the mass denial

4 was a notice with seven checkboxes, issued by the RAIO Directorate within USCIS. The first

5 six checkboxes of the Notice of Ineligibility identify specific grounds of ineligibility, some of

6 which have additional line items and space for further explaining that ground of ineligibility.

7 The seventh box is a catchall box: “OTHER REASON(S).”

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

COMPLAINT
10

Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 12 of 22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

41. DHS did not select any of the first six checkboxes, and instead, DHS selected the

22 seventh checkbox. In the space provided, DHS wrote identical language in all of the Plaintiffs’

23 Notices of Ineligibility:

“After review of all the information concerning your case,

24

including your testimony, supporting documentation, background

checks, country conditions, and other available information, your

25

application for refugee resettlement to the United States under INA

§207 has been denied as a matter of discretion.” (Emphasis added). 26

27

42. DHS provided no further reasons for the denial in these Notices of Ineligibility

28 and failed to state the reason for the denial “to the maximum extent feasible,” as it is expressly

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

COMPLAINT
11

Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 13 of 22

1 required to do under the Lautenberg Amendment. The denials not only failed to meet that

2 statutory standard, but also fell short of USCIS regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16) and USCIS

3 Adjudicators’ Field Manual, which contain instructions for disclosing to the applicant the basis

4 of a negative decision on an immigration benefit application.

5

43. The USCIS policy manual on discretion, dated December 2012, also mandates

6 that absent any negative factors, discretion must be exercised positively. When discretion is

7 exercised negatively, the “decision must contain a complete analysis of the factors considered in

8 exercising discretion, with a specific and cogent explanation of why you exercised discretion

9 negatively.”

10

44. Notably, although DHS has indicated when a denial is security-related in denials

11 that it has issued in other refugee programs, these Notices of Ineligibility did not indicate that the

12 denials were security-related. Nor did the Notices indicate that the denials were based on

13 inadmissibility, such as criminal or security-related grounds of inadmissibility.

14

45. The Notices of Ineligibility also informed the Vienna Lautenberg-Specter

15 applicants that they have 90 days from the date of the notice to submit a Request for Review

16 (“RFR”) of their application and that USCIS will accept only one request that is postmarked or

17 received by that date.

18

46. The Notices of Ineligibility direct the applicant to set forth in the RFR: “(1) a

19 detailed account explaining how a significant error was made by the adjudicating officer, or (2)

20 new information that would merit a change in the determination.” For refugee applicants who

21 received Notices of Ineligibility dated February 19, 2018, the deadline to submit a RFR is May 20,

22 2018.

23

47. USCIS has reported in the past that RFRs are frequently determined in favor of the

24 applicant. But because Plaintiffs’ and putative class members’ Notices of Ineligibility do not

25 include any information on why their refugee applications were denied, it does not provide them

26 with any information with which they could in fact pursue a RFR. In effect, Plaintiffs have no

27 way of pursuing the administrative review process that Defendants themselves created and offered.

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

COMPLAINT
12

Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 14 of 22

1

48. On information and belief, Defendants adopted and implemented program

2 changes to the Vienna Lautenberg-Specter program for Iranians that are currently in effect and

3 caused this mass denial of refugee applications. The U.S. State Department has confirmed in

4 response to media requests that changes to the program caused the mass denials and the drop in

5 the admission rate under the program.7 The program changes were final agency actions that had

6 direct legal consequences for nearly 90 refugee applicants and their family members.

7

49. Neither DHS nor DOS, nor any other agency, engaged in notice and comment

8 rulemaking before implementing the program changes.

9

50. Neither DHS nor DOS, nor any other agency, has provided a reasoned

10 explanation for the program changes.

11

D. Named Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members Have Been Harmed By the

12

Mass Denials

13

51. Named Plaintiffs and putative class members in Vienna are now in a dire

14 situation. Even though the principal refugee applicants and the U.S. ties signed a contract with

15 HIAS stating that the refugee applicants would be permitted to stay in Austria while they pursue

16 RFRs, the refugee applicants’ visas have expired and they are at risk of being deported to Iran.

17

52. Plaintiffs’ fears of deportation to Iran are reasonable. Iranian religious minorities

18 who return to Iran after seeking refugee status in the United States are particularly vulnerable to

19 governmental harassment, imprisonment, and abuse due to their attempt to flee the country.

20

1. Does 1 & 3

21

53. Jane Doe 1 (“Doe 1”) is a U.S. Citizen residing in San Jose, California, who

22 sponsored the Vienna Lautenberg-Specter applications of her diabetic daughter, Jane Doe 3

23 (“Doe 3”), and Doe 3’s eight-year-old son, each of whom are Mandaean.

24

54. Doe 1, her husband, and four of her five children came to the United States

25 through the Vienna Lautenberg-Specter program between 2004 and 2008. Based on that

26 experience, Doe 1, Doe 3, and their family believed that the program would provide a path for

27 28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

7

Shea, see supra; Miriam Jordan, Spurned by U.S. and Facing Danger Back Home, Iranian Christians Fear

the Worst, New York Times (Mar. 1, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/us/iranian-christian-

refugees.html.

COMPLAINT
13

Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 15 of 22

1 Doe 3 and Doe 3’s son to escape religious discrimination against Mandaeans in Iran and safely

2 reunite with their family in America. Doe 1 is very close with her daughter Doe 3. They are best

3 friends and speak nearly every day. Due to their Mandaean religion, Doe 3 faced religious

4 discrimination in Iran, including people throwing rocks during religious baptisms and her son

5 being expelled from school for his religion.

6

55. Doe 1 submitted an application for the Vienna Lautenberg Specter program on

7 behalf of Doe 3 and her grandson and paid a $5,200 deposit to HIAS to cover the administrative

8 fee and her daughter and grandson’s living expenses during what she thought would be a short

9 stay in Vienna. Doe 3 received her visa to travel from Iran to Vienna on or around October 25,

10 2016. Before leaving Iran, Doe 3 and her husband gave up their apartment and sold their

11 appliances because they believed she was never coming back.

12

56. Once in Vienna, Doe 3 was interviewed twice by Defendant DHS. Contrary to

13 their expectations, on February 19, 2018, Doe 3 and her son received Notices of Ineligibility with

14 language identical to that detailed in paragraphs 40 and 41 above—i.e., they were “denied as a

15 matter of discretion.” The lack of explanation in the denial has critically impaired their ability to

16 submit a meritorious RFR of the denial. In fact, when Doe 3 submitted an RFR shortly

17 thereafter, it was denied on the basis that it failed to provide new information or identify an error

18 in the original denial.

19

57. The trauma of the denials has had grievous physical and psychological

20 repercussions for Does 1, 3, and their family. Doe 1 was devastated by the denial; she can barely

21 sleep, has become depressed, and her blood pressure fluctuates. Doe 3 is terrified of retaliation

22 in Iran if her and her family are forced to return after fleeing to the United States as a refugee and

23 has become depressed as well.

24

2. Does 2 & 4

25

58. John Doe 2 (“Doe 2”) is a U.S. Citizen residing in West Chicago, Illinois, who

26 sponsored the Lautenberg-Specter applications for his mother, Jane Doe 4 (“Doe 4”), and his

27 developmentally disabled youngest brother. Doe 4’s oldest son was separately sponsored by

28 another brother in the U.S. and is similarly stranded in Vienna with Doe 4.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

COMPLAINT
14

Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 16 of 22

1

59. Doe 2 and two of his siblings came to the United States through the Vienna-based

2 Lautenberg Specter program and therefore he believed that the program would allow his mother

3 and youngest brother to come to the United States for freedom to practice their Mandaean

4 religion and access to humane medical care for his youngest brother. Doe 2 and Doe 4 are very

5 close and usually speak every other day. The entire family is Mandaean and Doe 4 faced

6 religious discrimination in Iran, including watching her children face difficulties enrolling in

7 school and finding jobs due to pervasive prejudice against Mandaeans.

8

60. Doe 2 submitted an application for the Vienna Lautenberg Specter Program on

9 behalf of his mother and youngest brother and deposited approximately $8,600 with HIAS to

10 cover the application fee and care and maintenance expenses for his mother and youngest brother

11 while in Vienna, including an extra $3,000 to cover his brother’s heightened needs. Before

12 leaving Iran in the fall of 2016, Doe 4 sold all of her belongings because she believed she would

13 not return.

14

61. Once in Vienna, Doe 4 was interviewed by Defendant DHS, completed two

15 medical checks, and was scheduled to attend a cultural orientation. HIAS told Doe 4 that her

16 case was a priority because of her son’s disability.

17

62. On February 19, 2018, however, Doe 4 received a Notice of Ineligibility with

18 language identical to that detailed in paragraphs 40 and 41 above—i.e., they were “denied as a

19 matter of discretion.” Her youngest son received an identical denial letter around that time, as

20 did her oldest son. The lack of explanation in the denials critically impairs their ability to submit

21 meritorious RFRs. Doe 4 submitted letters from her and Doe 2 to HIAS asking to be resettled to

22 the United States, but they were denied shortly thereafter on the basis that the letters failed to

23 provide new information or identify an error in the original denial.

24

63. Doe 2 was very distressed to learn of the denials and is concerned about Doe 4

25 and his brothers’ dire living situation in Vienna. Doe 4 is scared to leave her apartment in

26 Vienna and barely has money for rent and diapers for her youngest son. HIAS told Doe 4 that

27 she may soon need to move to a refugee camp with her youngest son. Doe 4 is concerned about

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

COMPLAINT
15

Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 17 of 22

1 retaliation if forced to return to Iran because they may be viewed as spies for HIAS, a Jewish

2 organization.

3

3. Doe 5

4

64. Jane Doe 5 (“Doe 5”) is a national of Iran and a Christian of Armenian ethnic

5 descent. She has been stranded in Vienna with her elderly father and mentally and physically

6 disabled son for over one year.

7

65. Doe 5’s sister-in-law submitted an application on behalf of Doe 5 and Doe 5’s

8 father and son because Doe 5 believed that the Lautenberg-Specter program would be a way for

9 her and her family to flee religious persecution in Iran, which intensified after she was widowed,

10 and to reunite with her in-laws in the United States.

11

66. Before leaving Iran, Doe 5 sold most of the family’s possessions because she

12 believed they would not be returning. She spent approximately $1,500 on flights and travel

13 expenses and paid about $1,000 to ship personal belongings to family in the United States.

14

67. In or around February 2017, shortly after she had arrived in Vienna, Doe 5 was

15 interviewed by Defendant DHS and completed medical checks. In April 2017, Doe 5’s father

16 was approved for resettlement in the United States, but he did not want to travel without Doe 5

17 and her son.

18

68. Then, on February 19, 2018, Doe 5, her father, and her son all received Notices of

19 Ineligibility with identical language to that detailed in paragraphs 40 and 41 above—i.e., they

20 were “denied as a matter of discretion.” The lack of explanation in the denial critically impairs

21 Doe 5’s ability to submit a meritorious RFR before the 90-day deadline, which for Doe 5 and her

22 family is May 20.

23

69. The denials have left Doe 5 and her family in terrible circumstances. Doe 5’s son

24 currently lacks medical care for his repeated epileptic attacks and congenital hydrocephalus, and

25 the family has run out of savings. Doe 5 is concerned about deportation to Iran, where she fears

26 imprisonment or torture in retaliation for fleeing as refugees and for associating with HIAS, a

27 Jewish organization.

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

COMPLAINT
16

Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 18 of 22

1 VI. CLASS ALLEGATIONS

2

70. Plaintiffs bring Counts 1-4 and 6 of this action as a class action pursuant to

3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated

4 persons. This class includes:

5

All Iranian refugees who (1) applied for refugee admission to the

United States under the Lautenberg Amendment, whether as a

6

principal applicant or derivative relatives; (2) traveled to Vienna,

Austria, for processing; and (3) received denials from the United

7

States government in or after February 2018 with the sole

8

explanation that their application was denied “as a matter of

discretion,” and their U.S.-based Close Family Members who

9

served as their U.S. ties.

10

71. “Close Family Member” as used in the class definition is defined as parents,

11 parents-in-law, spouses, fiancés, children, adult sons or daughters, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law,

12 siblings (whole or half), and step-relationships, grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law,

13 sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins.

14

72. Separate subclasses may be appropriate for the proposed class defined above.

15

73. Joinder is impracticable not only because the proposed class is so numerous, but

16 also because many members of the proposed class are currently in Vienna, Austria and are both

17 physically and financially unable to access the U.S. court system to pursue an action on their

18 own.

19

74. The members of the proposed class share common issues of fact and law,

20 including but not limited to: (1) whether the Notices of Ineligibility denying refugee status “as a

21 matter of discretion” violate the Lautenberg and Specter Amendments, the Administrative

22 Procedure Act, and the Accardi doctrine; (2) whether relief is available under those provisions

23 and the Mandamus Act; and (3) whether the undisclosed program change violated the

24 Administrative Procedure Act.

25

75. The claims or defenses of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims or

26 defenses of members of the proposed class.

27

76. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the

28 proposed class and any subclasses. The named Plaintiffs have no interest that is now or may

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

COMPLAINT
17

Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 19 of 22

1 later be antagonistic to the interests of the proposed class. The attorneys representing the

2 Plaintiffs include experienced attorneys who are considered able practitioners in federal civil

3 litigation, including complex litigation, and should be appointed class counsel.

4

77. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the proposed class,

5 thereby making final injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate to the class as a whole. The

6 proposed class may therefore be properly certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

7 VII. CAUSES OF ACTION

8

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

9

(On Behalf of All Plaintiffs, Including the Class, Against All Defendants)

10

78. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation

11 contained in paragraphs 1 through 77 above.

12

79. An actual controversy exists between the parties, because the Defendants seek to

13 rely upon the Notices of Ineligibility issued to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs seek a determination that

14 those Notices of Ineligibility are invalid and unlawful.

15

80. For the reasons stated herein and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201-02, Plaintiffs ask

16 the Court to declare that the Notices of Ineligibility issued to them were unlawful.

17

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT & ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

18

(On Behalf of All Plaintiffs, including the Class, Against DHS Defendants)

19

81. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation

20 contained in paragraphs 1 through 80 above.

21

82. Each of the Notices of Ineligibility issued to Plaintiffs is a final agency action that

22 violates the Lautenberg Amendment. 8 U.S.C. § 1157 (note).

23

83. The Notices should therefore be set aside as unlawful under 5 U.S.C. § 702 and 5

24 U.S.C. § 706(2).

25

84. In issuing the Notices of Ineligibility, Defendants unlawfully withheld action

26 required by the Lautenberg Amendment, 8 U.S.C. § 1157 (note), and therefore the Court should

27 compel agency action unlawfully withheld under 5 U.S.C. § 702 and 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

COMPLAINT
18

Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 20 of 22

1

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

ACCARDI DOCTRINE & ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

2

(On Behalf of All Plaintiffs, Including the Class, Against DHS Defendants)

3

85. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation

4 contained in paragraphs 1 through 84 above.

5

86. Each of the Notices of Ineligibility issued to Plaintiffs is a final agency action that

6 violate agency procedures, including those at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16).

7

87. The Notices should therefore be set aside under the principle articulated in United

8 States ex. rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954).

9

88. The Notices should also be set aside as unlawful under 5 U.S.C. § 702 and 5

10 U.S.C. § 706(2).

11

89. In issuing the Notices of Ineligibility, Defendants unlawfully withheld action

12 required by the agency procedures and therefore the Court should compel agency action

13 unlawfully withheld under 5 U.S.C. § 702 and 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).

14

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

MANDAMUS ACT

15

(On Behalf of All Plaintiffs, including the Class, Against DHS Defendants)

16

90. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation

17 contained in paragraphs 1 through 89 above.

18

91. Plaintiffs are entitled to a writ of mandamus under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C.

19 § 1361, to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a

20 duty owed to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have no other means to compel Defendants to perform the

21 statutory duties owed to them under the Lautenberg Amendment and the duties imposed on them

22 by their agency procedures.

23

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

24

(On Behalf of Does 1 and 2 Against DHS Defendants)

25

92. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation

26 contained in paragraphs 1 through 91 above.

27

93. Does 1 and 2 have a liberty interest in the companionship and society of their

28 family members who are now stranded in Vienna.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

COMPLAINT
19

Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 21 of 22

1

94. Defendants’ conduct in depriving Does 1 and 2 of their liberty interest violates the

2 Procedural Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

3

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

4

(On Behalf of All Plaintiffs, including the Class, Against All Defendants)

5

95. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation

6 contained in paragraphs 1 through 94 above.

7

96. Defendants’ conduct violates the Administrative Procedure Act because the

8 program changes that resulted in the mass denials constitute final agency actions that were

9 unlawful, including because they were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in

10 accordance with law.” The agency actions should therefore be set aside pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §

11 702 and 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).

12 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
13 WHEREFORE the petitioners respectfully request that the Court:
14 A. Certify the proposed Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;
15 B. Declare that Notices of Ineligibility stating that Plaintiffs’ refugee applications are
16 denied as “as a matter of discretion,” without further statement of the reason for the denial, fail to
17 comply with the Lautenberg Amendment and applicable agency procedures;
18 C. Order injunctive and equitable relief requiring Defendants to comply with the
19 Lautenberg Amendment and applicable agency procedures, including by reissuing Notices of
20 Ineligibility that “state, to the maximum extent feasible, the reason for the denial” and that give
21 an opportunity to submit Requests for Reviews based on the reissued Notices;
22 D. Declare unlawful the program changes that resulted in the mass denials;
23 E. Set aside as unlawful the program changes that resulted in the mass denials and
24 any subsequent agency actions that relied on such unlawful program changes;
25 F. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for this action; and
26 G. Grant any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
27

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

COMPLAINT
20

Case 5:18-cv-02349 Document 1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 22 of 22

1 Dated: April 18, 2018 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
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Belinda S Lee LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Belinda S Lee Oliver Rocos Thomas Golding Ariel E. Rogers INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT Mariko Hirose* Kathryn C. Meyer* * pro hac vice applications forthcoming Attorneys for Plaintiffs Does 1-5
COMPLAINT
21

 
 Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 1 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

SAN JOSE DIVISION

5

6 JANE DOE 1, ET AL.,

7

Plaintiffs,

8

v.

9 KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, et al.,

10

Defendants.

11

Case No. 18-cv-02349-BLF
ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; AND (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[Re: ECF 25, 60]

12

13

This Court recognizes the limits of judicial reviewability, including the longstanding

14 principle that no court has the authority to examine the decision to let aliens into the United States

15 absent express authorization from Congress. But that is not what this case is about. The narrow

16 issue presented in this case is whether the content of Notices of Ineligibility issued by the

17 Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) denying the applications of approximately 87 Iranian

18 refugees failed to comply with the Lautenberg Amendment and other applicable law.

19

For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims are suitable for class

20 resolution, and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Court also GRANTS

21 Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the Notices of Ineligibility denying

22 Plaintiffs’ refugee applications “as a matter of discretion” violate the Lautenberg Amendment and

23 the Accardi doctrine. As discussed below, the Court sets aside the February 2018 Notices of

24 Ineligibility pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706(2). DHS is ORDERED to issue notices containing

25 their determinations to re-open processing or to deny Plaintiffs’ refugee applications within 14

26 days of this Order. The Court takes no position on, and has no authority to review, the ultimate

27 determination of Plaintiffs’ applications, so long as any re-issued Notices comply with the

28 Lautenberg Amendment and agency procedures.

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 2 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 I. BACKGROUND

2

Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against DHS1 challenging what Plaintiffs describe

3 as an unprecedented mass denial of refugee status to approximately 87 Iranian Christians,

4 Mandaeans, and other religious minorities who had applied for entry into the United States under

5 the Vienna-based Lautenberg-Specter program and were told without further explanation that their

6 applications were “denied as a matter of discretion.” The five named Plaintiffs are three Iranian

7 refugees currently in Vienna, Austria, and two United States citizens who served as the U.S. tie for 8 two of the named Plaintiffs.2 The operative Complaint was filed on April 18, 2018, setting forth

9 six claims for relief challenging the content of the Notices of Ineligibility issued to Plaintiffs in

10 February 2018, which Plaintiffs argue fail to comply with the Lautenberg Amendment and

11 applicable agency procedures. See generally ECF 1 (“Compl.”). In light of the time-sensitive

12 nature of Plaintiffs’ claims, the Court set an expedited briefing and hearing schedule on Plaintiffs’

13 motions for class certification and partial summary judgment. ECF 59. The Court held a hearing

14 on Plaintiffs’ motions on June 22, 2018.

15

Before addressing the merits of Plaintiffs’ motions and DHS’s overarching defense that

16 Plaintiffs’ claims are not justiciable, the Court provides an overview of the law governing the

17 admission of Iranian refugees to the United States and the personal experiences of the named

18 Plaintiffs.

19

A. Refugee Admission and The Lautenberg Amendment

20

The admission of refugees to the United States is authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1157, which

21 provides in relevant part that the “Attorney General may, in the Attorney General’s discretion . . .

22 admit any refugee who is not firmly resettled in any foreign country, is determined to be of special

23 humanitarian concern to the United States, and is admissible . . . as an immigrant.” 8 U.S.C.

24 § 1157(c)(1). By its plain text, the statute commits refugee admission to agency discretion—

25

26

1 For purposes of this Order, “DHS” or “Defendants” refer to Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, Director L. Francis Cissna, and Assistant Director Jennifer B. Higgins.

27

Plaintiffs also bring Count 6 against the Department of State Defendants, but that claim for relief is not before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. See Compl. ¶¶ 95-96.

28

2 The Court previously granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to proceed under pseudonyms. See ECF 55.

2

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 3 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 authority that now rests with the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. See 6 U.S.C.

2 § 557. Accordingly, no foreign individual is entitled to resettlement in the United States under

3 this statute. Moreover, § 1157 is silent with respect to judicial review of refugee status

4 determinations. Courts have thus held that the absence of procedures for judicial review in section

5 1157 “demonstrate a Congressional intent to preclude judicial review at the behest of aliens

6 beyond the borders of the United States.” Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 953 F.2d 1498, 1506

7 (11th Cir. 1992). The promulgated regulations similarly do not provide for any formal appeal of a

8 refugee status determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 207.4 (“There is no appeal from a denial of refugee 9 status under this chapter.”) 

10

In 1989, Congress enacted the Lautenberg Amendment as part of the FY1990 Foreign

11 Operations Appropriations Act in order to facilitate the refugee admission of persecuted categories

12 of individuals to the United States. See P.L. 101-167, Tile V, § 599D, 103 Stat. 1195 (1989). The

13 Amendment designated categories of individuals for whom less evidence would be needed to

14 establish refugee status, including Jews and Christians from the Former Soviet Union. Congress

15 passed the Specter Amendment in 2004, adding Iranian religious minorities to the enumerated

16 categories of individuals eligible for the Lautenberg Amendment’s special protections. P.L. 108-

17 199, Division E, Title II, § 213. Congress has reauthorized the Lautenberg and Specter

18 Amendments as recently as March 23, 2018. Pub. L. 115-141, §7034(k)(5), 103 Stat. 135 (2018).

19

Nothing in the Lautenberg Amendment or Specter Amendment explicitly alters the

20 discretionary authority of DHS to grant or deny refugee applications pursuant to § 1157.3

21 However, the Lautenberg Amendment requires that “[e]ach decision to deny an application for

22 refugee status of an alien who is within a category established under this section shall be in writing

23 and shall state, to the maximum extent feasible, the reason for the denial.” P.L. 101-167, Title V,

24 § 559D; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c) (note).

25

26 3 The Court notes that Plaintiffs have provided legislative history indicating that the discretion to

27

deny applications under the Lautenberg Amendment “is extremely limited in scope—that is only for the isolated case which cannot now be foreseen—in which a conferral of refugee status, would

28

not be appropriate, or otherwise not in the national interest[.]” Declaration of Belinda S. Lee (“Lee Summary Judgment Decl.”), Exh. A, ECF 26-1.

3

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 4 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

In practice, persecuted religious minorities in Iran seeking admission to the United States

2 may apply for refugee status under the Vienna-based Lautenberg-Specter Program. See

3 Declaration of Samuel Witten (“Witten Class Cert. Decl.”) ¶ 4, ECF 63. The application process

4 for the Lautenberg-Specter Program begins with an individual lawfully living in the United States,

5 called a “U.S. tie,” who submits an application on behalf of a member of an Iranian religious

6 minority seeking refugee status. Id. ¶ 7. The U.S. tie undergoes significant expense by entering

7 into a contract to pay for all costs associated with the application, including administrative fees

8 and living expenses in Vienna for the applicant while applications are under review. Id. Such

9 expenses include paying a deposit of between $2,600 and $3,000, or more depending on the

10 unique circumstances, per refugee applicant. See Declaration of Jane Doe 1 (“Doe 1 Decl.”) ¶ 5,

11 ECF 65; Declaration of John Doe 2 (“Doe 2 Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF 66; Declaration of Jane Doe 5 (“Doe

12 5 Decl.”) ¶ 7, ECF 69. These costs are a financial burden and hardship on many U.S. ties, who are

13 often sponsoring several refugee applicants in a family. Id.

14

Because the United States does not have an embassy in Iran, the Austrian Government

15 interacts with the Iranian applicants at the Austrian Embassy in Tehran. Witten Class Cert. Decl.

16 ¶ 8. After an Austrian official meets with the applicant in Iran and the applicant passes an initial

17 screen, the Austrian embassy issues a visa to eligible refugee applicants for the purpose of

18 traveling to Vienna, Austria to continue to processing of the refugee application by U.S.

19 authorities. Id. At this point in the process, the refugee applicants do not anticipate ever returning

20 to Iran where they face religious persecution, and typically sell almost all of their possessions

21 before leaving. See Declaration of Jane Doe 3 (“Doe 3 Decl.”) ¶ 10, ECF 67; Declaration of Jane

22 Doe 4 (“Doe 4 Decl.”) ¶ 12, ECF 68; Doe 5 Decl. ¶ 9.

23

Once the applicant has traveled to Austria, the program is managed by the U.S. State

24 Department who has contracted with HIAS, a non-profit organization founded as the Hebrew

25 Immigrant Aid Society, to operate a refugee Resettlement Support Center in Vienna. Witten Class

26 Cert. Decl. ¶¶ 5, 9. Applicants are ultimately interviewed by officers from the U.S. Citizenship

27 and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), of the Department of Homeland Security, who reviews and

28 adjudicates the refugee applications. Id. Before traveling to the United States, applicants undergo 4

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 5 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 medical screening, attend cultural orientation, and receive an assurance of sponsorship from a

2 resettlement agency in the U.S. that agrees to assist with resettlement. Id. If granted admission by

3 DHS, the applicant then travels to the United States.

4

B. Named Plaintiffs and the February 2018 Notices of Ineligibility

5

Despite the historically high approval rate of refugee applications under the Lautenberg-

6 Specter Program, processing of refugee applicants who had already traveled to Vienna under the 7 program began to stall in the fall of 2016. See Lee Summary Judgment Decl., Exh. E, ECF 26-5.4

8 In January 2017, President Trump began issuing Executive Orders and policies restricting the

9 entry into the U.S. of foreign nationals from designated countries, including Iran, that had been

10 previously identified by Congress or prior administrations as posing a heightened risk of terrorism. 11 See Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, 2018 WL 3116337, at *5 (U.S. June 26, 2018).5 Due to the

12 uncertainty that resulted from the first Executive Order regarding the admission of Iranian

13 immigrants and refugees into the United States, Austria stopped issuing visas to Iranian applicants

14 in the Lautenberg-Specter program. See Lee Summary Judgment Decl., Exh. H, ECF 26-8.

15 Although the admission of refugees from Iran to the U.S. did not completely come to a halt, in just

16 one year the rate of admission has slowed from 1,061 in the first quarter of FY2017 (October-

17 December 2016) to 29 in the first quarter of FY2018 (October-December 2017), down to 2

18 admissions in the most recent quarter of FY 2018 (January-March 2018). See Lee Summary

19 Judgment Decl. Exh. I at 1, 12, 14, ECF 26-9.

20

In particular, this case centers around Notices of Ineligibility issued by USCIS on or about

21 February 19, 2018, denying the applications of approximately 87 of the 100 Lautenberg-Specter

22

23

4 To put the success of the program in perspective, approximately 30,000 Iranians have resettled in the United States under the Lautenberg Amendment. See Lee Summary Judgment Decl. Exh. F,

24

ECF 26-6; see also Lee Class Cert. Decl. Exhs. D-E, ECF 61. Prior to the fall of 2016, processing of refugee applications in Vienna took only a few months from the date of the applicant’s arrival

25

in Vienna, and nearly 100% of refugees eligible for the Lautenberg-Specter Program were accepted for admission to the U.S. See Lee Summary Judgment Decl., Exhs. E-F; Witten

26

Summary Judgment Decl. ¶ 11, ECF 27. 5 The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. Hawaii came down a few days after the

27

hearing on Plaintiffs’ pending motions in this case. Although the Court does not find that Trump v. Hawaii impacts the legal issues raised in Plaintiffs’ motions, the President’s restrictions on the

28

admission of foreign nationals from Iran is highly relevant to the factual context in which Plaintiffs’ claims arise.

5

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 6 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 refugee applicants who had already traveled to Vienna under the program. See Lee Summary

2 Judgment Decl. Exh E; see also Declaration of Joanna Ruppel (“Ruppel Decl.”) ¶ 4, ECF 71-1,

3 72-1. Individuals familiar with the Lautenberg-Specter program represent that such a “mass

4 denial” of refugee admissions represents an “extreme departure from how the program has run in

5 the past and certainly is inconsistent with the way the program has operated under both

6 Democratic and Republican Administrations.” Declaration of Samuel Witten (“Witten Summary

7 Judgment Decl.”) ¶ 12, ECF 27.

8

Three of the five named Plaintiffs in this case are Iranian refugee applicants who were

9 handed the February 2018 Notices of Ineligibility at issue after they had already left their homes in 10 Iran and traveled to Vienna under the Lautenberg-Specter Program.6 The Notices of Ineligibility

11 form that Plaintiffs received contained seven checkbox options for explaining the reason for

12 determining that the applicant is not eligible for resettlement to the United States. See Doe 3 Decl.

13 Exh A; Doe 4 Decl. Exh. A; Doe 5 Decl. Exh. A. The Notices issued to Plaintiffs checked only

14 the seventh box titled “OTHER REASON(S)” and provided as follows:

15

After review of all the information concerning your case, including

16

your testimony, supporting documentation, background checks,

country conditions, and other available information, your

17

application for refugee resettlement to the United States under [8

U.S.C. § 1157] has been denied as a matter of discretion. 18
See id.; see also Bates Decl. ¶ 9.

19 The Notices of Ineligibility also advised the applicants of the availability of an informal

20 request for review (“RFR”) process, stating:

21

22

Based on the reason or reasons indicated above, your request for resettlement to the United States is denied. There is no appeal

23

from a denial of an application for refugee status. USCIS may

exercise its discretion to review a case upon timely receipt of a

24

request for review from the principal applicant. The request must

include one or both of the following: (1) a detailed account

25

explaining how a significant error was made by the adjudicating

26

officer or (2) new information that would merit a change in the

27 6 Plaintiffs present evidence that the applications of at least 38 of the 87 individuals denied

28

admission in February 2018 received identical Notices of Ineligibility. See Declaration of Adam Bates (“Bates Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF 64.

6

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 7 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

determination. Please note that if you provide new information in

1

your request for review, you must provide an explanation about

2

why you did not provide this information at the interview. USCIS

will only accept one request that is postmarked or received by

3

USCIS or the RSC within 90 days from the date of this notice.

4 See Doe 3 Decl. Exh. A; Doe 4 Decl. Exh. A; Doe 5 Decl. Exh. A; Bates Decl. ¶ 10.7

5 Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on April 18, 2018, seeking to represent a class

6 defined as:

7

All Iranian refugees who (1) applied for refugee admission to the

8

United States under the Lautenberg Amendment, whether as a

principal applicant or derivative relatives; (2) traveled to Vienna,

9

Austria, for processing; and (3) received denials from the United

States government in or after February 2018 with the sole

10

explanation that their application was denied “as a matter of

discretion,” and their U.S.-based Close Family Members who

11

served as their U.S. ties.

12 See Compl. ¶ 70.8 “Close Family Member” as used in the class definition is defined as parents,
13 parents-in-law, spouses, fiancés, children, adult sons or daughters, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law,
14 siblings (whole or half), and step-relationships, grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law,
15 sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins. Id. ¶ 71.
16 The representative Plaintiffs in this case, who have been granted permission to proceed
17 anonymously, are three Iranian refugee applicants currently in Vienna who received Notices of
18 Ineligibility in February 2018, and two U.S. ties for two of the named Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Jane
19 Doe 1 (“Doe 1”) is a U.S. citizen living in San Jose, California, who served as a U.S. tie for her
20 adult daughter, Plaintiff Jane Doe 3 (“Doe 3”), and young grandson, who are Mandaeans at risk of
21 religious persecution in Iran. See Doe 1 Decl. ¶¶ 1-2, 8-10. Doe 3 received a February 2018
22

23

24

7 During the course of this litigation, the parties stipulated to extend the deadline for putative class members to file or re-file their RFRs for an additional 120 days beyond the original deadline. See

25

ECF 54. DHS states in the opposition brief that USCIS will allow for receipt of one RFR that is postmarked or received by USCIS or the Resettlement Support Center no later than 120 days from

26

June 4, 2018, or 120 days from the date that the request for review was originally due—whichever is later. See Opp’n to MSJ at 4-5; Declaration of Stacey I. Young (“Young Decl.”), Exh. A., ECF

27

71-2. 8 Counts 1-4 and 6 of the Complaint are brought as a class action. Count 5 for violation of the due

28

process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is brought on behalf of the U.S. citizen Plaintiffs (Does 1 and 2) only.

7

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 8 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Notice of Ineligibility, which Doe 1 did not understand because their entire nuclear family had

2 previously resettled in the United States under the Lautenberg-Specter Program. Id. ¶ 10. Doe 3

3 and her son traveled to Vienna in the fall of 2016 and were interviewed twice by DHS, only to

4 receive the Notices of Ineligibility discussed above. See Doe 3 Decl. ¶¶ 9-10, 12-15.

5

Plaintiff John Doe 2 (“Doe 2”) is a U.S. citizen living in West Chicago, Illinois, who

6 served as a U.S. tie for his mother, Jane Doe 4 (“Doe 4”), and his disabled younger brother to

7 apply for resettlement in the U.S. under the Lautenberg-Specter Program. See Doe 2 Decl. ¶¶ 1, 4;

8 Doe 4 Decl. ¶¶ 5-6. As persecuted Mandaeans in Iran, Doe 4 and her sons traveled to Vienna in

9 the fall of 2016 where Doe 4 was interviewed by DHS, underwent two medical checks, and was

10 scheduled to attend a cultural orientation in preparation for resettlement to the U.S. See Doe 2

11 Decl. ¶¶ 5, 9; Doe 4 Decl. ¶¶ 9, 12-16. However, in February 2018, Doe 4 and her sons received

12 identical Notices of Ineligibility denying their refugee applications “as a matter of discretion.” Doe

13 4 Decl. ¶¶ 18, 21, Exh. A.

14

Jane Doe 5 (“Doe 5”) is an Iranian refugee applicant stranded in Vienna with her elderly

15 father and disabled son, all of whom received Notices of Ineligibility in February 2018. See Doe 5

16 Decl. ¶¶ 1, 11, Exh. A. Doe 5 is a Christian of Armenian descent who faced systemic

17 discrimination in Iran and applied for the Lautenberg-Specter Program with her sister-in-law as

18 her U.S. tie who paid thousands of dollars for Doe 5’s application and additional deposits for the

19 medical costs to care for Doe 5’s father and son. Id. ¶¶ 5, 7. Doe 5 traveled to Vienna in February

20 2017 and was interviewed by DHS about a week after she arrived. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. Doe 5’s father was

21 approved for resettlement in the United States in April 2017, but he did not want to travel without

22 Doe 5 and her son. Id. ¶ 12. Doe 5 as well as her father and son received identical Notices of

23 Ineligibility in February 2018, which effectively revoked Doe 5’s father’s previous approval for

24 resettlement. Id. ¶¶ 11-12.

25

On April 20, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on Claims 1-5

26 against DHS, requesting that the Court set aside the February 2018 Notices of Ineligibility as

27 unlawful. ECF 25 (“MSJ”). Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Class Certification on May

28 18, 2018. ECF 60 (“Class Cert. Mot.”). The Court held a hearing on June 22, 2018. 8

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 9 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 II. MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

2

A. Legal Standard

3

Recognizing that “[t]he class action is an exception to the usual rule that litigation is

4 conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only,” Federal Rule of Civil

5 Procedure 23 demands that two requirements be met before a court certifies a class. Comcast

6 Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426, 1432 (2013).

7

A party must first meet the requirements of Rule 23(a), which demands that the party

8 “prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact,

9 typicality of claims or defenses, and adequacy of representation.” Behrend, at 1432. If a party

10 meets Rule 23(a)’s requirements, the Court must also find that Plaintiffs have satisfied “through

11 evidentiary proof” one of the three subsections of Rule 23(b). Id. Here, Plaintiffs invoke

12 Rule 23(b)(2), which demands that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on

13 grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding

14 declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).

15

The party seeking class certification bears the burden of showing affirmative compliance

16 with Rule 23. See, e.g., Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011). A court’s

17 analysis of class certification must be “rigorous” and “may entail some overlap with the merits of

18 the plaintiff’s underlying claim[s],” Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S.Ct.

19 1184, 1194 (2013), though the merits can be considered only to the extent they are “relevant to

20 determining whether the Rule 23 prerequisites to class certification are satisfied.” Id. at 1195.

21 Within Rule 23’s framework, the district court ultimately maintains broad discretion over whether

22 to certify a class or subclass. See, e.g., Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 253 F.3d 1180,

23 1186 (9th Cir. 2001).

24

B. Discussion

25

Plaintiffs simultaneously move for class certification and partial summary judgment on

26 behalf of a class consisting of:

27

All Iranian refugees who (1) applied for refugee admission to the

28

United States under the Lautenberg Amendment, whether as a principal applicant or derivative relatives; (2) traveled to Vienna,

9

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 10 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

Austria, for processing; and (3) received denials from the United

1

States government in or after February 2018 with the sole

explanation that their application was denied “as a matter of

2

discretion,” and their U.S.-based Close Family Members who

served as their U.S. ties. 3

4 See Class Cert. Mot. at 1. The Court addresses Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification before

5 turning to the motion for partial summary judgment.

6

DHS argues that the proposed class definition is inadequate because Plaintiffs omit a

7 significant portion of USCIS’s articulated ineligibility basis provided in the Notices. See Opp’n to

8 Class Cert. Mot. at 9. This defect is easily remedied, and Plaintiffs argue that rather than decline

9 to certify the class the Court should modify the proposed class definition to include the full

10 language in all of the denials sent to class members. See Reply iso Class Cert. Mot. at 10, ECF 75.

11 For purposes of completeness, the Court finds that the class definition should state the full text of

12 the denial and include:

13

All Iranian refugees who (1) applied for refugee admission to the

14

United States under the Lautenberg Amendment, whether as a

principal applicant or derivative relatives; (2) traveled to Vienna,

15

Austria, for processing; and (3) received denials from the United

States government in or after February 2018 with the sole

16

explanation that: “After review of all information concerning your

case, including your testimony, supporting documentation,

17

background checks, country conditions, and other available

information, your application for refugee resettlement to the

18

United States under INA § 207 has been denied as a matter of

discretion,” and their U.S.-based Close Family Members who

19

served as their U.S. ties.

20 DHS’s primary argument in opposition to class certification is that Plaintiffs’ claims are
21 not justiciable because no aspect of the refugee application denials is entitled to judicial review.
22 See Opp’n to Class Cert. Mot. at 2, ECF 72. The Court addresses these arguments at length below
23 in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. 9 In sum, DHS’s justiciability
24 and nonreviewability arguments are not applicable to this case. Plaintiffs do not ask this Court to
25 review discretionary determinations of whether to allow an alien entry into the United States.
26

27 9 The nonreviewability arguments and cases cited by DHS in opposition to the class certification

28

motion are nearly identical to those arguments raised in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. Compare Opp’n to MSJ at 6-12 with Opp’n to Class Cert. Mot. at 9-15.

10

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 11 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Plaintiffs specifically request an order setting aside the Notices of Ineligibility as unlawful for

2 failing to state, “to the maximum extent feasible, the reason for the denial” as required by the

3 Lautenberg Amendment. Reply iso Class Cert. at 3. Accordingly, DHS’s arguments regarding

4 justiciability, the doctrine of nonreviewability, and the jurisdiction-stripping provision at 8 U.S.C.

5 § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)—although legally correct—are entirely irrelevant to the facts of this case.

6

Notwithstanding their justiciability and nonreviewability arguments, DHS does not

7 challenge Plaintiffs’ Article III and prudential standing to bring their claims. In any event, as

8 discussed below regarding the APA, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are more than “arguably” 9 within the “zone of interests” of the Refugee Act and Lautenberg and Specter Amendments.10 In

10 order to certify the class, the Court therefore need only consider whether Plaintiffs’ have met the

11 requirements under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). For the reasons that

12 follow, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have met the requirements of Rule 23 and the Court

13 GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the proposed class, as modified to include the full text of

14 the Notices of Ineligibility issued by DHS.

15

1. Rule 23(a)

16

Pursuant to Rule 23(a), the Court may only certify a class where “(1) the class is so

17 numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact

18 common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the

19 claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect

20 the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). DHS argues that Plaintiffs cannot show

21 commonality, typicality, or adequacy of representation. See Opp’n to Class Cert. Mot. at 8. The

22 Court disagrees, and finds that all prerequisites in Rule 23(a) are satisfied.

23

24

25 10 Plaintiffs also persuasively argue that the class can include foreign nationals living in Vienna, as

26

there is no legal basis for precluding a mixed class composed of U.S. plaintiffs and foreign nationals living abroad. See Takeda v. Turbodyne Techs., Inc., 67 F.Supp.2d 1129, 1139 (C.D.

27

Cal. 1999) (“It is evidence that there is no per se rule against the certification of a class whose members are both foreign and American investors.”); see also In re U.S. Fin. Sec. Litig., 69 F.R.D.

28

24, 51 (S.D. Cal. 1975) (nothing that “many class actions have been allowed to proceed despite the fact that at least some members of the class were foreigners.”)

11

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 12 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

i. Ascertainability and Numerosity

2

Before analyzing numerosity, district courts have required a showing that the class to be

3 certified is ascertainable. See Xavier v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 787 F. Supp. 2d 1075, 1089

4 (N.D. Cal. 2011); Ehret v. Uber Techs., Inc., 148 F. Supp. 3d 884, 889–90 (N.D. Cal. 2015).

5 Ascertainability requires that the class definition be “definite enough so that it is administratively

6 feasible for the court to ascertain whether an individual is a member” before trial, and by reference

7 to “objective criteria.” Daniel F. v. Blue Shield of Cal., 305 F.R.D. 115, 122 (N.D. Cal. 2014).

8 This requirement makes clear “whose rights are merged into the judgment, that is, who gets the

9 benefit of any relief and who gets the burden of any loss, and avoids subsequent litigation over

10 who was in the class in the first place.” Ehret, 148 F. Supp. at 889 (quoting Xavier, 787 F.Supp.2d

11 at 1089).

12

As for numerosity, Rule 23(a)(1) requires the proposed class to be “so numerous that

13 joinder of all members is impracticable.” “‘Impracticability’ does not mean ‘impossibility,’ but

14 only the difficulty or inconvenience of joining all members of the class.” Harris v. Palm Springs

15 Alpine Estates, Inc., 329 F.2d 909, 913-914 (9th Cir. 1964) (internal citation omitted). “While

16 there is no fixed number that satisfies the numerosity requirement, as a general matter, a class

17 greater than forty often satisfies the requirement, while one less than twenty-one does not.” Ries v.

18 Ariz. Beverages USA LLC, 287 F.R.D. 523, 536 (N.D. Cal. 2012); see also Ehret, 148 F. Supp. 3d

19 at 890.

20

With the exception of the objection that the proposed class is “imprecise,” as remedied

21 above, DHS does not challenge the proposed class with respect to ascertainability or numerosity.

22 Plaintiffs estimate that the class contains 87 refugee applicants in Vienna and their corresponding

23 U.S. ties. See Lee Class Cert. Decl. Exh D, E, ECF 61. Although the exact number of individuals

24 who received the Notices of Ineligibility in and around February 2018 is only known by the

25 Government, Plaintiffs are aware of at least 38 individuals (applicants and their derivative

26 relatives) who received the Notices. See Bates Decl. ¶ 6. These 38 individuals are sponsored by

27 16 corresponding U.S. ties who are “Close Family Members” under the class definition. Id.

28 Accordingly, there are 54 class members at a minimum, which is sufficiently numerous to satisfy 12

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 13 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Rule 23(a)(1). See Rannis v. Recchia, 380 F.App’x 646, 651 (9th Cir 2010) (holding that although

2 Supreme Court determined a class of 15 is too small, that analysis did not undermine the district

3 court’s discretion to certify a class of 20 members); see also Perez-Funes v. INS, 611 F.Supp.990,

4 995 (C.D. Cal. 1984) (holding that “[c]lasses consisting of 25 members have been held large

5 enough to justify certification.”)

6

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that membership in the proposed class is

7 objectively ascertainable and sufficiently numerous.

8

ii. Commonality

9

DHS challenges Plaintiffs’ ability to establish that there are “questions of law or fact

10 common to the class” as required by Rule 23(a)(2). See Opp’n to Class Cert. Mot. at 16-17.

11 “[C]ommonality requires that the class members’ claims depend upon a common contention such

12 that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each

13 claim in one stroke.” Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 765 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations

14 and internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, “the key inquiry is not whether the

15 plaintiffs have raised common questions, ‘even in droves,’ but rather whether class treatment will

16 ‘generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.’” Abdullah v. U.S. Sec.

17 Assocs., Inc., 731 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350) (emphasis in

18 original). The commonality requirement can be satisfied “by even a single question.” Trahan v.

19 U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. C 09-03111 JSW, 2015 WL 74139, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2015); see

20 also Gonzalez v. Sessions, No. 18-CV-01869-JSC, 2018 WL 2688569, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 5,

21 2018).

22

Commonality focuses on the relationship among class members. Plaintiffs argue that all

23 class members present the same set of factual circumstances and thus present the same common

24 question of law: whether the Notices of Ineligibility at issue violated the Lautenberg Amendment.

25 See Class Cert. Mot. at 15. All class members assert that DHS violated its obligations under the

26 Lautenberg Amendment and applicable agency guidelines and regulations. See generally

27

28 13

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 14 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Compl.11 Moreover, the class members seek the same legal remedy: a declaratory judgment, the

2 setting aside of the Notices of Ineligibility, and an order compelling DHS to re-issue

3 determinations on Plaintiffs’ refugee applications that comply with the law and permitting

4 Plaintiffs to submit RFRs, and an order setting aside unlawful program changes. Id.

5

DHS argues that Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate commonality because of the diverse

6 relationships that the proposed class presents. See Opp’n to Class Cert. at 16-17. DHS argues that

7 class members can be divided into two groups: one group of unadmitted and nonresident aliens

8 who applied for refugee status, and the other group of U.S. citizens who did not apply for refugee

9 status. Id. DHS argues that the law treats each group differently. However, this argument circles

10 back to the nonreviewability arguments that the Court rejects, as discussed below in connection

11 with Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. The Court agrees that an alien has “no

12 constitutional right of entry into the country,” but the non-citizen Plaintiffs do not seek entry or

13 review of a discretionary decision denying entry. The case pertains only to whether DHS

14 complied with the law in issuing the Notices of Ineligibility to Plaintiffs. The lines that DHS

15 attempts to draw with respect to U.S. citizens and aliens, and even among the group of U.S.

16 citizens based on their familial relationship to the refugee applicants, are misplaced for the same

17 reasons that the Court rejects the nonreviewability arguments below.

18

Although the refugee applicants may have factual bases for their claims that differ from the

19 U.S. ties, “[i]t is not necessary that “[a]ll questions of fact and law... be common to satisfy the

20 rule.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998). The Ninth Circuit has

21 found “[t]he existence of shared legal issues with divergent factual predicates is sufficient, as is a

22 common core of salient facts coupled with disparate legal remedies within the class.” Id. “[T]he

23 commonality requirements asks us to look only for some shared legal issue or a common core of

24 facts.” Id. Ultimately, commonality “requires the plaintiff to demonstrate the class members have

25 suffered the same injury.” Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1029 (9th Cir.

26 2012) (quoting Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at 2551). Plaintiffs have satisfied the commonality requirement,

27

28

11 Plaintiffs do not move for class certification on their Due Process claim, which is brought on behalf of Does 1 and 2 only.

14

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 15 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 as they share a common legal question: whether the Notices of Ineligibility violate the Lautenberg

2 Amendment and applicable agency regulations. Moreover, the relief provided below with respect

3 to Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment makes clear that commonality is satisfied, as

4 the relief is the same—the Notices of Ineligibility impacting each class member shall be set aside

5 and to the extent any Notice of Ineligibility is reissued it must comply with the law. DHS’s

6 argument that factual distinctions between the proposed class members will “change the outcome

7 of the legal issues” and will “impede the generation of common answers” is meritless. See Opp’n

8 to Class Cert. Mot. at 17. Commonality is satisfied.

9

iii. Typicality

10

Rule 23(a)(3)’s typicality requirement looks to whether Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of

11 those advanced by the class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). Typicality is “directed to ensuring that

12 plaintiffs are proper parties to proceed with the suit.” Reis v. Arizona Beverages USA, 287 F.R.D.

13 523, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2012). Thus, while commonality looks to the relationship between the class

14 members, typicality focuses on the relationship between the proposed class representatives and the

15 rest of the class. “The test of typicality is whether other members have the same or similar injury,

16 whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether

17 other class members have been injured by the same course of conduct.” Wolin v. Jaguar Land

18 Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks

19 omitted). The standard for typicality is permissive, requiring only that the claims of the class

20 representatives are “reasonably co-extensive with those of absent class members; they need not be

21 substantially identical.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998).

22

Similar to its position on commonality, DHS argues that typicality is not satisfied because

23 the alien-Plaintiffs and U.S. citizen-Plaintiffs are in fundamentally different positions that affect

24 the justiciability of their claims. See Opp’n to Class Cert Mot. at 18. DHS highlights this

25 argument by demonstrating that the proposed class includes familial relationships that are not

26 represented by the named Plaintiffs. Id. Without representation of the specific kind of family tie,

27 DHS argues that the class is not typical because “the type of family relationship has a profound

28 effect on the justiciability of the proposed class members’ claims.” Id. 15

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 16 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

Although DHS’s argument regarding familial relationships may have merit with respect to

2 Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action regarding Due Process rights, Plaintiffs do not seek to certify that

3 class and the Court does not reach the Due Process claim in its order on Plaintiffs’ motion for

4 partial summary judgment. See Compl. ¶¶ 92-94. The diverse familial relationships do not impact

5 the justiciability of Plaintiffs’ claims that the Notices of Ineligibility violated the Lautenberg

6 Amendment and Accardi doctrine. The argument that factual variations in individual cases

7 preclude typicality thus fails for similar reasons to those discussed above with respect to

8 commonality. See Gonzalez, No. 18-CV-01869-JSC, 2018 WL 2688569, at *6.

9

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims are “reasonably co-

10 extensive with the claims of the class” because they seek identical relief from an identical injury as

11 the absent class members. Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010).

12

iv. Adequacy of Representation

13

The final requirement of Rule 23(a) ensured that the class representative will “fairly and

14 adequately protect the interests of the class.” Rule 23(a)(4). This requirement is related to

15 typicality, and serves to protect the due process rights of absent class members who will be bound

16 by the judgment. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020. The adequacy of representation determination is

17 based on two inquiries: (1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest

18 with other class members; and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action

19 vigorously on behalf of the class? Id. at 1021; see also Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d

20 253, 268 (2d Cir. 2006) (“proposed class representative must have an interest in vigorously

21 pursuing the claims of the class, and must have no interests antagonistic to the interests of other

22 class members”).

23

DHS does not argue that any conflicts of interest exist. Rather, DHS repeats its defense

24 that the named Plaintiffs’ claims are not justiciable and thus they cannot vigorously prosecute the

25 action as required to adequately represent the proposed class. See Opp’n to Class Cert. Mot. at 19.

26 This justiciability argument fails for the reasons discussed in the Court’s order granting Plaintiffs’

27 motion for partial summary judgment. DHS also reasserts that the proposed class represents a

28 wide array of familial relationships that, for the most part, are not represented by the U.S.-citizen 16

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 17 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Plaintiffs who include only a parent and an adult child of refugee applicants. Id. As discussed

2 above with respect to typicality, the familial relationships between the applicants and their U.S.-

3 ties are not relevant to the claims on which Plaintiffs seek class certification.

4

The Court finds that Plaintiffs and their experienced counsel have no conflict of interest

5 with other class members and there is no basis to conclude that Plaintiffs and their counsel will not

6 vigorously represent the class. The U.S.-citizen Plaintiffs both testify that they are willing to serve

7 as class representatives for similarly situated individuals who serve as U.S. ties for their family

8 member applicants who are stuck in Vienna and want to help everyone in their situation “because

9 we are all suffering from the unexplained denial of our family members’ refugee applications.”

10 Doe 1 Decl. ¶¶ 12-13; Doe 2 Decl. ¶¶ 16-17. The refugee applicant Plaintiffs also represent that

11 they are willing to serve as representatives for similarly situated Iranian religious minorities who

12 are stranded in Vienna after receiving Notices of Ineligibility, and the named Plaintiffs want to

13 help everyone suffering from the same unexplained denial of their refugee applications. See Doe 3

14 Decl. ¶¶ 23-24; Doe 4 Decl. ¶¶ 26-27; Doe 5 Decl. ¶¶ 20-21.

15

Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel—highly experienced attorneys from

16 Latham & Watkins LLP and the International Refugee Assistance Project (“IRAP”)—will

17 vigorously prosecute this action on behalf of the class. See Lee Class Cert. Decl. ¶¶ 2-5;

18 Declaration of Mariko Hirose (“Hirose Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF 62. DHS does not challenge the

19 adequacy of counsel.

20

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that adequacy of representation is met, and all

21 four of Rule 23(a)’s requirements are satisfied in this case.

22

2. Rule 23(b)(2)

23

Having found that Plaintiffs satisfy the four prerequisites under Rule 23(a), the Court next

24 considers whether Plaintiffs have satisfied one of the three subsections of Rule 23(b). See

25 Behrend, 133 S.Ct. at 1432. Plaintiffs move for class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2),

26 which permits the Court to certify a class if “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to

27 act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding

28 declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). “Rule 17

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 18 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 23(b)(2) applies only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to

2 each member of the class.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 360. “[U]nlike Rule 23(b)(3), a plaintiff does not

3 need to show predominance of common issues or superiority of class adjudication to certify a Rule

4 23(b)(2) class.” In re Yahoo Mail Lit., 308 F.R.D. 577, 587 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2015). Rather,

5 “[i]n contrast to Rule 23(b)(3) classes, the focus [in a Rule 23(b)(2) class] is not on the claims of

6 the individual class members, but rather whether [Defendant] has engaged in a ‘common policy.’”

7 Id. at 599; see also Gonzalez, No. 18-CV-01869-JSC, 2018 WL 2688569, at *7.

8

Plaintiffs argue that the uniform response from DHS to class members in the February

9 2018 Notices of Ineligibility are sufficient to satisfy Rule 23(b)(2). See Class Cert. Mot. at 17.

10 Plaintiffs allege and present evidence that the class members received denials of their refugee

11 applications under the Lautenberg Amendment in or after February 2018 with the sole explanation

12 that: “After review of all information concerning your case, including your testimony, supporting

13 documentation, background checks, country conditions, and other available information, your

14 application for refugee resettlement to the United States under INA § 207 has been denied as a

15 matter of discretion.” See Exh. A to Declarations of Does 1-3; see also Bates Decl. ¶ 9. In order

16 to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class, Plaintiffs do not need to prove that DHS adopted a formal policy

17 of 100% uniformity across the class.

18

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(b)(2). Plaintiffs have shown that the

19 class is “cohesive” by demonstrating that DHS “has adopted a pattern of activity that is likely to

20 be the same as to all members of the class.” In re Conseco Life Ins. Co. LifeTrend Ins. Sales &

21 Mktg. Litig., 270 F.R.D. 521, 532 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citations omitted). DHS’s issuance of the

22 uniform Notices of Ineligibility constitutes an action “on grounds that apply generally to the class,

23 so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class

24 as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). The declaratory and injunctive relief sought also applies

25 equally to all members of the proposed class and thus conforms to Rule 23(b)(2). Parsons v.

26 Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 688 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) are

27 “unquestionably satisfied when members of a putative class seek uniform injunctive or declaratory

28 relief from policies or practices that are generally applicable to the class as a whole.”) Once again, 18

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 19 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 DHS’s nonreviewability argument that the injunctive and declaratory relief sought cannot be

2 enjoined or declared as to the entire proposed class is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed at

3 length below regarding the justiciability of Plaintiffs’ claims.

4

3. Rule 23(g)

5

Rule 23(g) provides that, upon class certification, the Court “must appoint class counsel[,]”

6 and in doing so, must consider: “(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating

7 potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex

8 litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable

9 law; and (iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P.

10 23(g)(1)(A). The Court may also consider “any other matter pertinent to the counsel’s ability to

11 fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B).

12

As discussed above with respect to adequacy of representation, Plaintiffs’ counsel satisfy

13 each of the Rule 23(g) factors. Counsel has spent considerable time and effort in identifying

14 Plaintiffs and investigating their potential claims. See Lee Class Cert. Decl. ¶ 5; Hirose Decl. ¶ 6.

15 Moreover, counsel and their organizations have extensive experience handling class actions and

16 complex litigation, including immigration and refugee matters. See Lee Class Cert. Decl. ¶ 3;

17 Hirose Decl. ¶¶ 4-6. Plaintiffs’ counsel are also strongly committed to representing the class. See

18 Lee Class Cert Decl. ¶ 5; Hirose Decl. ¶ 6.

19

For these reasons, the Court appoints Latham & Watkins LLP and IRAP as counsel for the

20 proposed class pursuant to Rule 23(g).

21

C. Order on Motion for Class Certification

22

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion

23 for class certification is GRANTED. “An order that certifies a class action must define the class

24 and the class claims, issues, or defenses, and must appoint class counsel under Rule 23(g).” Fed.

25 R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B). The Court thus certifies a Rule 23(b)(2) class of:

26

All Iranian refugees who (1) applied for refugee admission to the

27

United States under the Lautenberg Amendment, whether as a principal applicant or derivative relatives; (2) traveled to Vienna,

28

Austria, for processing; and (3) received denials from the United States government in or after February 2018 with the sole explanation

19

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 20 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

that: “After review of all information concerning your case, including

1

your testimony, supporting documentation, background checks,

country conditions, and other available information, your application

2

for refugee resettlement to the United States under INA § 207 has been

denied as a matter of discretion,” and their U.S.-based Close Family

3

Members who served as their U.S. ties.

4 The Court certifies as appropriate for class treatment Plaintiffs’ First, Second, Third,
5 Fourth, and Sixth Causes of Action, as alleged in the Complaint. The Court also certifies Doe 1,
6 Doe 2, Doe 3, Doe 4, and Doe 5 as class representatives and Plaintiffs’ counsel of record as class
7 counsel. The Court will approve the parties’ Stipulation Regarding Class Notice by separate
8 order.
9 III. MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
10 A. Legal Standard
11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 governs motions for summary judgment. Summary
12 judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions
13 on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
14 fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v.
15 Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “Partial summary judgment that falls short of a final
16 determination, even of a single claim, is authorized by Rule 56 in order to limit the issues to be
17 tried.” State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Geary, 699 F. Supp. 756, 759 (N.D. Cal. 1987). With
18 respect to timing, “[u]nless a different time is set by local rule or the court orders otherwise, a
19 party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all
20 discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b).
21 The moving party “bears the burden of showing there is no material factual dispute,” Hill
22 v. R+L Carriers, Inc., 690 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1004 (N.D. Cal. 2010), by “identifying for the court
23 the portions of the materials on file that it believes demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue
24 of material fact.” T.W. Elec. Serv. Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.
25 1987). In judging evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court “does not assess credibility
26 or weigh the evidence, but simply determines whether there is a genuine factual issue for trial.”
27 House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 559-60 (2006). A fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of
28

20

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 21 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 the suit under the governing law,” and a dispute as to a material fact is “genuine” if there is

2 sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to decide in favor of the nonmoving

3 party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

4

Where the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, it must

5 affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving

6 party. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325; Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir.

7 2007). Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must set forth, by

8 affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue

9 for trial.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 250 (internal quotation marks omitted). If the nonmoving

10 party’s “evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be

11 granted.” Id. at 249–50 (internal citations omitted). Mere conclusory, speculative testimony in

12 affidavits and moving papers is also insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and defeat

13 summary judgment. See Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979).

14 For a court to find that a genuine dispute of material fact exists, “there must be enough doubt for a

15 reasonable trier of fact to find for the [non-moving party].” Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 562

16 (9th Cir. 2009).

17

B. Discussion

18

Having certified the class of refugee applicants and their U.S. ties as discussed above, the

19 Court turns to Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on Claims 1-5 of their Complaint.

20 Plaintiffs argue that the February 2018 Notices of Ineligibility denying refugee applications “as a

21 matter of discretion,” fail to comply with the Lautenberg Amendment’s mandate that “[e]ach

22 decision to deny an application for refugee status…shall state, to the maximum extent feasible, the

23 reason for the denial.” 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c) (note). Plaintiffs offer several independent reasons for

24 the Court to find the Notices of Ineligibility unlawful, including that the Notices violate (1) the

25 Lautenberg Amendment; (2) the Accardi doctrine; and (3) the Due Process Clause. See generally

26 MSJ. Likewise, Plaintiffs argue that alternative avenues exist to set aside the unlawful Notices

27 under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Mandamus Act. Id.

28

At the outset, DHS concedes that there is no genuine issue of material fact for purposes of

21

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 22 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 summary judgment. See Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“SJ Opp’n”) at 6,

2 ECF 71 (emphasis original). Accordingly, the traditional summary judgment framework does not

3 apply. Defendants rely on an overarching defense that Plaintiffs’ claims are not justiciable and the

4 Court lacks jurisdiction to review DHS’s discretionary denials of refugee applications. See SJ

5 Opp’n at 6-12. DHS argues in the alternative that even if Plaintiffs’ claims are found to be

6 justiciable, the Notices of Ineligibility complied with the Lautenberg Amendment. Id. at 13-15.

7

The Court first addresses the threshold issue of justiciability, finding that Plaintiffs’ narrow

8 claims are subject to judicial review as they plainly do not seek review of the determinations of

9 ineligibility themselves. The Court then turns to the merits of whether the Notices are unlawful

10 and whether Plaintiffs are entitled to relief.

11

1. Justiciability

12

DHS argues that Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the February 2018 Notices of Ineligibility are

13 not justiciable because the Government’s decision to exclude an alien is immune from judicial

14 review, unless review is expressly authorized by law. See generally Opp’n to MSJ (citing Fiallo

15 v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977)). The Court agrees with the principles of nonreviewability

16 stressed by DHS, but finds that the justiciability argument entirely misconstrues Plaintiffs’

17 requested relief in this case. DHS is correct that this Court has no authority to evaluate the

18 Government’s discretionary decision to admit or deny admission to a refugee. See Opp’n to MSJ

19 at 6 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)). Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review of a

20 determination committed to agency discretion, and the Supreme Court specifically pointed to

21 refugee denials rendered pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c)(1) as an example of unreviewable

22 decisions. See Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 248 (2010) (“decisions specified by statute ‘to be

23 in the discretion of the Attorney General,’ and therefore shielded from court oversight by 24 § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), are of a like kind. See, e.g., § 1157(c)(1)”).12 But this argument misconstrues

25 Plaintiffs’ claims, which do not challenge any substantive decision within DHS’s discretion. See

26

27 12 In addition, neither the statute governing refugee admissions nor its implementing regulations

28

confer judicial review over such determinations. See 8 U.S.C. § 1157; see also 8 C.F.R. § 207.4 (“There is no appeal from a denial of refugee status under this chapter.”)

22

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 23 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Reply iso MSJ at 3-4, ECF 74. Accordingly, there is no disagreement among the parties or the

2 Court that the refugee denials themselves are unreviewable, and § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) is inapposite.

3

Plaintiffs do not challenge the decision to admit or deny the refugee applications, or

4 whether the discretion delegated to DHS was properly exercised in this case. Rather, Plaintiffs

5 request this Court to determine whether DHS complied with its mandatory duties under the

6 Lautenberg Amendment and applicable regulations. See Reply iso MSJ at 3-4. The Court finds

7 that whether DHS followed the law in issuing the February 2018 Notices of Ineligibility is subject

8 to judicial review—notwithstanding that the ultimate decision to deny admission to the refugee

9 applicants is not reviewable.

10

DHS argues that to the extent Plaintiffs challenge the Notices of Ineligibility separate and

11 apart from the underlying refugee admission decision, the claims are barred by principles of

12 nonreviewability. See Opp’n to MSJ at 7. The Court finds that the line of cases relied on by DHS

13 is inapposite. Rather, Defendants’ cases stand for the principle that judicial review is limited

14 when Congress delegates decisional authority to the Executive branch and does not explicitly

15 authorize review by the courts. See Fiallo, 430 U.S. at 792-93 (underscoring the limited scope of

16 judicial inquiry into immigration legislation, explaining that the Supreme Court has “long

17 recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by

18 the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”); U.S. ex rel.

19 Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 543 (1950) (“[I]t is not within the province of any court,

20 unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the

21 Government to exclude a given alien.”)

22

According to DHS, the longstanding doctrine of non-reviewability provides that “aliens

23 abroad are simply not entitled to any kind of judicial review with respect to any kind of

24 application.” June 22, 2018 Hearing Transcript at 25:3-7. In support of its argument that people in

25 different countries are not entitled to any review of executive actions in U.S. courts, DHS attempts

26 to draw a comparison between the Notices of Ineligibility in the Lautenberg Amendment context

27 and the typical case in which an individual applies for a visa overseas and is denied. In the visa

28 context, the doctrine of “consular nonreviewability” has emerged to hold that “a consular official’s 23

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 24 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 decision to issue or withhold a visa is not subject to judicial review, at least unless Congress says

2 otherwise.” Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1999); see also Li Hing

3 of Hong Kong, Inc. v. Levin, 800 F.2d 970 (9th Cir.1986) (affirming district court’s dismissal of

4 case for lack of jurisdiction to review the acts of consular officials denying visas); Doan v. I.N.S.,

5 160 F.3d 508, 509 (8th Cir. 1998) (“Administrative decisions excluding aliens are not subject to

6 judicial review unless there is a clear grant of authority by statute.”)

7

DHS argues that the designation of this doctrine as “consular nonreviewability” merely

8 reflects the context in which the principle most often arises. See Opp’n to MSJ at 7. According to

9 DHS, the nonreviewability principles underlying these cases apply to any manner in which the

10 Executive Branch denies entry to an alien abroad, including denial of a refugee applicant under the

11 Lautenberg Amendment. Id. (citing Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 953 F.2d 1498, 1506

12 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)). Because no statute authorizes judicial review of denials of refugee 13 admissions, DHS argues that Plaintiffs’ claims are not justiciable.13

14

The cases cited by DHS make clear that the Court lacks authority to review the ultimate

15 decision to grant or deny refugee applications under the Lautenberg-Specter Program. Plaintiffs

16 have gone to painstaking lengths to make clear that they are not challenging a decision that was

17 delegated to the Executive branch or asking that DHS admit the refugee applications to the United

18 States. Plaintiffs are “merely asking that the Defendants be required to follow the process

19 Congress mandated and so they can have a fair opportunity to pursue their hope for family

20 reunification in the United States.” Reply iso MSJ at 2. Above all else, this is a request for the

21 Court to determine whether the content of the February 2018 Notices of Ineligibility comply with

22 the Lautenberg Amendment’s requirement that a denial of an application under its purview state,

23 “to the maximum extent feasible, the reason for the denial.” 8 U.S.C. § 1157 (note).

24

25

13 DHS further argues that the recent line of authority challenging President Trump’s Executive Orders that promulgated “sweeping immigration policy” is inapposite for purposes of whether the

26

refugee denials in this case are reviewable. See Opp’n to MSJ at 8. According to DHS, this is because Plaintiffs challenge individual adjudicatory decisions of their refugee applications that are

27

more akin to the decisions by consular officials to deny visa applications. While the Court agrees that the Executive Order cases are inapposite, the consular nonreviewability doctrine cases are

28

misplaced as well—Plaintiffs here do not seek review of individual adjudications made by DHS but ask only for the Court to determine whether DHS complied with its legal obligations.

24

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 25 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

DHS cannot stretch the longstanding principles of non-reviewability to avoid their explicit

2 legal obligations mandated by Congress by arguing that Plaintiffs are not entitled to judicial

3 review of “any aspect” of the refugee application denials. Opp’n to MSJ at 9. This Court’s review

4 of whether DHS has obeyed the relevant law is entirely distinct from judicial review of the

5 underlying refugee application determinations. While the Court is in complete agreement with

6 DHS that challenges to denials of visa and refugee applications are not judicially reviewable, that

7 is simply not what this case is about. DHS retains an enormous amount of authority and discretion

8 to adjudicate refugee applications, but they do not have the discretion to violate the law.

9

2.

Whether the Notices of Ineligibility are Unlawful

10

Having determined that principles of nonreviewability are inapplicable to the case at hand,

11 the Court next considers whether the content of the Notices of Ineligibility complied with DHS’s

12 obligations under the law mandated by Congress. DHS argues that even if Plaintiffs’ claims are

13 justiciable, their claims are meritless because the Notices comply with the Lautenberg Amendment

14 and applicable agency procedures. See Opp’n to MSJ at 13-15. In other words, DHS argues that

15 as written, the February 2018 Notices provided “to the maximum extent feasible, the reason for

16 the denial.” 8 U.S.C. § 1157 (note).

17

i. Ruppel Declaration

18

As their sole evidence that the February 2018 Notices of Ineligibility complied with the

19 Lautenberg Amendment, DHS submits the declaration of Joanna Ruppel, Chief of the Refugee

20 Affairs Division of USCIS, within DHS. See Ruppel Decl. ¶ 1. The declaration provides that Ms.

21 Ruppel has held that position since March 2018, one month after the February 2018 Notices of

22 Ineligibility were issued. Id. Plaintiffs object to the Ruppel Declaration, arguing that Ms.

23 Ruppel’s assertions are inadmissible, devoid of specific facts relating to the Plaintiffs, and entirely

24 insufficient to demonstrate that the Notices state, to the maximum extent feasible, the reason for

25 the denial. See Reply iso MSJ at 6.

26

As stated on the record at the June 22, 2018 hearing, the Court SUSTAINS Plaintiffs’

27 objections to the Ruppel Declaration and STRIKES the declaration as inadmissible. The

28 Declaration is made without any personal knowledge of the events at issue in this case. See Fed. 25

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 26 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 R. Evid. 701 (providing that opinion testimony of lay witnesses must be “rationally based on the

2 witness’s perception” and “helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to

3 determining a fact in issue.”) For example, the Declaration states that “[a]ll refugee applicants,

4 including religious minorities applying under the Lautenberg program, are subject to rigorous

5 vetting by our law enforcement and intelligence community partners.” Ruppel Decl. ¶ 2. There is

6 no basis provided for Ms. Ruppel’s personal knowledge of that fact. Nor does the declaration

7 explain Ms. Ruppel’s knowledge of the “individualized vetting” that each refugee applicant is

8 subject to. Id.

9

Most strikingly, with respect to the February 2018 Notices of Ineligibility, there is

10 absolutely no indication that Ms. Ruppel has personal knowledge that “[e]ach denial was based on

11 the facts of that individual case, taking into account the results of the vetting process to which all

12 refugee applicants are subject.” Id. ¶ 4. Particularly in light of the fact that Ms. Ruppel did not

13 assume her position until March 2018, there is absolutely no basis in the declaration for the Court

14 to conclude that she has personal knowledge of the review of the refugee applications in this case.

15 Accordingly, these assertions are inadmissible. See Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 784 F.3d 495,

16 497–98 (9th Cir. 2015) (“The district court can disregard a self-serving declaration that states only

17 conclusions and not facts that would be admissible evidence.”); see also Villiarimo v. Aloha Island

18 Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1059 n. 5, 1061 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that the district court properly

19 disregarded a declaration that included facts beyond the declarant’s personal knowledge and did

20 not indicate how she knew the facts to be true).

21

Without the Ruppel Declaration, DHS has provided no evidence to avoid summary

22 judgment and must rely solely on its legal arguments to defeat Plaintiffs’ claims on the merits.

23

ii. Compliance with the Lautenberg Amendment

24

Plaintiffs’ broadest claim for relief is that the February 2018 Notices of Ineligibility violate

25 the Lautenberg Amendment’s explicit requirement that “each decision to deny an application for

26 refugee status…shall be in writing and shall state, to the maximum extent feasible, the reason for

27 the denial.” 8 U.S.C. § 1157 (note); see MSJ at 12-15. As described above, the Notices at issue

28 checked the “OTHER REASON(S) box and informed the refugee applicants such as Does 3, 4, 26

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 27 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 and 5 that:

After review of all the information concerning your case, including your testimony,

2

supporting documentation, background checks, country conditions, and other

3

available information, your application for refugee resettlement to the United States

under [8 U.S.C. § 1157] has been denied as a matter of discretion.

4 See, e.g., Doe 3 Decl. Exh A; Bates Decl. ¶ 9. Plaintiffs argue that a denial of refugee status “as a

5 matter of discretion” is tantamount to providing no reason at all and deprives the applicants of the

6 ability to submit meaningful RFRs. See MSJ at 12-13.

7

As the Court explained at the June 22, 2018 hearing, these Notices put Plaintiffs in an

8 untenable position that Congress explicitly sought to avoid in enacting the Lautenberg

9 Amendment. Without a reason for the denial, the applicants are left to guess at which factors and

10 circumstances DHS considered. Any meaningful review of the denials becomes impossible

11 because Plaintiffs are effectively shadowboxing against themselves. The February 2018 Notices

12 of Ineligibility do not indicate any reason for the individualized denials—such as whether an

13 applicant was rejected based on security concerns or eligibility reasons. Indeed, Plaintiffs’

14 evidence that the applications of at least 38 of the individuals denied admission in February 2018

15 received identical Notices of Ineligibility raises the inference that the denials were not, in fact,

16 individualized. See Bates Decl. ¶ 6.14

17

DHS concedes that the statutory text and legislative history of the Lautenberg Amendment

18 makes clear that Congress intended for a reason to be given upon denial of a refugee application

19 whenever feasible. See June 22, 2018 Hearing Transcript at 37:14-29; see also Opp’n to MSJ at

20 13. However, DHS points out that Congress did not state that a reason must be given in the case

21 of every denial. The Congressional mandate is only to provide a reason “to the maximum extent

22 feasible.” 8 U.S.C. § 1157 (note). DHS argues that the statutory language of the Lautenberg

23 Amendment “implicitly allows the government to withhold specific details in certain cases when

24 disclosure is not feasible, as was the case here.” Opp’n to MSJ at 2. In sum, Defendants’

25

26

27

14 This unrebutted inference is further supported by evidence that at least one individual, Doe 5’s father, was originally approved for resettlement in the United States in April 2017, but received an

28

identical Notice of Ineligibility in February 2018 after choosing to stay with his family. Doe 5 Dec. ¶¶ 11-12.

27

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 28 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 argument is that the “logical corollary” of the Lautenberg Amendment is that when it is not

2 feasible to give more information regarding the denial, DHS need not do so. Id. at 13. DHS

3 maintains that the feasibility determination is for the Government alone to decide. Moreover, as

4 Congress did not provide for any judicial review of the government’s determination of feasibility,

5 DHS argues that the Court may not examine its determination that providing reasons for the denial

6 was not feasible.

7

There is a complete absence of admissible evidence in the record demonstrating that DHS

8 determined that it was not feasible to give Plaintiffs and the putative class members a reason for

9 the denial of their refugee applications. Even if the Court were to consider the Ruppel

10 Declaration, which it does not, the assertion that the denials were “individualized” and subject to

11 general vetting procedures does not come close to demonstrating that Plaintiffs received reasons

12 for their denials “to the maximum extent feasible.” Like the justiciability argument, DHS’s

13 position that the Notices complied with the Lautenberg Amendment’s mandate is yet another

14 attempt to prevent this Court from determining whether the law was followed in this case. The

15 Court need not determine whether DHS has the discretion to determine when it is feasible to give

16 reasons for the denial under the Lautenberg Amendment, because in this case, DHS has failed to

17 address the feasibility determination at all. DHS’s argument that it determined that it was not

18 feasible to give the Plaintiffs in this case reasons for the denials is nothing more than a “trust me” 19 defense that lacks any evidentiary support.15

20

Meanwhile, Plaintiffs have provided evidence that the February 2018 Notices fail to meet

21 the “maximum extent feasible” language because they fall below the floor required by

22 Defendants’ own regulations, policies and practices with respect to other refugee applicants. See

23 MSJ at 12-15; Reply iso MSJ at 7. Although DHS has not promulgated regulations regarding the

24 Lautenberg Amendment specifically, Plaintiffs argue that other DHS regulations applicable to

25 refugee applicants make clear that if an adverse decision is based on derogatory information

26

27 15 For example, DHS presents no evidence that it was not feasible to provide more information to

28

Plaintiffs as the result of classified information, national security, or to protect the safety of the sources of derogatory information.

28

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 29 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 unknown to the applicant, USCIS must advise the refugee applicant of that fact and “offer[] an

2 opportunity to rebut the information” unless the information is classified. 8 C.F.R.

3 § 103.2(b)(16)(i). The Notices of Ineligibility do not state that any denial was based on classified

4 information, or even that security interests are implicated, information that is routinely given to

5 applicants who are not covered by the Lautenberg Amendment’s heightened protections. See MSJ

6 at 14-15.

7

Plaintiffs also point to the USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual, which provides in Section

8 10.7(b)(3) that a denial must include “[a] description of the evidence in the case in question” and

9 “[i]f the applicant or petition cannot reasonably be presumed to be already aware of the evidence,

10 he or she must be given an opportunity to rebut the evidence before a decision is made. See Lee

11 Summary Judgment Decl., Exh. S, ECF 29-2. Finally, Plaintiffs submit evidence that DHS has

12 issued Notices of Ineligibility to other refugee applicants on forms that specify whether a

13 discretionary denial is security-related or otherwise, and if otherwise, requires an explanation. See

14 Bates Decl., Exh. A. Plaintiffs’ evidence, coupled with the complete lack of evidence from DHS,

15 demonstrates that DHS did not meet the Lautenberg Amendment’s heightened requirement that 16 refugee denials must state a reason “to the maximum extent feasible.”16 In fact, the evidence

17 supports the conclusion that DHS actually gave less information to Lautenberg-Specter Program

18 applicants than the basis for denials routinely given to other refugee applicants.

19

For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record before the Court, the language provided

20 by DHS in the February 2018 Notices of Ineligibility does not “state, to the maximum extent

21 feasible, the reason for the denial.” 8 U.S.C. § 1157 (note). Accordingly, DHS has not met its 22 legal obligations under the Lautenberg Amendment.17

23

24

25

16 DHS argues that 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i) and the USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual do not apply to refugee denials under the Lautenberg Amendment. See Opp’n to MSJ at 14-15. As

26

discussed below with respect to Plaintiffs’ Accardi claim, the Court finds that these regulations do apply to refugee applications under the Lautenberg Amendment. In any event, these regulations

27

support Plaintiffs’ argument that the content of the February 2018 Notices of Ineligibility fell below what is maximally feasible when denying refugee applications.

28

17 As stated on the record at the June 22, 2018 hearing, this Court will not issue an advisory opinion as to what language would meet the statute’s “maximum extent feasible” requirement.

29

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 30 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

iii. Accardi Doctrine

2

In addition to violating the Lautenberg Amendment, Plaintiffs argue that the Notices of

3 Ineligibility are unlawful on the independent grounds that they violate DHS’s regulations and

4 policies. Pursuant to the Accardi doctrine, “[r]egulations with the force and effect of law

5 supplement the bare bones of” federal statutes. United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347

6 U.S. 260, 265, 74 S. Ct. 499, 502, 98 L. Ed. 681 (1954). An agency such as DHS can therefore be

7 bound by its own procedures when they (1) prescribe substantive rules-not interpretive rules,

8 general statements of policy or rules of agency organization, procedure or practice; and

9 (2) conform to certain procedural requirements.” U.S. v. Fifty-Three Eclectus Parrots, 685 F.2d

10 1131, 1136. These requirements are satisfied when the rule or regulation “is legislative in nature,

11 affecting individual rights and obligations” and was “promulgated pursuant to a specific statutory

12 grant of authority and in conformance with the procedural requirements imposed by Congress.” Id.

13

As explained above, Plaintiffs point to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i) and the USCIS

14 Adjudicator’s Field Manual to argue that these regulations serve as guidance with respect to the

15 meaning of the Lautenberg Amendment’s “maximum extent feasible” requirement. Plaintiffs also

16 argue that these regulations and policies actually apply to all refugee applications, including those

17 applications made pursuant to the Lautenberg Amendment. See MSJ at 16-17. Accordingly,

18 Plaintiffs argue that the Notices are unlawful because they withhold information from Plaintiffs

19 that is required under the applicable regulations and agency policies.

20

DHS does not argue that the requirements of the Accardi doctrine are not met, effectively

21 conceding that the regulations are substantive and binding as they are published in the Code of

22 Federal Regulations. Rather, DHS argues that the Accardi doctrine is inapplicable because neither

23 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i) nor the USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual applies to refugee

24 applications adjudicated under 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c)(1). See Opp’n to MSJ at 14-15. DHS points

25 out that § 1157 is not included as the governing authority cited in § 103.2(b)(16)(i), and it is

26 undisputed that DHS has never published regulations regarding the Lautenberg Amendment

27 specifically. With respect to the USCIS Field Manual, DHS represents that the Refugee Affairs

28 Division (“RAD”) within USCIS has its own guidance for adjudicating refugee applications under 30

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 31 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 the Lautenberg Amendment—as provided in the template that was used to notify Does 3, 4 and 5

2 of their ineligibility. When RAD’s guidance requiring an officer to state the reasons for a

3 discretionary denial of an application to the maximum extent feasible conflicts with the

4 requirements under Section 10.7(b)(3) of the Field Manual that a fuller explanation be given, DHS

5 argues that RAD’s guidance prevails under agency policy. See Opp’n to MSJ at 15.

6

In Ghafoori v. Napolitano, the court considered whether DHS violated its own regulations

7 in the processing of a Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition, which is a benefit request under the

8 Refugee Act like the applications under the Lautenberg Amendment. 713 F. Supp. 2d 871 (N.D.

9 Cal. 2010). The court explained that 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16), the same regulation at issue here,

10 provides that a petitioner “shall be permitted to inspect the record of proceeding which constitutes

11 the basis for the decision, except as provided in” four subsequent paragraphs. Id. at 879. The first

12 of those exceptions is for “derogatory information” unknown to the petitioner; when an adverse

13 decision will be based on such information, the petitioner “shall be advised of this fact and offered

14 an opportunity to rebut the information ..., except as provided in” the next three paragraphs. 8

15 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i). The plaintiff in Ghafoori claimed that DHS violated the following

16 paragraph, which provides that “[a] determination of statutory eligibility shall be based only on

17 information contained in the record of proceeding which is disclosed to the applicant or petitioner,

18 except as provided in paragraph (b)(16)(iv) of this section.” 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(ii). The last

19 two paragraphs permit reliance on classified information, which a petitioner is not permitted to

20 access. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(iii)-(iv); see Ghafoori, 713 F.Supp.2d at 879.

21

The Ghafoori court held DHS to the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16) in processing

22 a refugee application. 713 F. Supp.2d at 881 (“The Court concludes that the Service violated 8

23 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(ii) by deciding Plaintiff’s I–730 petition based on an evaluation of x-rays

24 that were not disclosed to Plaintiff.”) Ghafoori therefore directly contradicts DHS’s argument that

25 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16) does not apply to refugee applications. DHS does not even attempt to

26 distinguish the case. See generally Opp’n to MSJ.

27

In addition, Plaintiffs point out that the regulatory section of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2 is titled

28 “Submission and adjudication of benefit requests” and refugees must apply for admission to the 31

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 32 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 United States by submitting an “application” which DHS itself has defined as a “benefit request.”

2 See 8 C.F.R. § 207.1; see also 8 C.F.R. § 1.2. Although DHS is correct that § 103 does not

3 reference the Refugee Act as its governing authority, Plaintiffs argue that 5 U.S.C. § 301 is

4 explicitly listed and that statute provides that “[t]he head of an Executive department or military

5 department may prescribe regulations for the government of his department, the conduct of its

6 employees, the distribution and performance of its business, and the custody, use, and preservation

7 of its records, papers, and property.” 5 U.S.C.A. § 301 (West). Thus, Plaintiffs persuasively argue

8 that DHS promulgated 8 C.F.R. § 103 as a regulation that applies broadly to the adjudication of

9 benefit requests within its authority, such as refugee applications. For these reasons, the Court

10 finds that 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16) applies to refugee applications.

11

Similarly, the Court is not persuaded by DHS’s unsupported argument that the

12 Adjudicator’s Field Manual does not apply to adjudication of refugee applications to the extent it

13 conflicts with RAD’s unspecified guidance. The only evidence to support this contention comes

14 from the Ruppel Declaration, which the Court has already stricken on the grounds that Ruppel has

15 not established how she knows that any of the conclusory facts contained in the declaration are

16 true. The bare assertion that it is actually RAD’s practice to ignore its own policies set forth in the

17 Adjudicator’s Field Manual when it conflicts with “RAD practice” actually underscores the merits

18 of Plaintiffs’ Accardi doctrine claim.

19

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16) and the USCIS

20 Adjudicator’s Field Manual apply to refugee applications such as those adjudicated under the

21 Lautenberg Amendment. Based on the record before the Court, and because DHS has presented

22 no argument that the February 2018 Notices of Eligibility in fact complied with these standards,

23 the Court finds that the Notices fell short of the procedures set by DHS’s own regulations.

24

iv. Remaining Arguments

25

In addition to their arguments under the Lautenberg Amendment and Accardi doctrine,

26 Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on their fifth claim for relief, that the Notices of

27 Ineligibility violate the Due Process rights of Doe 1 and Doe 2 only. See MSJ at 17-19. Plaintiffs

28 further argue that once the Court determines that the Notices of Ineligibility are unlawful under 32

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 33 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 any of the three bases discussed above (Lautenberg Amendment, Accardi doctrine, and Due

2 Process), the Court can set aside the unlawful Notices pursuant to APA § 706(2). In the

3 alternative to exercising its equitable powers in conjunction with § 706(2), Plaintiffs argue that the

4 Court could compel issuance of lawful notices under APA § 706(1), or could enter a writ of

5 mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 ordering issuance of lawful notices. See MSJ at 19-24.

6

At the June 22, 2018 hearing, Plaintiffs stated that the Lautenberg Amendment provides

7 the broadest relief sought in their motion for partial summary judgment. See June 22, 2018

8 Hearing Transcript at 8:2-12, ECF 84. Plaintiffs confirmed that their arguments regarding the

9 unlawfulness of the Notices and the options for granting equitable relief were presented as

10 alternatives. Thus, the Court need not reach the remaining arguments to the extent it finds that the

11 Notices of Ineligibility are unlawful under the Lautenberg Amendment and sets the Notices aside

12 under the APA.

13

With respect to Plaintiffs’ Due Process claim on behalf of Doe 1 and Doe 2, principles of

14 judicial restraint and constitutional avoidance direct this Court to refrain from addressing the

15 constitutional issue when Plaintiffs’ claims can be fully disposed of on statutory grounds. See

16 Spector Motor Serv. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105 (1944) (“If there is one doctrine more

17 deeply rooted than any other in the process of constitutional adjudication, it is that we ought not to

18 pass on questions of constitutionality…unless such adjudication is unavoidable.”) see also

19 Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring) (“The Court will not pass

20 upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present

21 some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of”). This is especially so in light of

22 Plaintiffs’ representation that their Due Process claim is a more narrow alternative to the

23 Lautenberg Amendment claim, since the Due Process claim impacts only the two U.S. citizen

24 named Plaintiffs and would not provide class relief.

25

Turning to the equitable relief sought by Plaintiffs, the Court has the authority to set aside

26 the unlawful Notices of Ineligibility pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. APA § 702

27 provides the Court with authority to review challenges brought by “[a] person…aggrieved by

28 agency action.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. In determining whether Plaintiffs have standing to bring claims 33

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 34 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 under the APA, the Court applies the “zone-of-interests” test which looks to whether the interest

2 sought to be protected by Plaintiffs “is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or

3 regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154,

4 175, 117 S. Ct. 1154, 1167, 137 L. Ed. 2d 281 (1997); Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control

5 Components, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1377, 1388 (2014) (finding that APA extends only to plaintiffs whose

6 interests “fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.”)

7

The Supreme Court has explained in the APA context that the Zone of Interest test is not

8 “especially demanding.” Lexmark, 134 S.Ct. at 1388 (quoting Match–E–Be–Nash–She–Wish Band

9 of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 132 S.Ct. 2199, 2210 (2012)). The word “arguably” in the

10 formulation of the test indicates that “the benefit of any doubt goes to the plaintiff,” and the test

11 “forecloses suit only when a plaintiff’s interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with

12 the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress authorized

13 that plaintiff to sue.” Lexmark, 134 S.Ct. at 1389. Plaintiffs argue that the refugee applicants in

14 Vienna are squarely within the zone of interests of the Refugee Act, including the Lautenberg and

15 Specter Amendments. See MSJ at 19. The U.S. ties in this case also fall within the zone of

16 interests in light of principles of family integrity that is embedded within immigration laws. See

17 Kaliski v. Dist. Dir. of Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 620 F.2d 214, 217 (9th Cir. 1980) 18 (noting the “humane purpose” of the Immigration and Nationality Act’s is “to reunite families”).  

19

DHS does not dispute that Plaintiffs fall within the Lautenberg Amendment’s “zone of

20 interests,” as the statute explicitly includes Iranian religious minorities as a category of individuals

21 entitled to special protections. See June 22, 2018 Hearing Transcript at 28:20-29:2 (“So certainly

22 [Plaintiffs] are affected by these decisions, they are affected by decisions concerning the

23 Lautenberg Amendment, there’s no doubt. There’s definitely harm there.”) The record further

24 indicates that Plaintiffs had already met certain qualifications under the Lautenberg-Specter

25 Program and were issued visas to travel to Vienna, where historically others in their position

26 enjoyed quick and successful processing of their applications. The Court therefore finds that

27 Plaintiffs satisfy the zone of interests test and have standing under the APA.

28

Under APA § 706(2), the Court has the equitable power to “hold unlawful and set aside

34

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 35 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 agency action” found to be: (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

2 accordance with law; … (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of

3 statutory right; or (D) without observance of procedure required by law. 5 U.S.C.A. § 706(2)(A),

4 (C), (D) (West). In addition, the Court has equitable powers in an APA case to order “mandatory

5 affirmative relief if such relief is necessary to accomplish complete justice.” Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr.

6 v. Bonneville Power Admin., 477 F.3d 668, 680–81 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, “when federal

7 statutes are violated, the test for determining if equitable relief is appropriate is whether an

8 injunction is necessary to effectuate the congressional purpose behind the statute.” Biodiversity

9 Legal Found. v. Badgley, 309 F.3d 1166, 1177 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court finds that the equitable

10 relief requested by Plaintiffs—setting aside the unlawful Notices, requiring that any re-issued

11 Notices of Ineligibility comply with the law, and re-instating the 90-day period for filing RFRs—

12 is consistent with the congressional purpose of the Lautenberg Amendment and Refugee Act.

13

DHS argues only that nonreviewability principles preclude any review of an exclusion

14 order under APA § 706(2). Opp’n to MSJ at 11-12. For the reasons discussed at length above, the

15 Court finds that DHS’s nonreviewability argument is misplaced. Plaintiffs do not seek review of

16 the decision to exclude them from the United States, and the Court takes no position with respect

17 to whether DHS should grant or deny Plaintiffs’ applications.

18

Plaintiffs cite to several cases demonstrating that courts in APA cases have heard

19 analogous challenges to an agency’s non-compliance with a mandatory duty. See, e.g., Rivas v.

20 Napolitano, 714 F.3d 1108, 1110-12 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that consular non-reviewability does

21 not bar using the APA, the Mandamus Act, and the Declaratory Judgment Act to enforce a non-

22 discretionary duty of the consul to act on a request for reconsideration of the visa application once

23 the duty is triggered); Singh v. Clinton, 618 F.3d 1085, 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2010) (remanding to

24 set aside visa termination that failed to follow statutory requirements and noting that government

25 “correctly” abandoned non-reviewability argument); Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931-32 (9th Cir.

26 1997) (exercising jurisdiction over challenge to authority to suspend visa applications which is not

27 a challenge to “a decision within the discretion of the consul”); see also Ibrahim v. Dep’t of

28 Homeland Sec., 62 F. Supp. 3d 909, 932-34 (N.D. Cal. 2014); Atiffi v. Kerry, CIV. S-12-3001 35

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 36 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 LKK/DAN, 2013 WL 5954818, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2013) (holding that Plaintiff states a

2 reviewable APA claim for consul’s failure to provide an explanation for the visa denial); Amidi v.

3 Chertoff, No. 07 Civ. 710, 2008 WL 2662599, *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2008) (finding that

4 consulate’s decision to terminate or cancel the application is reviewable because it does not

5 challenge “the discretionary decision of whether to approve or deny the application.”) DHS does

6 not address or distinguish any of these cases in its opposition.

7

For the foregoing reasons, the Court SETS ASIDE the February 2018 Notices of

8 Ineligibility pursuant to APA §§ 702, 706(2), and this Court’s equitable powers. 18

9

C. Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment19

10

Having considered Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed on April 20,

11 2018, the Declarations of Belinda S. Lee, Samuel Witten, Adam Bates, and Does 1-5 filed in

12 support thereof, any papers filed in response, submissions from counsel, as well as all other

13 arguments and the record of the case; having granted Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Class

14 Certification filed on May 18, 2018, discussed above; and good cause appearing therefor, the

15 Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

16

1. The Court GRANTS partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs (used herein

17 to include named plaintiffs and class members) as to their claim for declaratory relief. The Court

18 hereby DECLARES that the Notices of Ineligibility issued to Plaintiffs are unlawful for failure to

19 “state, to the maximum extent feasible, the reason for the denial” as required by the Lautenberg

20 Amendment, P.L. 101-167, Title V, § 599D, as amended in 8 U.S.C. § 1157 (note).

21

2. The Court GRANTS partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs as to their

22 claim for relief under 5 U.S.C. § 702 and 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and hereby ORDERS that the Notices

23 of Ineligibility issued to Plaintiffs are set aside on the basis that they fail to “state, to the maximum

24

25 18 In light of this Court’s finding that the Notices violate the Lautenberg Amendment and are set

26

aside pursuant to APA § 706(2), the Court does not reach summary judgment of Doe 1 and Doe 2’s Due Process claims or Plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief under APA § 706(1) and the

27

Mandamus Act. 19 In line with the Court’s guidance at the June 22, 2018 hearing, Plaintiffs submitted an Amended

28

Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment which the Court now approves, as modified. See ECF 83.

36

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 87 Filed 07/10/18 Page 37 of 37

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 extent feasible, the reason for the denial,” as required by the Lautenberg Amendment, P.L. 101-

2 167, Title V, § 599D, as amended in 8 U.S.C. § 1157 (note).

3

3. The Court GRANTS partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs as to their

4 claim for relief under 5 U.S.C. § 702 and hereby ORDERS Defendants to issue notices containing

5 their determinations to re-open processing or to deny Plaintiffs’ refugee applications. Defendants

6 shall issue those notices and serve them upon Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel within 14 days

7 of this Order.

8

4. In the event that Defendants re-issue notices denying any of Plaintiffs’ refugee

9 applications, it is further ORDERED that any such notice comply with the Lautenberg

10 Amendment by stating “to the maximum extent feasible, the reason for the denial,” including by

11 stating the individualized reason(s) for that denial and complying with the requirements of 8

12 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16) and the Adjudicators’ Field Manual 10.7(b). Any denial notice shall

13 provide Plaintiffs 90 days from the date of issuance of the notice within which to apply for

14 requests for review.

15

5. In order to ensure compliance with this Court’s order, it is ORDERED that

16 Defendants shall file a declaration with the Court within 21 days of this Order: (a) certifying

17 completion of the issuance and service of notices required in Paragraph 3 of this Order or

18 explaining the efforts undertaken to complete issuance and service in the event the Order has not

19 been fully complied with; and (b) to the extent that Defendants have withheld any part or all of the

20 individualized reason(s) for the denial required under Paragraph 4, stating the basis for

21 withholding the individualized reason(s).

22

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

25 Dated: July 10, 2018

26

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

27

United States District Judge

28

37

 
 Press  Release:  Groups  File  Class  Action  Challenge  to   Unprecedented  Mass  Denials  of  Iranian  Refugees  in   the  Lautenberg-­Specter  Program  
•   APRIL  19,  2018      PRESS	  CONTACT   Henrike  Dessaules,  IRAP,  hdessaules@refugeerights.org,  646-­459-­3081       
GROUPS	  FILE	  CLASS	  ACTION	  CHALLENGE	  TO	  UNPRECEDENTED	  MASS	  DENIALS	  OF	  IRANIAN	   REFUGEES	  IN	  LAUTENBERG-­‐‑SPECTER	  PROGRAM   (San	  Jose,	  CA)  –  Yesterday,  Iranian  individuals  and  their  U.S.  family  members,  represented  by   Latham  &  Watkins  LLP  and  the  International  Refugee  Assistance  Project  (IRAP)  at  the  Urban   Justice  Center,  challenged  the  mass  denials  they  or  their  family  members  received  in  response  to   applying  for  refugee  resettlement  via  the  Vienna-­based  Lautenberg-­Specter  program.   The  Lautenberg  Amendment,  passed  by  Congress  in  1989,  was  intended  to  facilitate  the  refugee   admission  of  certain  vulnerable  groups,  including  persecuted  religious  minorities.  Iranian  religious   minorities  became  eligible  for  the  Amendment’s  robust  protections  in  2004.  
Under  this  unique  program,  U.S.  residents  submit  an  application  on  behalf  of  refugee  applicants  in   Iran.  Applicants  have  to  pass  an  initial  screening  and,  if  successful,  travel  to  Austria  to  continue  the   processing  of  their  refugee  application  to  the  United  States  from  a  safe  location.  However,  in   February  2018,  nearly  90  Iranians  who  had  already  traveled  with  the  program  received  notices  of   denial  that  stated  only  that  they  were  being  denied  “as  a  matter  of  discretion.”  Many  of  them  had   been  waiting  for  nearly  a  year.  These  Iranians  are  now  at  risk  of  deportation  back  to  Iran,  where  they   could  face  even  greater  persecution  for  having  sought  refuge  in  the  United  States.  
Plaintiffs  seek  the  Court’s  intervention  to  enforce  the  requirements  of  the  Lautenberg  Amendment   and  the  United  States  Constitution,  so  that  they  will  have  the  fair  opportunity  to  reunite  with  family   members  and  the  refugee  applicants  will  be  able  to  practice  their  religious  beliefs  in  the  safety  of  this   country.  
The  lawsuit  charges  that  denying  the  Iranian  individuals  without  stating  anything  beyond  “as  a  matter   of  discretion”  prevents  them  from  requesting  agency  review,  putting  these  Iranian  refugees  in  great   danger.  
Plaintiffs  in  the  case  are  affected  individuals,  including  U.S.  citizens  with  family  members  who  are   impacted  by  this  recent  set  of  denials.  They  are  a  mother  in  San  Jose,  California,  seeking  to  reunite   with  her  diabetic  daughter  and  young  grandchild;;  a  son  who  is  eager  to  bring  his  mother  and   developmentally  disabled  adult  brother  to  the  United  States  for  access  to  treatment  and  caregiving   support;;  and  a  widow  stranded  in  Vienna  with  her  elderly  father  and  disabled  toddler.  They  are  now   faced  with  an  uncertain  future.  
Plaintiff	  Jane	  Doe	  5  stated  in  the  court  filing:   “The  denial  has  had  a  terrible  impact  on  me  and  my  family.  My  son  suffers  from  repeated  epileptic   attacks  and  congenital  hydrocephalus,  requiring  regular  medical  attention  which  we  do  not  have   access  to  here  in  Austria.  .  .  .  Furthermore,  because  we  had  initially  anticipated  our  stay  in  Austria  to   last  only  three  to  six  months,  we  have  run  out  of  savings  and  are  in  dire  financial  straits.  I  am   anxious  to  travel  to  the  U.S.  and  be  reunited  with  my  in-­laws.”  

The  Plaintiffs  are  being  represented  by  the  International  Refugee  Assistance  Project  (IRAP)  at  the   Urban  Justice  Center  and  Latham  &  Watkins  LLP.  
Mariko	  Hirose,	  Litigation	  Director	  of	  IRAP,  said:  “The  U.S.  government  extended  a  helping  hand  to   these  Iranian  Christians,  Mandeans,  and  other  persecuted  religious  minorities  who  wanted  to  join   their  family  members  in  the  United  States,  only  to  cruelly  whip  it  away  for  no  discernible  reason  at   all.  The  government’s  conduct  betrays  America’s  long-­standing  commitment  to  be  a  beacon  of   religious  freedom,  as  embodied  by  the  Lautenberg  Amendment.”   “Our  clients  include  U.S.  citizens  and  refugees  (now  stranded  in  Vienna)  who  long  to  be  reunited  as   families  and  free  from  the  risk  of  deportation  back  to  Iran,  where  they  would  be  at  an  even  greater   risk  of  persecution  than  before  for  having  sought  refuge  in  the  U.S.  as  a  religious  minority,”   said  Latham	  &	  Watkins	  partner	  Belinda	  Lee.   The  complaint  was  filed  in  U.S.  District  Court  for  the  Northern  District  of  California.  
  

 
 Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 147 Filed 01/03/19 Page 1 of 2

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6

7

JANE DOE 1, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

v.

10

KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, et al.,

11

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-02349-BLF
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY [Re: ECF 143]

12

13

On December 26, 2018, the Government filed a motion to stay the action because the

14 appropriations act funding the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and several other

15 Executive agencies expired on December 21, 2018. Mot. at 1, ECF 143. The Government

16 requests the Court stay the case until funding is restored. The Government believes its attorneys

17 are barred from working, even on a voluntary basis, because this case does not involve “the safety

18 of human life or the protection of property” necessary to warrant providing voluntary services.

19 See id. at 1 (citing 31 U.S.C. § 1342). Plaintiffs oppose this request (in its entirety, after January

20 7) “given that it would indefinitely delay the resolution of this case, which involves the livelihood

21 of persecuted Iranian religious minorities.” Opp. at 2, ECF 144. Plaintiffs argue that a Court

22 order denying the stay “would constitute express legal authorization for the activity to continue,”

23 permitting the Government attorneys to continue working on the case. Id. And Plaintiffs note

24 they are willing to “discuss[] reasonable changes in deadlines and case management to

25 accommodate” the Government’s needs. Id.

26

The Court finds that a stay here would be inappropriate. This case centers around Notices

27 of Ineligibility issued by the United States on or about February 19, 2018 denying the applications

28 of approximately 87 Iranian refugees. Those refugees are currently “in limbo” in Vienna,

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 147 Filed 01/03/19 Page 2 of 2

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Austria—unable to return to Iran for fear of persecution and unable to come to the United States

2 due to the Government’s unsubstantiated rejections of their applications for refugee resettlement.

3 Summary Judgment Order at 5–6, ECF 87; Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at 7 (“MSJ”),

4 ECF 25. Further delay could lead to Plaintiffs’ deportation back to Iran, where they fear

5 persecution. MSJ at 7. The Court has previously recognized the need to resolve this action with

6 haste, issuing a summary judgment and class certification order within three months of the filing

7 of the Complaint.

8

Given Plaintiffs’ precarious situations, the motion to stay the case is DENIED. Cf. Roman

9 Catholic Archbishop of Wash. v. Sebelius, No. CV 13-1441(ABJ), 2013 WL 5570185, at *1

10 (D.D.C. Oct. 3, 2013) (denying motion to stay given lapse in appropriations because of time-

11 sensitive nature of case and possibility of irreparable harm); California v. Ross, No. 18-cv-1865-

12 RS, ECF 127 (denying motion to stay given lapse in appropriations on eve of trial). This Order

13 constitutes express legal authorization for the Government to continue litigating this case. See 21

14 U.S.C. § 1342 (barring voluntary services “exceeding that authorized by law”). Nothing in the

15 Order should be construed to provide Plaintiffs permission to contact any counsel who have not

16 appeared as attorneys in this case. The Government may request extensions of specific deadlines

17 as the need arises.

18

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

21 Dated: January 3, 2019

22

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

23

United States District Judge

24

25

26

27

28 2