U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:18-cv-01122-JLR

Pars Equality Center et al v. Pompeo et al Assigned to: Judge James L. Robart Cause: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff Pars Equality Center

Date Filed: 07/31/2018 Date Terminated: 12/28/2018 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 899 Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
represented by Aaron J. Fickes LANE POWELL PC (SEA) 1420 FIFTH AVE STE 4200 PO BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206-223-7141 Email: Aaron.Fickes@atg.wa.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands LANE POWELL (OR) 601 SW 2ND AVE STE 2100 PORTLAND, OR 97204 503-778-2117 Fax: 503-778-2200 Email: sandsd@lanepowell.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder LANE POWELL PC (SEA) 1420 FIFTH AVE STE 4200 PO BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206-223-7000 Email: walderj@lanepowell.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER &

2/6/2020

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
HAMPTON (SF) 4 EMBARCADERO CENTER 17 FL SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415-774-3191 Email: byousefzadeh@sheppardmullin.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS, CALIFORNIA 2180 W CRESCENT AVE, STE F ANAHEIM, CA 92801 408-986-9874 Email: brezaei@cair.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE ASIAN LAW CAUCUS 55 COLUMBUS AVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415-848-7733 Email: christinas@advancingjustice-alc.org TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dustin J O'Quinn LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 4200 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206-223-7949 Email: oquinnd@lanepowell.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE ASIAN LAW CAUCUS 55 COLUMBUS AVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415-848-7711

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

2/48

Email: elicav@advancingjustice-alc.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Sung NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 3450 WILSHIRE BLVD. #108-62 LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 213-639-3900 Email: sung@nilc.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 3450 WILSHIRE BLVD #108-62 LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 213-908-1118 Email: whalley@nilc.org TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
John A Freedman ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP (DC) 601 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001 202-942-5316 Email: John.Freedman@arnoldporter.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 3450 WILSHIRE BLVD #108-62 WASHINGTON, DC 90010 213-639-3900 Email: stehlik@nilc.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S. Keaney INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT PO BOX 2291

2/6/2020

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
FAIR OAKS, CA 95628 916-546-6125 Email: mkeaney@refugeerights.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas Espiritu NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 3450 WILSHIRE BLVD #108-62 LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 213-639-3900 Email: espiritu@nilc.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff OneAmerica

Zahra A Billoo COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS, CALIFORNIA 3160 DE LA CRUZ BLVD, STE 110 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 408-986-9874 Email: zbilloo@cair.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron J. Fickes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

4/48

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
John A Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S. Keaney (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address)

2/6/2020
Plaintiff Pamela Whitehall Raghebi

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron J. Fickes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

6/48

2/6/2020

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Esther Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE

John A Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

7/48

2/6/2020

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa S. Keaney (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Afshin Raghebi

Nicholas Espiritu Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron J. Fickes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

8/48

2/6/2020

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
John A Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S. Keaney (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

9/48

2/6/2020

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Zeinab Mohamed Hassan

Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron J. Fickes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

Brittney Rezaei Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018
(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
10/48

2/6/2020

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
John A Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S. Keaney (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

11/48

2/6/2020
Plaintiff Siraji Etha Siraji

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron J. Fickes LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

12/48

2/6/2020

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
John A Freedman Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S. Keaney (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

13/48

2/6/2020
Plaintiff Malayeen Ahmed

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron J. Fickes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

14/48

2/6/2020

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
John A Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S. Keaney (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

15/48

2/6/2020
Plaintiff Reza Azimi

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron J. Fickes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

16/48

2/6/2020

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Esther Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE

John A Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa S. Keaney (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yahya Ghaleb

represented by Aaron J. Fickes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

17/48

2/6/2020

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Esther Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

18/48

2/6/2020
Plaintiff Mitra Hannani

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
John A Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S. Keaney (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron J. Fickes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

19/48

2/6/2020

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

20/48

2/6/2020

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
John A Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S. Keaney (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

21/48

2/6/2020
Plaintiff Nicholas Hanout

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE Zahra
A Billoo PRO HAC
VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron J. Fickes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

22/48

2/6/2020
Plaintiff Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
John A Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S. Keaney (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron J. Fickes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

23/48

2/6/2020

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Christina Sinha TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
John A Freedman (See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

24/48

2/6/2020
Plaintiff Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi TERMINATED: 08/03/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S. Keaney (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron J. Fickes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

25/48

2/6/2020

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
John A Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE Joshua
Stehlik PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S. Keaney (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
26/48

2/6/2020
Plaintiff John Does #1-3

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
(See above for address) Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron J. Fickes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

27/48

2/6/2020
Plaintiff Jane Doe # 1

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
Esther Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
John A Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S. Keaney (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron J. Fickes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
28/48

2/6/2020

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
(See above for address) Jessica Walder LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
John A Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

29/48

2/6/2020
Plaintiff Maral Tabrizi TERMINATED: 08/03/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S. Keaney (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron J. Fickes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands LANE POWELL (OR) 601 SW 2ND AVE STE 2100 PORTLAND, OR 97204 503-778-2117 Fax: (503) 778-2200 Email: sandsd@lanepowell.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

30/48

2/6/2020

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
(See above for address) Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE Esther
Sung LEAD
ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A Freedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S. Keaney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

31/48

2/6/2020
V. Defendant

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
32/48

2/6/2020
Mike Pompeo

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
(See above for address) represented by David Kim
US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (BOX 878) PO BOX 878 BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, DC 20044 202-532-4094 Email: david.kim4@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Kirstjen M Nielsen

Gisela A Westwater US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (BOX 868) PO BOX 868 BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, DC 20044 202-532-4174 Email: gisela.westwater@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by David Kim (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Kevin K McAleenan

Gisela A Westwater (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Kim (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Department of Homeland Security

Gisela A Westwater (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Kim (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gisela A Westwater (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

US Department of State

represented by David Kim (See above for address)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

33/48

2/6/2020
Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gisela A Westwater ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Kim (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gisela A Westwater (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/31/2018
07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018

# Docket Text
1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Receipt # 0981-5416939), filed by Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibits A-C)(Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/1/2018 to remove duplicate text re attorney and modify party names originally entered in ALL CAPS (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
2 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS re Mike Pompeo by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
3 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS re Kirstjen Nielsen by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
4 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS re Kevin K. McAleenan by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

34/48

2/6/2020
07/31/2018
07/31/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
(See above for address)
5 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS re Department of Homeland Security by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
6 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS re U.S. Department of State by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall

07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018

Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
7 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS re U.S. Customs and Border Protection by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
8 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Babak G. Yousefzadeh FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417136 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
9 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Jana Whalley FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417146 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
10 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Dustin J. O'Quinn FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417158 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
11 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Brittney Rezaei FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417163 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

35/48

2/6/2020
07/31/2018
07/31/2018
07/31/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
12 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Joshua Stehlik FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417164 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
13 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Zahra A. Billoo FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417165 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
14 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Esther H. Sung FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center,

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

36/48

2/6/2020

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3

07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018
07/31/2018

Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417168 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
15 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY John A. Freedman FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417171 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
16 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Melissa S. Keaney FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417174 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
17 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Nicholas Espiritu FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417185 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
18 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Elica S. Vafaie FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417204 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
19 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Christina Sinha FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417207 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
20 MOTION to Proceed Under Pseudonym re 1 Complaint, filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/17/2018, (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/1/2018 to remove duplicate text, correct parties entered in ALL CAPS, and update text so as to better describe attached document (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
21 DECLARATION of John Doe 1 filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji re 20 Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym re 1 Complaint. (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/1/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

37/48

2/6/2020
07/31/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
22 DECLARATION of John Doe 2 filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi,

07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018
07/31/2018 08/01/2018

OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji re 20 Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym re 1 Complaint. (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/1/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
23 DECLARATION of John Doe 3 filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi and Siraji Etha Siraji re 20 Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym re 1 Complaint. (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/1/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
24 DECLARATION of Jane Doe 1 filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi and Siraji Etha Siraji re 20 Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym re 1 Complaint. (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/1/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
25 DECLARATION of Jessica N. Walder filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji re 20 MOTION to Proceed Under Pseudonym re 1 Complaint. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, p. 6-9, # 2 Exhibit B, p. 10-15, # 3 Exhibit C, p. 6-19, # 4 Exhibit D, p. 2025, # 5 Exhibit E, p. 26-86, # 6 Exhibit F, p. 87-111, # 7 Exhibit G, p. 112-116, # 8 Exhibit H, p. 117-119, # 9 Exhibit I, p. 120-125, # 10 Exhibit J, p. 126-129)(Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
Plaintiff Maral Tabrizi (omitted from caption of complaint; first named on page 8, at No. 38) added to case. (SP) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
26 ORDER re 8 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Babak G Yousefzadeh for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Afshin Raghebi,and Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) Modified on 8/1/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 08/01/2018)

2/6/2020
08/01/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
27 ORDER re 9 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Jana Whalley for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, JANE DOE #1, JOHN DOES #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, PAMELA WHITEHALL RAGHEBI, Afshin Raghebi, and SIRAJI ETHA SIRAJI, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

08/01/2018
08/01/2018 08/01/2018
08/01/2018

28 ORDER re 10 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Dustin J O'Quinn for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, for Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi and Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
Judge Benjamin H. Settle added. (CDA) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
29 ORDER re 11 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Brittney Rezaei for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
NOTICE Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 7.1, Pars Equality Center and OneAmerica must file a Corporate Disclosure Statement by 8/8/2018 (if applicable). (CDA) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

39/48

2/6/2020
08/01/2018
08/01/2018
08/01/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
30 ORDER re 12 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Joshua Stehlik for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
31 ORDER re 13 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Zahra A Billoo for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and for Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
32 Summons(es) Electronically Issued as to defendant(s) (Main document - summons -

08/01/2018

Michael Pompeo) (Attachments: # 1 Kirstjen Nielsen, # 2 Kevin McAleenan, # 3 U S Department of Homeland Security, # 4 U S Department of State, # 5 U S Customs and Border Protection)(CDA) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
33 ORDER re 14 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Esther Sung for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) Modified on 8/1/2018 to add plaintiff Malayeen Ahmed to list of represented parties (GMR). (Entered: 08/01/2018)

2/6/2020
08/01/2018
08/01/2018
08/01/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
34 ORDER re 15 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice,. The Court ADMITS Attorney John A Freedman for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi,John Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
35 ORDER re 16 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Melissa S. Keaney for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
36 ORDER re 17 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Nicholas Espiritu for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

08/01/2018

37 ORDER re 18 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Elica S Vafaie for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

41/48

2/6/2020

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

08/01/2018
08/01/2018 08/03/2018 08/06/2018 08/06/2018

38 ORDER re 19 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Christina Sinha for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
39 NOTICE of Related Case(s) 2:17-cv-0178-JLR, by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji. (Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
40 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal as to party(s) Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi and Maral Tabrizi, filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi. (Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
41 Affidavit of Service of Summons and Complaint CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan re 4 Summons on Kevin McAleenan (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/8/2018 to add document relationship (SP). Modified on 8/17/2018 to correct docket event (SP). (Entered: 08/06/2018)
42 Affidavit of Service of Summons and Complaint CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 2 Praecipe for a Summons, Summons Mike Pompeo (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/17/2018 to correct docket event (SP). (Entered: 08/06/2018)

2/6/2020
08/06/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
43 Affidavit of Service of Summons and Complaint CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi,

08/06/2018 08/06/2018 08/06/2018 08/06/2018 08/08/2018 08/08/2018

Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi Attorney General, Washington State (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/17/2018 to correct docket event (SP). (Entered: 08/06/2018)
44 Affidavit of Service of Summons and Complaint CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 3 Praecipe for a Summons, Summons on Kirstjen Nielsen (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/17/2018 to correct docket event (SP). (Entered: 08/06/2018)
45 Affidavit of Service of Summons and Complaint CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 7 Praecipe for a Summons, Summons on US Customs and Border Protection (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/17/2018 to correct docket event (SP). (Entered: 08/06/2018)
46 Affidavit of Service of Summons and Complaint CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 6 Praecipe for a Summons, Summons on US Department of State (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/17/2018 to correct docket event (SP). (Entered: 08/06/2018)
47 Affidavit of Service of Summons and Complaint CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 5 Praecipe for a Summons, Summons on Department of Homeland Security (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/17/2018 to correct docket event (SP). (Entered: 08/06/2018)
48 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT indicating no Corporate Parents and/or Affiliates. Filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 7.1. Filed by Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji (Fickes, Aaron) (Entered: 08/08/2018)
49 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT indicating no Corporate Parents and/or Affiliates. Filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 7.1. Filed by OneAmerica (Fickes, Aaron) (Entered: 08/08/2018)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

43/48

2/6/2020
08/20/2018
08/20/2018
08/21/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
Judge James L. Robart added. Case transferred as related to C17-178JLR. (TG) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
REFERRING 20 MOTION to Proceed Under Pseudonym to: Judge James L. Robart (TG) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
50 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Jana Whalley for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda

08/22/2018 08/23/2018 09/04/2018 09/04/2018 09/06/2018 09/24/2018 09/24/2018

Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi. (Sung, Esther) (Entered: 08/21/2018)
51 ORDER granting Plaintiffs John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, and Jane Doe 1's 20 Motion to proceed under pseudonym. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM) (Entered: 08/22/2018)
52 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney David Kim on behalf of Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of State. (Kim, David) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
53 ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND JOINT STATUS REPORT by Judge James L. Robart. Joint Status Report due by 10/9/2018, FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 9/18/2018, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 10/2/2018. (AD) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
54 SCHEDULING ORDER REGARDING CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION by Judge James L. Robart. Deadline to complete discovery of class certification: 12/28/2018; Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion for class certification: 1/28/2019. (AD) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
55 MOTION to Transfer Case , filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Transfer Venue) Noting Date 9/28/2018, (Kim, David) (Entered: 09/06/2018)
56 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, to 55 MOTION to Transfer Case . (Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
57 DECLARATION of P. Raghebi filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 55 MOTION to Transfer Case (Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 09/24/2018)

2/6/2020
09/24/2018
09/24/2018
09/24/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
58 DECLARATION of Afshin Raghebi filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 55 MOTION to Transfer Case (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 9/26/2018 to add name of declarant(PM). (Entered: 09/24/2018)
59 DECLARATION of Siraji Siraji filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 55 MOTION to Transfer Case (Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
60 DECLARATION of Zeinab Hassan filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 55 MOTION to Transfer Case (Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 09/24/2018)

09/24/2018 09/24/2018 09/28/2018 10/02/2018 10/04/2018

61 DECLARATION of Warsame filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 55 MOTION to Transfer Case (Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
62 DECLARATION of Tana Lin filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 55 MOTION to Transfer Case (Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
63 REPLY, filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of State, TO RESPONSE to 55 MOTION to Transfer Case (Kim, David) (Entered: 09/28/2018)
64 MOTION to Dismiss , filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order) Noting Date 10/26/2018, (Kim, David) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
65 MOTION to Compel Administrative Record Under Local Rule 79(h), filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 10/19/2018, (Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

45/48

2/6/2020
10/04/2018
10/08/2018 10/09/2018
10/10/2018 10/12/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
66 DECLARATION of Jessica N. Walder in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Administrative Record filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 65 MOTION to Compel Administrative Record Under Local Rule 79(h) (Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 10/04/2018)
67 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Christina Sinha for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi. (Vafaie, Elica) (Entered: 10/08/2018)
68 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties Filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi.(Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 10/09/2018)
69 MOTION to Stay Discovery, filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 10/26/2018, (Kim, David) (Entered: 10/10/2018)
70 MOTION Reconsideration of Court's Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed Under

10/15/2018 10/19/2018

Pseudonym re 20 MOTION to Proceed Under Pseudonym, 51 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief , filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 11/2/2018, (Kim, David) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
71 RESPONSE, by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of State, to 65 MOTION to Compel Administrative Record Under Local Rule 79(h). (Kim, David) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
72 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi, TO RESPONSE to 65 MOTION to Compel Administrative Record Under Local Rule 79(h) (Fickes, Aaron) (Entered: 10/19/2018)

2/6/2020
10/22/2018
10/22/2018
10/22/2018
10/25/2018 10/25/2018 10/26/2018 12/06/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
73 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi, to 69 MOTION to Stay Discovery. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Fickes, Aaron) (Entered: 10/22/2018)
74 DECLARATION of Esther H. Sung in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Stay filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 69 MOTION to Stay Discovery (Fickes, Aaron) (Entered: 10/22/2018)
75 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi, to 64 MOTION to Dismiss . Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fickes, Aaron) (Entered: 10/22/2018)
76 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Gisela A Westwater on behalf of Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Westwater, Gisela) (Entered: 10/25/2018)
77 NOTICE to Withdraw Pending Motion re 69 MOTION to Stay Discovery ; by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of State. (Westwater, Gisela) (Entered: 10/25/2018)
78 REPLY, filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of State, TO RESPONSE to 64 MOTION to Dismiss (Kim, David) (Entered: 10/26/2018)
79 Stipulated MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF CLASS DISCOVERY AND CERTIFICATION OF DEADLINES, filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi,

12/12/2018 12/28/2018

Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi. Noting Date 12/6/2018, (Fickes, Aaron) (Entered: 12/06/2018)
80 ORDER granting Defendant's 55 Motion to Transfer Case to Northern District of California; striking Defendants' 64 Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiffs' 65 Motion to Compel, 70 Motion for Reconsideration; directing Clerk to close this file. Signed by Judge James L. Robart.
Case will be sent to the US District Court for the Northern District of California by electronic transfer 15 days from the date of this filing. (SWT) (Entered: 12/12/2018)
Case sent to the Northern District of California by electronic case transfer. (TH) (Entered: 12/28/2018)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?514090095903178-L_1_0-1

47/48

2/6/2020
01/04/2019

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
81 TRANSFERRED CASE opened in California Northern District as case 3:18-cv-07818 on 12/31/2018. (TH) (Entered: 01/14/2019)

 
 Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 1 of 68

THE HONORABLE 1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

8

PARS EQUALITY CENTER;

)

9 ONEAMERICA; PAMELA WHITEHALL )

RAGHEBI; AFSHIN RAGHEBI; ZEINAB )

10 MOHAMED HASSAN; SIRAJI ETHA

)

SIRAJI; MALAYEEN AHMED; REZA )

11 AZIMI; YAHYA GHALEB; MITRA

)

HANNANI; NICHOLAS HANOUT;

)

12 HOSSEIN ZAMANI HOSSEINABADI; )

HODA MEHRABI MOHAMMADABADI; )

13 JOHN DOES #1-3; and JANE DOE #1,

) )

Case No. __________

14

Plaintiffs,

) )

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

15

v.

)

)

16 MIKE POMPEO; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN; )

KEVIN K. MCALEENAN; U.S.

)

17 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

)

18 STATE; and U.S. CUSTOMS AND

)

BORDER PROTECTION,

)

19

)

Defendants. )

20

)

21

INTRODUCTION

22

1. This lawsuit challenges Defendants’ implementation of the waiver provision of

23 Presidential Proclamation No. 9645, “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for

24 Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States By Terrorists or other Public-Safety Threats”

25 (“Proclamation”). The Proclamation indefinitely bans millions of nationals of five Muslim-

26 majority countries from entering the United States. For many thousands of individuals and

27 families indefinitely separated by the President’s ban, the Proclamation’s waiver provision has,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 1 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 2 of 68

1 as a practical matter, amounted to nothing more than an empty promise—in the words of Justice

2 Breyer, merely “window dressing.”

3

2. Under the Proclamation, the only way that banned individuals can now gain

4 entry to the United States is by obtaining a waiver. See Section 3(c), Proc. No. 9645 (hereinafter

5 “waiver provision”). But the Proclamation’s waiver provision has been implemented in such a

6 haphazard, opaque, and capricious manner, and so few visa applicants have actually been

7 granted waivers under the Proclamation, that the process by which waivers are supposedly

8 granted has become part and parcel of the ban itself.

9

3. Indeed, a former consular official and State Department employee has stated in

10 a sworn declaration “that there really is no waiver,” because consular officers have been

11 instructed “to determine at all possible cost that the [visa applicant] was not eligible to even

12 apply for the waiver.” See Exhibit A.

13

4. What is publicly known about Defendants’ implementation of the

14 Proclamation’s waiver provision is consistent with this assessment.

15

5. When the Proclamation went into effect, there were mass denials of waivers,

16 regardless of whether the applicant had already had a consular interview, whether the applicant

17 had any meaningful notice of the availability of a waiver, or whether the applicant had an

18 opportunity to present evidence of eligibility for a waiver.

19

6. There is no application form for a waiver from the Proclamation’s ban. There is

20 no information about how an individual seeking a visa can demonstrate his or her eligibility

21 under the criteria set out in the Proclamation. There is no formal opportunity provided in the

22 visa application process for an individual to demonstrate eligibility for a waiver. Nor do there

23 appear to be consistent processes by which to accept and consider requests for waivers.

24

7. As implemented by Defendants, moreover, the process and standard by which

25 waivers are granted are dramatically different from what the Proclamation sets out. The few

26 public disclosures about how the State Department is implementing the Proclamation’s waiver

27 provision indicate that consular officers are assessing visa applicants’ waiver eligibility

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 2 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 3 of 68

1 pursuant to an arbitrary and ad hoc process, and under far narrower criteria than those actually

2 set forth in the Proclamation. Numerous individuals—including every individual Plaintiff in

3 this action—fall within the circumstances identified by the Proclamation as warranting a waiver,

4 but have nevertheless been unable to obtain a waiver.

5

8. Given the unduly restrictive manner in which Defendants have implemented the

6 Proclamation’s waiver provision, families from the five majority-Muslim banned countries

7 remain unnecessarily separated, and cannot celebrate traditional milestones together like births,

8 graduations, weddings, and birthdays, or provide support through illness and hardship.

9 Institutions of higher learning cannot bring academics and students from the banned countries

10 to pursue research or study in the United States. Employers are unable to hire or employ

11 qualified individuals from the banned countries.

12

9. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are individuals facing indefinite separation from

13 their families, for whom a waiver from the ban is the only way they can reunite with their

14 families, and organizations who serve individuals in similar straits. They respectfully request

15 that the Court enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing any part of the Proclamation’s

16 waiver provision in a manner that violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), the INA,

17 the Constitution, or the Proclamation itself.

18

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

19

10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343

20 over Plaintiffs’ claims under the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes. The Court has additional

21 remedial authority under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02.

22

11. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) and Local Rule § 104(e). Defendants

23 are officers or employees of the United States acting in their official capacities, and agencies of

24 the United States. Organizational Plaintiff OneAmerica and individual plaintiffs Pamela

25 Whitehall Raghebi, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, and Siraji Etha Siraji reside in the Seattle

26 Division of this District. No real property is involved in this action.

27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 3 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 4 of 68

1

PARTIES

2

12. The Plaintiffs in this case are both individuals and organizations. The individual

3 plaintiffs are United States citizens and foreign nationals lawfully present in the United States,

4 whose efforts to reunite here with relatives abroad have been delayed or indefinitely thwarted

5 by the President’s executive orders (“EOs”)1 and by Defendants’ implementation of the waiver

6 provision; individuals abroad who have been left with no avenue to reunite with family and

7 loved ones in the United States because of the EOs and the Proclamation’s waiver requirement;

8 and legally present foreign nationals from countries subject to the Proclamation who, but for

9 the uncertainty created by the waiver process, wish to travel abroad and return to the United

10 States.

11

13. Some individual plaintiffs have approved I-130 immigrant petitions for their

12 relatives abroad; of these, some are awaiting a decision on their immigrant visa applications

13 and a waiver, while others have already been denied waivers and visas. Other plaintiffs are

14 foreign nationals who have filed nonimmigrant visa petitions to visit and reunite with loved

15 ones present in the United States, and who are either awaiting a decision or have been denied

16 waivers and visas.

17

14. All the individual plaintiffs have been forced to endure a prolonged separation

18 from their loved ones because of the EOs and, now, Defendants’ unlawful implementation of

19 the Proclamation’s waiver provision.

20

15. The organizational plaintiffs serve individuals or have members and clients who,

21 like the individual plaintiffs, are United States citizens or lawful permanent residents with

22 relatives abroad who are nationals of a banned country and who are seeking immigrant or

23 nonimmigrant visas. The organizational plaintiffs assert standing on their own behalf, and

24 plaintiff Pars Equality Center also asserts standing on behalf of its clients.

25 1 Exec. Order 13769, Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States, 82 Fed. Reg.
8977 (Jan. 27, 2017) (hereinafter “EO-1”); Exec. Order 13780, Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist
26 Entry Into the United States, 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 6, 2017) (hereinafter “EO-2”); Proc. No. 9645, Enhancing
Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or Other
27 Public Safety Threats, 82 Fed. Reg. 45161 (Sept. 24, 2017) (collectively, the “EOs” or the “Orders”).

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 4 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 5 of 68

1

16. Plaintiff Pars Equality Center (“Pars”) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation

2 headquartered in Menlo Park, California, with offices in San Jose and Los Angeles, California.

3 Pars Equality Center’s offices are recognized by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal

4 Accreditation Program. Pars’ legal staff members include licensed attorneys and accredited

5 U.S. Department of Justice immigration representatives.

6

17. Pars is a community-based social and legal services organization dedicated to

7 helping Iranian-American and other Persian-speaking communities fulfill their full potential as

8 informed, self-reliant, and responsible members of American society. Since its inception in

9 2010, Pars has expanded its social and legal services to other immigrant and refugee

10 communities, including Middle-Eastern, Southeast Asian, and Hispanic communities.

11

18. Pars provides programs and services to communities affected by the

12 Proclamation, including, primarily, the Iranian community. Pars’ immigration services include

13 assisting individuals with a range of immigration processes, including citizenship/naturalization

14 applications, green card applications and renewals, domestic violence-based immigration

15 petitions, family-based petitions, I-730 Refugee/Asylee petitions, travel documents, National

16 Visa Center processing, employment authorization applications, requests for fee waivers, and

17 representation at USCIS interviews. Pars’ work also encompasses assisting individuals with

18 more complex immigration relief such as humanitarian reinstatements and, notably, waivers

19 under Section 3(c) of the Proclamation.

20

19. In addition, Pars offers education and outreach services including in-house and

21 mobile workshops, seminars, and roundtable discussions on immigrant rights issues such as

22 immigration arrests and detentions, and rights at the border.

23

20. Pars provides social services to its clientele and the broader community,

24 including but not limited to English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction, citizenship

25 classes, computer training and access to employment resources such as job fairs, assistance in

26 navigating the U.S. social and medical systems, assistance with tax preparation, and cross-

27 cultural and cross-generational support and training.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 5 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 6 of 68

1

21. In 2017, Pars served close to 5,000 individuals through its social, legal, and

2 education and outreach services.

3

22. Plaintiff Pars asserts claims on behalf of itself and on behalf of its clients.

4

23. Plaintiff OneAmerica is a 501(c)(3) non-profit membership organization with

5 its principal place of business in Seattle, Washington. Plaintiff OneAmerica is the largest

6 immigrant and refugee advocacy organization in Washington State. OneAmerica envisions a

7 peaceful world where every person’s human rights and dignity are respected. It seeks to achieve

8 this vision by advancing fundamental principles of democracy and justice through organizing

9 with and advocating for diverse communities. At least one-third of OneAmerica’s membership

10 is Muslim, and many are nationals from the five Muslim-majority countries targeted by the

11 Proclamation.

12

24. OneAmerica was founded immediately after September 11, 2001 to address the

13 backlash, hate crimes, and discrimination against immigrant communities of color, primarily

14 Muslims, Arab Americans, East Africans, and South Asians. OneAmerica plays an active and

15 leading role in state and national coalitions working on immigrant rights, education, economic

16 and environmental justice, voting rights, and immigrant integration.

17

25. OneAmerica provides programs and services to immigrant communities

18 affected by the Proclamation. It conducts community education through regular community

19 meetings and know your rights trainings on topics important to the community and that further

20 its mission. OneAmerica also produces publications to alert its membership to emerging issues

21 and maintains an email listserv and social media accounts that reach over 25,000 individuals.

22

26. OneAmerica asserts claims on its own behalf.

23

27. Plaintiff Pamela Whitehall Raghebi is a native-born United States citizen who

24 lives in Seattle, WA. She has been married to her husband, Plaintiff Afshin Raghebi, an Iranian

25 national, for over seven years, and has an approved I-130 Petition and an I-601A waiver for her

26 husband to come and join her in the United States where they previously lived together for

27 seven years.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 6 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 7 of 68

1

28. Plaintiff Afshin Raghebi is an Iranian national who lived in the United States for

2 12 years and has been married to a U.S. citizen, Plaintiff Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, for over

3 seven years. Mr. Raghebi had been approved for a I-130 Petition and an I-601A waiver. He is

4 currently in Turkey, waiting for a consular officer at the Department of State to rule on his

5 waiver so that he may return to his wife, their home in Seattle, and the business they run

6 together.

7

29. Plaintiff Zeinab Mohamed Hassan is a naturalized U.S. citizen of Somali origin

8 who lives in Kent, Washington. She has approved I-130 petitions for her two adult daughters,

9 who have been displaced from Somalia and currently reside in Kenya.

10

30. Plaintiff Siraji Etha Siraji is a naturalized U.S. citizen of Somali origin living in

11 SeaTac, Washington. He has an approved I-130 petition for his wife, a refugee displaced from

12 Somalia who is living in Kenya with their three young U.S. citizen children. Plaintiff Siraji’s

13 wife is pregnant with their fourth child.

14

31. Plaintiff Malayeen Ahmed is a U.S. citizen of Yemeni origin who lives in Santa

15 Clara, California. She has an approved I-130 petition for her father, a Yemeni national, who has

16 survived airstrikes on his home in Yemen and is now stranded in Djibouti following his consular

17 interview.

18

32. Plaintiff Reza Azimi is a U.S. citizen of Iranian origin who resides in Plymouth,

19 Michigan. He sought to bring his parents, Iranian nationals, to the United States on tourist visas

20 so that they could witness the birth of their first grandchild and provide temporary care and

21 support to his wife and their newborn baby. Plaintiff Azimi’s parents applied for visas in 2015

22 and 2017.

23

33. Plaintiff Yahya Ghaleb is a U.S. citizen of Yemeni origin living in Dearborn,

24 Michigan. He has an approved I-130 petition for his sixteen-year-old son, who is living in

25 Yemen with his elderly grandmother.

26

27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 7 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 8 of 68

1

34. Plaintiff Mitra Hannani is a national of Iran living in Kashan, Iran. She is the

2 beneficiary of an approved I-130 petition filed by her U.S. citizen mother. Her mother, father,

3 brother, and twin sister are all U.S. citizens and her only son is a Lawful Permanent Resident.

4

35. Plaintiff Nicolas Hanout is a Lawful Permanent Resident of Syrian origin living

5 in Castro Valley, California. He has an approved I-130 petition for his wife, who currently lives

6 in Al Mouzeina, Homs Governorate, Syria.

7

36. Plaintiff Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi is an Iranian national pursuing a

8 doctorate at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio on an F-1 student visa. He

9 sought to bring his wife’s parents, Iranian nationals, to the United States on tourist visas so that

10 they could witness the birth of their first grandchild and provide temporary care and support to

11 his wife and their newborn baby. Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi’s parents-in-law applied for

12 non-immigrant tourist visas in 2017. Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi’s brother was selected for

13 a visa through the diversity lottery program in 2017.

14

37. Plaintiff Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, is a national of Iran living in Iran. She

15 has an approved I-526 petition for a visa through the EB-5 program, which was originally

16 created by Congress in 1990 to stimulate the U.S. economy through job creation and capital

17 investment by foreign investors. She has invested $500,000 in a hotel business in Milwaukee,

18 Wisconsin, which is at risk of being lost.

19

38. Plaintiff Maral Tabrizi is a Lawful Permanent Resident from Iran living in

20 Tempe, Arizona. She sought to bring her parents, Iranian nationals, to the United States on

21 tourist visas so that they could witness the birth of their first grandchild and provide temporary

22 care and support to her and her newborn baby. Her parents applied for non-immigrant tourist

23 visas in 2017.

24

25

26

27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 8 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 9 of 68

1

39. Plaintiff John Doe #12 is a native-born U.S. citizen living in Marion County,

2 Florida. He has an approved I-130 petition for his elderly parents, whose living situation in

3 Libya has become increasingly dire as the country has become less stable.

4

40. Plaintiff John Doe #2 is a U.S. citizen of Yemeni origin living in Dearborn,

5 Michigan with his two U.S. citizen daughters, aged seven and eleven. He has an approved I-130

6 petition for his wife, a Yemeni national, who has been separated from John Doe #2 and their

7 children since 2016.

8

41. Plaintiff John Doe #3 is a native-born U.S. citizen who lives in San Francisco,

9 California. He has been engaged to his fiancée, an Iranian national and Plaintiff Jane Doe #1,

10 for one year. He has an approved I-129F petition permitting her to apply for a K-1 fiancée visa,

11 which would allow her to come to the United States so they can marry.

12

42. Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 is an Iranian national and the beneficiary of Plaintiff John

13 Doe #3’s approved I-129F petition. She applied for a K-1 fiancée visa through the U.S.

14 Embassy in Muscat, Oman. After her consular interview, Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 received a

15 notice denying her visa based on her ineligibility for a waiver.

16

43. Defendant Mike Pompeo is the Secretary of State and has responsibility for

17 overseeing enforcement and implementation of the Proclamation, including the Proclamation’s

18 waiver provision, by all Department of State staff. He is sued in his official capacity.

19

44. Defendant Kirstjen Nielsen is the Secretary of Homeland Security and has

20 responsibility for overseeing enforcement and implementation of the Proclamation, including

21 the Proclamation’s waiver provision, by all Department of Homeland Security staff. She is sued

22 in her official capacity.

23

45. Defendant Kevin K. McAleenan is the Commissioner of the Customs and

24 Border Protection and has responsibility for overseeing enforcement and implementation of the

25

26

2 A motion for leave of Court for John Does #1-3 and Jane Doe #1 to proceed under pseudonyms is filed
27 contemporaneously with this Complaint.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 9 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 10 of 68

1 Proclamation, including the Proclamation’s waiver provision, by all Customs and Border

2 Protection staff. He is sued in his official capacity.

3

46. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a cabinet-level

4 department of the United States federal government. Its components include U.S. Citizenship

5 and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), and

6 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). USCIS’s responsibilities include adjudicating

7 requests for immigration benefits for individuals located within the United States. CBP’s

8 responsibilities include inspecting and admitting immigrants and nonimmigrant arriving with

9 U.S. visas at international points of entry, including airports and land borders. ICE’s

10 responsibilities include enforcing federal immigration law within the interior of the United

11 States. The Proclamation assigns DHS a variety of responsibilities regarding its enforcement,

12 including the implementation of the Proclamation’s waiver provision.

13

47. Defendant U.S. Department of State (“DOS”) is a cabinet-level department of

14 the United States federal government. DOS is responsible for the issuance of immigrant and

15 nonimmigrant visas abroad. The Proclamation assigns DOS a variety of responsibilities

16 regarding its enforcement, including the implementation of the Proclamation’s waiver

17 provision.

18

48. Defendant Customs and Border Protection is a federal law enforcement agency

19 within DHS. CBP’s responsibilities include inspecting and admitting immigrants and

20 nonimmigrant arriving with U.S. visas at international points of entry, including airports and

21 land borders. The Proclamation assigns CBP a variety of responsibilities regarding its

22 enforcement, including the implementation of the Proclamation’s waiver provision.

23

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

24

President Trump’s Attempts to Ban Muslims from the United States

25

49. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit challenge the manner in which Defendants have

26 implemented the waiver provision of the Proclamation (the “waiver process”), which represents

27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 10 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 11 of 68

1 the latest of three attempts to effectuate President Trump’s oft-repeated campaign promise to

2 implement a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

3

50. The first attempt, EO-1, was signed one week after President Trump’s

4 inauguration. 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Jan. 27, 2017).

5

51. EO-1 banned for 90 days the entry of any national from seven Muslim-majority

6 countries, banned the entry of all refugees for 120 days, and indefinitely banned the entry of all

7 Syrian refugees. It was rushed into effect so quickly that it blindsided not only key members of

8 the Cabinet but also the agencies charged with its implementation, causing chaos at airports

9 across the nation and confusion among the ranks of U.S. Custom and Border Protection, the

10 Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State.

11

52. Although EO-1 was soon enjoined after it was issued, President Trump was

12 undeterred. On March 6, 2017, he signed EO-2, which was extremely similar to EO-1 in most

13 material respects and, according to Trump Administration officials, was intended to achieve the

14 same policy outcomes as EO-1. After facing further successful legal challenges to EO-2,

15 President Trump replaced it with the Proclamation on September 24, 2017.

16

The September 24, 2017 Presidential Proclamation

17

53. The Proclamation, which went into effect on or around December 8, 2017, states

18 that all nationals seeking entry as immigrants from five Muslim-majority countries (Iran, Libya,

19 Somalia, Syria, and Yemen) are banned indefinitely.

20

54. The Proclamation likewise indefinitely bans non-immigrant entry for most

21 nationals from these countries, either by banning non-immigrant entry entirely (Syria), banning

22 entry based on the most commonly used non-immigrant visas for nationals from the affected

23 countries (Iran, Libya, Yemen), or subjecting non-immigrant visas applicants to “additional

24 scrutiny” (Somalia).3

25 3 The Proclamation initially included Chad and banned nationals of Chad from seeking entry as immigrants, as
well as entry based on the types of non-immigrant visas most commonly sought by nationals of Chad. On April
26 10, 2018, fifteen days before the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments on constitutional and
statutory challenges to the Proclamation in Trump v. Hawai’i, President Trump issued a new Presidential
27

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 11 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 12 of 68

1

55. The Proclamation also bans certain Venezuelan government officials and their

2 immediate relatives who seek to enter the United States on non-immigrant visitor and business

3 visas. Estimates suggest that at most a few hundred Venezuelans will be affected by EO-3 each

4 year.

5

56. Similarly, the Proclamation categorically bans all nationals of North Korea from

6 entering the United States. The number of entries to the United States by North Korea has been

7 so historically low that fewer than 100 visa applicants on average will be affected by the

8 Proclamation per year.

9

57. The impact of the Proclamation thus falls almost entirely on Muslims. For

10 example, if it had been in effect in 2016, the Proclamation would have denied immigrant visas

11 to 12,998 Yemenis, 7,727 Iranians, 9 North Koreans, and 0 Venezuelans.

12

58. Before it could go into effect, the Proclamation was enjoined by two district

13 courts on the grounds that it violated the Establishment Clause and the INA. Int’l Refugee

14 Assistance Project v. Trump, 265 F. Supp. 3d 570, 633 (D. Md. 2017), aff’d 833 F.3d 233 (4th

15 Cir. 2018), vacated 2018 WL 1256938; Hawai’i v. Trump, 265 F. Supp. 3d 1140, 1155 (D.

16 Hawai’i 2017), aff’d 878 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2017), rev’d 138 S.Ct. 2392 (2018).

17

59. The government subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court for a stay of the

18 injunctions during the pendency of the government’s appeals of the injunctions to the Fourth

19 and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals. The Supreme Court granted the government’s application

20 for a stay on December 4, 2017.

21

60. The Proclamation went into effect on or around December 8, 2017, and has

22 remained in effect since.

23

24

25 Proclamation removing the visa restrictions imposed on nationals of Chad. Presidential Proclamation Maintaining
Enhanced Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detected Attempted Entry into the United states by Terrorists or
26 Other Public-Safety Threats, (April. 10, 2018), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-
proclamation-maintaining-enhanced-vetting-capabilities-processes-detecting-attempted-entry-united-states-
27 terrorists-public-safety-threats/.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 12 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 13 of 68

The Proclamation’s Waiver Provision 1
61. Like its predecessors, the Proclamation allows for waivers to its entry bans on a 2
case-by-case basis. Proclamation § 3(c). 3
62. The Proclamation’s waiver provision states that a foreign national may be 4
granted a waiver if she satisfies three criteria: first, that “denying entry” would cause her “undue 5
hardship;” second, that her “entry would not pose a threat to the national security or public 6
safety of the United States;” and third, that her “entry would be in the national interest.” 7
Proclamation § 3(c)(i). 8
63. The visa applicant has the burden of “demonstrat[ing] to the consular officer’s 9
or CBP official’s satisfaction” that the applicant meets each of the three criteria set out in 10
Section 3(c)(i). 11
64. The Proclamation also provides nine examples of circumstances in which a 12
waiver might be appropriate, “such as” when a visa applicant “seeks to enter the United States 13
to visit or reside with a close family member . . . who is a United States citizen;” “seeks to 14
reenter the United States to resume” long-term work or study; “has previously established 15
significant contacts with the United States;” or “is an infant, a young child or adoptee” or “an 16
individual needing urgent medical care.” Proclamation § 3(c)(iv)(A)-(J). 17
65. The waiver provision gives discretion to grant waivers specifically to consular 18
officers, the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, or a “designee” of the CBP 19
Commissioner. It further states that “a waiver may be granted only if a foreign national 20
demonstrates to the consular officer’s or CBP official’s satisfaction that” the foreign national 21
meets the three eligibility criteria (emphasis added). 22
66. In addition, the Proclamation states that “[t]he Secretary of State and the 23
Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate to adopt guidance addressing the 24
circumstances in which waivers may be appropriate for foreign nationals seeking entry as 25
immigrants or nonimmigrants.” Proclamation § 3(c)(ii) (emphasis added). 26

27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 13 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 14 of 68

1

67. Section 3(c)(ii) of the Proclamation states that this required guidance “shall

2 address the standards, policies, and procedures” for five specific agency actions:

3

A) “determining whether the entry of a foreign national would not pose a threat to

4

the national security or public safety of the United States;”

5

B) “determining whether the entry of a foreign national would be in the national

6

interest;”

7

C) “addressing and managing the risks of making such a determination in light of

8

the inadequacies in information sharing, identity management, and other potential

9

dangers posed by the nationals of individual countries subject to the restrictions and

10

limitations imposed by this proclamation;”

11

D) “assessing whether the United States has access, at the time of the waiver

12

determination, to sufficient information about the foreign national to determine

13

whether entry would satisfy the requirements” set out in the Proclamation for waiver

14

eligibility; and

15

E) “determining the special circumstances that would justify granting a waiver” as

16

outlined in by the Proclamation in Section 3(c)(iv)(A)-(J). Proclamation § 3(c)(ii)

17

(A)-(E) (emphasis added).

18

68. The Proclamation does not require the Secretary of State or the Secretary of

19 Homeland Security to keep the guidance ordered by Section 3(c)(ii) secret or non-public.

20

69. To the extent such guidance ordered by Section 3(c)(ii) has in fact been

21 promulgated, it has not been made public, nor did the agencies adopt such guidance through

22 notice and comment.

23

70. The government has not made public the guidance that the Proclamation directed

24 the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to adopt “addressing the circumstances in which

25 waivers may be appropriate for foreign nationals seeking entry as immigrants or

26 nonimmigrants.” Proclamation § 3(c)(ii).

27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 14 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 15 of 68

1

71. Shortly after the Proclamation went into effect, the State Department published

2 a set of “Frequently Asked Questions” (“FAQs”) on its website in which it confirmed, “There

3 is no separate application for a waiver.” December 4, 2017 – Court Order on Presidential

4 Proclamation, UNITED STATES DEP’T OF STATE, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-

5 visas/visa-information-resources/presidential-proclamation-archive/2017-12-04-Presidential-

6 Proclamation.html.

7

72. The FAQs, which mostly refer back to the text of the Proclamation itself, further

8 advised that any “individual who seeks to travel to the United States should apply for a visa and

9 disclose during the visa interview any information that might demonstrate that he or she is

10 eligible for a waiver.”

11

73. The FAQs, however, provide no guidance about what kind of “information” the

12 applicant should disclose to demonstrate the applicant’s eligibility for a waiver.

13

74. Nor do the FAQs provide any guidance for individuals whose visa interview had

14 already taken place before the Proclamation went into effect, who had no opportunity to

15 “disclose during the visa interview” any waiver-related information.

16

The State Department Letters

17

75. Apart from the text of the Proclamation itself and the sparse FAQs on the State

18 Department website, the primary source of information about Defendants’ implementation of

19 the waiver provision comes from two letters that the State Department sent in February and

20 June 2018, in response to inquiries from Senator Chris Van Hollen about the Proclamation and

21 how the waiver provision was being implemented.4 See Exhibits B and C.

22

76. Although the Department of State did not make these letters publicly available,

23 their contents have since been made public via news articles published by Reuters. Yeganeh

24 Torbati, Mica Rosenberg, Exclusive: Visa waivers rarely granted under Trump’s latest U.S.

25

4 Because there is so little publicly available information about the waiver process, multiple civil rights
26 organizations, including some of the undersigned counsel, have filed FOIA requests seeking documents from the
State Department regarding the manner in which Defendants have implemented the Proclamation’s waiver
27 provision. The State Department has not yet complied with any of these requests.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 15 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 16 of 68

1 travel ban: data, REUTERS (MAR. 6, 2018), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-

2 immigration-travelban-exclusive/exclusive-visa-waivers-rarely-granted-under-trumps-latest-

3 u-s-travel-ban-data-idUSKCN1GI2DW. (discussing Feb. 2018 letter); Yeganeh Torbati, U.S.

4 issued waivers to Trump’s travel ban at rate of 2 percent, data shows, REUTERS (June 26, 2018),

5 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-ban/us-issued-waivers-to-trumps-travel-

6 ban-at-rate-of-2-percent-data-shows-idUSKBN1JN07T. (discussing June 2018 letter).

7

77. In the first letter, sent on February 22, 2018 (the “February 22 letter”), the State

8 Department stated that as of February 15, 2018, only two waivers had been granted, while over

9 8,400 had been denied. See Exhibit B.

10

78. According to the February 22 letter, “[i]f an applicant from one of the designated

11 countries is determined to be otherwise eligible for a visa under the INA, the interviewing

12 officer must then determine whether the applicant falls into one of the exceptions to the

13 Proclamation.”5 If such an applicant does not fall within one of the exceptions, the consular

14 officer then considers the applicant for a waiver.

15

79. The February 22 letter stated that when considering an applicant for a waiver,

16 “[c]onsular officers may grant waivers on a case-by-case basis when the applicant demonstrates

17 to the officer’s satisfaction that he or she meets the three criteria” set out in Section 3(c) of the

18 Proclamation: “(1) denying entry would cause the foreign national undue hardship; (2) entry

19 would not pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the United States; and (3)

20 entry would be in the national interest.”

21

80. The manner in which Defendants have implemented the waiver provision,

22 however, requires that a visa applicant meet a significantly higher standard of proof of

23 eligibility than the criteria set forth in the text of the Proclamation.

24

25

5 The Proclamation expressly excepts, and states that its suspensions on entry shall not apply to, among others,
26 lawful permanent residents; dual nationals traveling on a passport issued by a non-banned country; foreign
nationals traveling on diplomatic visas; foreign nationals who have been granted asylum; admitted refugees; and
27 certain other narrow categories of foreign nationals. Proclamation § 3(b).

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 16 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 17 of 68

1

81. For example, the Proclamation states that a visa applicant may be granted a

2 waiver if, among other things, the applicant can demonstrate to a consular officer’s satisfaction

3 that “denying entry would cause undue hardship.” The February 22 letter, however, states that

4 to satisfy the “undue hardship” criterion, an applicant “must demonstrate to the consular

5 officer’s satisfaction that an unusual situation exists that compels immediate travel by the

6 applicant and that delaying visa issuance and the associated travel plans would defeat the

7 purpose of travel.” (emphasis added).

8

82. The February 22 letter does not explain why “undue hardship”—a standard

9 undefined in any immigration statutes or regulations relevant to waivers—is tied to a necessity

10 for “immediate travel.” Nor does the February 22 letter explain how an applicant unaware of

11 the February 22 letter would have any notice or understanding that this criterion requires a

12 showing of an “unusual situation that compels immediate travel.”

13

83. Similarly, the Proclamation states that to qualify for a waiver, a visa applicant

14 must demonstrate that “entry would not pose a threat to the national security or public safety of

15 the United States.” In contrast, the February 22 letter states specifically that for an applicant to

16 meet this criterion, a consular officer must “consider[] the information-sharing and identity-

17 management protocols and practices of the government of the applicant’s country of nationality

18 as they relate to the applicant.” The consular officer may only issue a visa “with the concurrence

19 of a consular manager” if the consular officer determines, “after consultation with the Visa

20 Office, that an applicant does not pose a threat to national security or public safety and the other

21 two requirements have been met.”

22

84. The February 22 letter does not provide further guidance on how a visa applicant

23 can satisfy the burden of proof for this criterion when it is incumbent on the consular officer,

24 independent of whatever documentation or information the applicant may proffer, to consider

25 the information-sharing and identity-management protocols and practices of the applicant’s

26 country of nationality. Nor does the February 22 letter provide guidance on how a visa applicant

27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 17 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 18 of 68

1 can satisfy the burden of proof for this criterion when the Proclamation has already decreed that

2 the information-sharing policies of all countries listed in the Proclamation are deficient.

3

85. The February 22 letter likewise fails to explain how an applicant has any way of

4 knowing how her country’s information-sharing and identity-management protocols and

5 practices relate specifically to her, in order to demonstrate that she poses no threat to U.S.

6 national security or public safety.

7

86. In addition, the February 22 letter does not explain how a consular officer may

8 meaningfully exercise any discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a waiver when the

9 consular officer must consult with the Visa Office and a consular manager to determine whether

10 the visa applicant has met all three eligibility criteria for a waiver.

11

87. With respect to the third criterion, the Proclamation states that a visa applicant

12 must demonstrate that his or her “entry would be in the national interest.” The February 22

13 letter, however, reveals that, to meet the “national interest” criteria, the applicant must

14 “demonstrate[] to the consular officer’s satisfaction that a U.S. person or entity would suffer

15 hardship if the applicant could not travel until after visa restrictions imposed with respect to

16 nationals of that country are lifted.”

17

88. The February 22 letter does not explain how a visa applicant can satisfy the

18 burden of proof for this criterion when no individual visa applicant has any way of knowing

19 when the U.S. government will decide to lift visa restrictions on nationals of her country.

20

89. In addition to defining more stringent waiver criteria than the Proclamation

21 itself, the February 22 letter describes a more restrictive view of the exemplar circumstances

22 under which the Proclamation states that waivers may be appropriate.

23

90. The February 22 letter cites Section 3(c)(iv) of the Proclamation as providing

24 “examples of the circumstances in which a waiver might be appropriate,” and states that

25 “consular officers may consult with the Visa Office if a consular officer believes a case may

26 warrant a waiver but the applicant’s circumstances do not align with one of the examples in the

27 Proclamation.”
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 18 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 19 of 68

1

91. The Proclamation, however, makes clear that the examples it provides are not

2 intended to be exhaustive. Proclamation § 3(c)(iv) (“Case-by-case waivers . . . may be

3 appropriate . . . in individual circumstances such as the following . . .” (emphasis added)).

4

92. There is no public information available indicating that Defendants have

5 provided guidance to consular officers making clear that a visa applicant need not specifically

6 align with one of the examples in the Proclamation to be eligible for a waiver.

7

93. There is no public information available indicating that Defendants have

8 provided any guidance to consular officers on what specific circumstances might warrant a

9 consular officer’s consultation with the Visa Office.

10

94. Like the State Department’s on-line FAQs, the February 22 letter confirms that

11 “[t]here is no waiver form to be completed by the applicant.”

12

95. The February 22 letter, however, does not provide guidance on how visa

13 applicants can satisfy the burden of proof under the Proclamation when the visa application

14 materials they submit do not specifically address the waiver criteria and applicants are not

15 otherwise given an opportunity to provide information to the State Department to demonstrate

16 their eligibility for a waiver.

17

96. Nor does the February 22 letter explain how consular officers are expected to

18 make rational and informed decisions on an applicant’s eligibility for a waiver when the visa

19 application materials they consider do not solicit information regarding the waiver criteria and

20 no systematized and orderly process to receive evidence of applicants’ eligibility for a waiver

21 has been established.

22

97. On April 19, 2018, Senator Van Hollen and other senators requested further

23 information on the implementation of the waiver provision from the Departments of State and

24 Homeland Security. The Department of State responded via letter on June 22, 2018 (the “June

25 22 letter”). See Exhibit C.

26

98. The June 22 letter repeated that “the [State] Department’s worldwide guidance

27 to consular officers regarding when a waiver pursuant to section 3(c) of PP [Presidential

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 19 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 20 of 68

1 Proclamation] 9645 may be granted is drawn directly from PP 9645 itself.” It also stated that

2 the State Department’s “internal operational guidance is intended for consular officer’s [sic]

3 internal use only and is not publicly available.”

4

The Implementation of the Waiver Provision

5

99. The lack of information provided either in the Proclamation or in subsequent

6 government statements about how waivers will be granted has resulted in a waiver process that

7 is opaque, confusing, arbitrary, and untethered to the Proclamation itself, to say nothing of

8 existing immigration laws and regulations.

9

100. Indeed, the implementation of the Proclamation’s waiver provision appears to

10 have been rushed and chaotic, and in many instances, violated the terms of the Proclamation

11 itself.

12

101. Upon information and belief, hundreds, if not thousands, of denials6 of waivers

13 were issued via standardized form letters in the first month after the Proclamation went into

14 effect on or around December 8, 2017.

15

102. These mass waiver denials appear to have been sent without regard to the status

16 of any particular individual’s visa application. Denials were sent to individuals who had already

17 completed their consular interviews; to individuals who had scheduled but had not yet appeared

18 for their consular interviews; and to individuals who had not yet been offered consular

19 interviews.

20

103. None of these individuals who received waiver denials were given notice of the

21 availability of a waiver or an opportunity to demonstrate their eligibility for such a waiver.

22

104. The mass form denials extended even to individuals, such as Plaintiff Yahya

23 Ghaleb’s son, who had previously received verbal or written notice that their visa applications

24

25

6 Because communications from the consulate to visa applicants, including application status information provided
26 on-line via the U.S. Department of State Consular Electronic Application Center (“CEAC”), have used inconsistent
terminology, any references to “denials” and decisions to “deny” waivers in this complaint also encompass
27 “refusals” and decisions to “refuse” waivers.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 20 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 21 of 68

1 had been approved and who had been instructed to leave their passports with the relevant

2 embassy so that their visas could be printed and embossed into their passports.

3

105. To add to the lack of clarity surrounding the waiver process, at least some of

4 these individuals who received mass form denials from the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti in the

5 early days of the waiver provision’s implementation have more recently received email

6 communications from the consulate indicating that their waiver eligibility was being

7 “reconsidered.”

8

106. In the weeks and months following the initial implementation of the waiver

9 provision, the waiver process has become no less opaque and confusing to affected individuals

10 with pending visa applications.

11

107. The FAQs published by the State Department, for example, advise that visa

12 applicants should “disclose during the visa interview any information that might demonstrate

13 that he or she is eligible for a waiver.”

14

108. For most, if not all, visa applicants from the banned countries, the consular

15 interview represents the only opportunity to present evidence supporting their eligibility for a

16 waiver. This is because currently available visa applications do not expressly ask applicants to

17 provide information relevant to the Proclamation’s three separate criteria for waiver eligibility,

18 and because the government has declined to establish an application or other procedure by

19 which visa applicants can request waivers and demonstrate that they satisfy the criteria.

20

109. When the Proclamation went into effect, thousands of pending visa applicants

21 had already completed their consular interviews.

22

110. Many of these individuals were denied a waiver and a visa without ever having

23 been given notice of the availability of a waiver, and without having been given the opportunity,

24 either through a second consular interview or otherwise, to demonstrate their eligibility for a

25 waiver.

26

111. Likewise, when the Proclamation went into effect, thousands of pending visa

27 applicants were waiting to schedule their consular interviews.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 21 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 22 of 68

1

112. Many of these individuals were denied a waiver and a visa without ever having

2 been given notice of the availability of a waiver, and without having been given the opportunity,

3 either through a consular interview or otherwise, to demonstrate their eligibility for such a

4 waiver.

5

113. The denials of waivers and visas without providing any notice of the availability

6 of a waiver contravenes 22 C.F.R. §§ 41.121 and 42.81, which state that when refusing the

7 issuance of a visa, a consular officer must inform the visa applicant “whether there is, in law or

8 regulations, a mechanism (such as a waiver) to overcome the refusal.” 22 C.F.R. § 41.121.

9

114. Those visa applicants who have been allowed to schedule and attend their

10 consular interviews after the Proclamation went into effect have struggled to navigate the

11 waiver process, hampered by the lack of information about waivers and how to demonstrate

12 eligibility for them.

13

115. When applying for most other waivers of other statutory grounds of

14 inadmissibility under the INA, applicants can go to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

15 Service (“USCIS”) website (www.uscis.gov), search for the specific type of waiver they seek,

16 obtain the application form that is specific to that waiver, and find instructions for how to

17 complete the application form.

18

116. For all other available waivers of inadmissibility under the INA, the USCIS

19 website also provides details about what additional documentation is necessary to support a

20 waiver application; a mailing address to submit the completed form and any supporting

21 documentation; information about any filing fees associated with the application; the current

22 approximate processing time for adjudication of that specific type of waiver; and information

23 about the specific process available for appealing the decision.

24

117. Defendants have provided no such information or application forms for

25 individuals seeking waivers under the Proclamation.

26

118. Indeed, although the DOS FAQ’s advise visa applicants to “disclose during the

27 visa interview any information that might demonstrate that he or she is eligible for a waiver,”

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 22 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 23 of 68

1 some consulates, when providing written notice to visa applicants of what they should bring to

2 their consular interviews, have omitted any mention of bringing materials that might support

3 waiver eligibility.

4

119. For many visa applicants and immigration attorneys, trying to gather

5 information about the waiver process available under the Proclamation has been a matter of

6 piecing together word-of-mouth anecdotes from others entangled in the same process, and

7 attempting to extrapolate information about the process from the varying treatment of waiver

8 cases in different postures within and across different consulates.

9

120. Indeed, some immigration attorneys have struggled with whether to advise

10 clients even to schedule and appear for an interview, given that these attorneys are aware that

11 so few waivers have actually been granted, and given that traveling to a consulate and paying

12 the requisite fees for an interview are costly for visa applicants. The travel itself can also be

13 dangerous, going through conflict zones.

14

121. Many visa applicants who decide to incur the cost of attending a consular

15 interview have assembled packets of information and documentation (“waiver packets”) to

16 offer to the consular officer at their consular interview, and have prepared to answer questions

17 during the interview, to show how they meet each of the three criteria for a waiver. Preparing a

18 packet is time consuming and often costly, especially if the visa applicant and their family have

19 retained an attorney to assist with the visa application and waiver process.

20

122. However, notwithstanding the State Department’s directive to visa applicants to

21 “disclose during the visa interview any information that might demonstrate that he or she is

22 eligible for a waiver,” consular officers have not necessarily allowed interviewees to make such

23 disclosures during their consular interviews.

24

123. Visa applicants appearing for consular interviews at different consulates,

25 including those in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Amman, Jordan;

26 Ankara, Turkey; Cairo, Egypt; Casablanca, Morocco; Djibouti City, Djibouti; Dubai, United

27 Arab Emirates; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Muscat, Oman; Nairobi, Kenya; and Yerevan,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 23 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 24 of 68

1 Armenia, have encountered a range of responses that have varied from consulate to consulate,

2 and even from consular officer to consular officer within the same consulate.

3

124. Treatment of waiver packets has differed among consular officers and across

4 consulates, time periods, and applicants: officers have accepted proffered waiver packets;

5 refused proffered waiver packets; accepted some but not all documents from proffered waiver

6 packets; or accepted verbal information but declined anything in writing. Some officers have

7 even berated interviewees for “wasting” their money on preparing a packet while

8 simultaneously refusing to accept or look at the packet.

9

125. Indeed, some consular posts have begun informing immigration attorneys that

10 there is “no role for legal services to facilitate the waiver process” and that “only U.S.

11 government officials can author waiver requests.”

12

126. Similarly, consular officers’ treatment of questions of waiver eligibility during

13 consular interviews has differed among consular officers and across consulates, time periods,

14 and applicants: officers have conducted the interview and asked questions relating to waiver

15 eligibility; conducted the interview and refrained from asking questions relating to waiver

16 eligibility; conducted the interview but nevertheless gave the visa applicant a form letter

17 denying a waiver; refused to conduct the interview on the grounds that the officer could not

18 grant any visas under the Proclamation; or refused to conduct the interview and simply handed

19 the visa applicant a form letter denying a waiver.

20

127. Many of the individuals who were allowed to attend their consular interviews

21 after the Proclamation went into effect were given a boilerplate letter at the end of the interview,

22 notifying them that they had been denied a waiver and a visa.

23

128. The denial letters, which are usually presented in both English and the native

24 language of the applicant, vary wildly both in the English and the translated versions, which

25 has caused confusion. The denial notice that the U.S. Embassy in Addis Ababa provided to

26 Somalis, for example, is one sentence long and informs the visa applicant that “no pardon” can

27 be given to her case. The denial notice provided by the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan is lengthier

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 24 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 25 of 68

1 and appears to translate more faithfully the English-language version. Some denial forms

2 provide information about how to reapply for a visa, while others do not.

3

129. The denial of waivers for individuals has caused widespread consternation and

4 confusion because none of the communications from the consulates indicate whether a denied

5 individual’s underlying visa petition or application has also been denied. It is unclear whether

6 someone with an approved I-130 petition, for example, must now resubmit that petition—a

7 process that for some individuals can take years or even decades.

8

130. This lack of clarity extends even to whether a waiver has been denied. Many

9 individuals who have checked the status of their pending applications and petitions online

10 through the U.S. Department of State Consular Electronic Application Center (“CEAC”) have

11 observed that their case status indicated “refused,” without any indication as to what has been

12 “refused”—their waiver or their visa application, or both—or whether they are being or have

13 been considered for a waiver. Individuals in this situation do not know whether they can or

14 should re-request a waiver, or when.

15

131. Many individuals have also observed their CEAC case status change from

16 “refused” to “administrative processing,” or vice versa. The significance of these changes or

17 their frequency is unclear and individuals in this situation do not know whether they need to

18 reapply for a waiver or their visa, whether they are being considered for a waiver, or whether

19 their case will remain indefinitely pending in administrative processing. Indeed, many have

20 been waiting months in administrative processing.

21

132. The Defendants’ indefinite delay in deciding whether to grant or deny a waiver

22 and visa by placing cases in administrative processing contravenes agency policy. See Public

23 Law 107-228, sec. 233 (Sept. 30, 2002) (“It shall be the policy of the Department of State to

24 process immigrant visa applications of immediate relatives of United States citizens and

25 nonimmigrant K-1 visa applications of fiancés of United States citizens within 30 days of the

26 receipt of all necessary documents from the applicant and [USCIS]. In the case of an immigrant

27 visa application where the sponsor of such applicant is a relative other than an immediate

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 25 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 26 of 68

1 relative, it should be the policy of the Department of State to process such an application within

2 60 days of the receipt of all necessary documents from the applicant and [USCIS]”) (emphasis

3 added).

4

133. During the time the Proclamation and its waiver provision have been in effect,

5 numerous individuals have been denied waivers despite presenting one or more of the exemplar

6 circumstances that the Proclamation states may warrant a waiver.

7

134. During the time the Proclamation and its waiver provision have been in effect,

8 minor children have been unable to reunite with their parents, grandparents have missed the

9 births and subsequent birthdays of grandchildren, siblings have been kept apart, adult children

10 have been unable to care for their elderly parents, spouses as well as engaged couples have been

11 forced to put their future plans on indefinite hold, and patients with medical needs have been

12 prevented from seeking care in this country because individuals abroad have been unable to

13 obtain waivers.

14

135. During the time the Proclamation and its waiver provision have been in effect,

15 the uncertainty caused by the waiver process has caused significant physical, financial, and

16 emotional distress on Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals whose only hope for

17 family reunification is a waiver. The stress has caused at least one husband and father, whose

18 wife and children were refused visas under the Proclamation and were stranded in Djibouti

19 waiting for waivers, to die by suicide. Mallory Moench, U.S. citizen’s family was denied visas

20 under Trump’s travel ban. Then he died by suicide, NBC NEWS (July 28, 2018),

21 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-citizen-s-family-was-denied-visas-under-trump-

22 n895381.

23

Evidence that the Waiver Process Is Window Dressing

24

136. Despite the lack of transparency surrounding the waiver process, one conclusion

25 is clear: that only an exceedingly small number of visa applicants are actually granted waivers.

26

27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 26 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 27 of 68

1

137. Indeed, at the April 25, 2018 oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Trump

2 v. Hawai’i, Justices Breyer and Sotomayor specifically asked about the waiver process and

3 whether “it is, in fact, a real waiver process,” as opposed to mere “window dressing.”

4

138. The statistics that the government has made publicly available about the waiver

5 process confirm that it is, indeed, window dressing.

6

139. The February 22 letter sent to Senator Van Hollen provided the earliest and first

7 publicly available statistics about the waiver process. See Exhibit B.

8

140. On a separate page entitled, “Visa Applications Received and Processed from

9 Nationals Subject to Presidential Proclamation 9645 (From December 8, 2017 to January 8,

10 2018),” the February 22 letter provided the following figures:

11

Applications for nonimmigrant and immigrant visas:

8,406

Applicants refused for reasons unrelated to the Proclamation:

12

Applicants qualifying for an exception:

1,723 128

Applicants who failed to meet the criteria for a waiver[:]

6,282

13

Applications refused under the Proclamation with waiver consideration: 271

Waivers approved (as of February 15):

2

14

141. Based on these numbers, only 0.02% of visa applicants from banned countries

15

had been granted waivers as of February 15, 2018.

16

142. The Reuters article that had initially made the February 22 letter public, dated

17

March 6, 2018, provided further information. It stated that since February 15, 2018, the State

18

Department had granted more than 100 additional waivers.

19

143. The Reuters article added, however, that it was not clear how many of those

20

additional waivers had been granted to the approximately 8,400 individuals who had sought

21

waivers in the first month the Proclamation had been in effect.

22

144. Nor did the Reuters article disclose how many thousands of additional visa

23

applications had been processed and considered for waiver eligibility between February 15,

24

2018 and March 6, 2018.

25

26

27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 27 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 28 of 68

1

145. As briefing progressed and oral argument approached in Trump v. Hawai’i, the

2 government not only appeared to start granting waivers at a relatively faster rate, but also began

3 publicly providing information on the numbers of waivers granted.

4

146. On or around April 13, 2018, the State Department published new FAQs about

5 the waiver process that included the statement that “[f]rom December 8, 2017 through April 1,

6 2018, more than 430 applicants were cleared for waivers after a consular officer determined the

7 applicants satisfied all criteria and completed all required processing.”

8

147. The government repeated this figure in reply briefing submitted to the Supreme

9 Court in Trump v. Hawai’i on April 18, 2018, stating that “more than 430 individuals” had been

10 granted waivers. In oral argument before the Supreme Court on April 25, 2018, the United

11 States Solicitor General confirmed that 430 waivers had been granted.

12

148. The June 22 letter sent to Senator Van Hollen subsequently indicated that

13 statistics on the number of waivers granted “is updated every two weeks.” See Exhibit C.

14

149. On a separate page entitled, “Visa Applications Received and Processed from

15 Nationals Subject to Presidential Proclamation 9645 (As of April 20 unless otherwise stated),”

16 the June 22 letter provided the following figures:

17

Number of NIV and IV applications from impacted nationalities who

applied for visas in the P.P. 9645 covered categories:

18

Number of applicants found ineligible for reasons other than those

33,176

covered in P.P. 9645 (e.g. INA 214(b) so a review for eligibility under

19

P.P. 9645 was not required:

4,900

Number of applicants who received a visa under an exception from

20

P.P. 9645:

1,147

Number of applicants cleared for waivers:

579 (768 as of May 31)

21

Number of applicants interviewed, but still awaiting a determination

on a waiver: 22

4,157

150. Based on the DOS figures provided in the June 22 letter, less than 2% of visa

23

applicants from banned countries had been granted waivers as of April 30, 2018.

24

151. The most recent update to the State Department FAQs indicates that that “996

25

applicants were cleared for waivers after a consular officer determined the applicants satisfied

26

27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 28 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 29 of 68

1 all criteria and completed all required processing” between December 8, 2017 and July 15,

2 2018.

3

152. With the exception of the two letters sent to Senator Van Hollen, none of the

4 figures that the government has provided on the number of waivers granted, including the figure

5 updated every two weeks on the State Department website, has included information about how

6 many visa applicants have been denied a waiver, how many visa applicants have been

7 considered for a waiver, or how many visa applications in total have been processed.

8

153. In addition, as the June 22 letter clarified, the fact that an individual has been

9 “cleared for” a waiver does not mean that the individual has been granted a waiver or received

10 a visa. No information is available as to how many individuals have received visas after being

11 cleared for a waiver.

12

154. Beyond the available statistics, additional evidence indicates that the waiver

13 process is merely “window dressing.”

14

155. For example, a sworn declaration from Christopher Richardson (the

15 “Richardson declaration”), who had worked as the Americans Citizens Service Chief in Madrid

16 until he resigned from the State Department in March 2018, indicates that consular officers

17 considering visa applicants for waiver are “to determine at all possible cost that the person was

18 not eligible to even apply for a waiver.” See Exhibit A.

19

156. The Richardson declaration states that “[i]f for some reason” a consular officer

20 “had no choice but to determine we could find an applicant eligible to apply,” the consular

21 officer was prohibited from exercising any discretion in granting a waiver, “regardless of the

22 [Presidential Proclamation] instructions that we had ‘discretion to grant the waiver.’” Rather,

23 consular officers “were mandated to send to Washington that we found this applicant eligible

24 to apply and Washington would then make the decision to grant or deny the waiver.”

25

157. The Richardson declaration further states that none of the “guidance cables,

26 sample Q’s and A’s and instructions” regarding the implementation of the waiver process were

27 actually classified, but that it is understandable why the government would not want to make

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 29 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 30 of 68

1 such materials public: “when read together with our training, it is understood that there really

2 is no waiver [process] and the Supreme Court was correct to point out that the waiver [process]

3 is merely ‘window dressing.’”

4

158. Mr. Richardson further observed that “[i]n essence what the administration was

5 doing was ‘hiding’ behind the doctrine of consular non-reviewability for the benefit of issuing

6 a Muslim ban and the same time usurping all of our authority given by both Congress and the

7 P[residential] P[roclamation] by disallowing the consular officer to make a decision.”

8

159. The waiver process, as described by Mr. Richardson, directly contravenes 8

9 U.S.C. §1104(a), which states that consular officers have complete discretion over the issuance

10 of visas and that such discretion may not be circumscribed by the Secretary of State.

11

160. A second consular officer has likewise stated that the material issued by the State

12 Department regarding the waiver process “would demonstrate that the waiver process has ‘no

13 rational basis.’” Jeremy Stahl, “The Waiver Process Is Fraud,” SLATE (June 15, 2018),

14 https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/trump-travel-ban-waiver-process-is-a-sham-two-

15 consular-officers-say.html.

16

161. This second consular officer has stated that the Proclamation has “usurped” the

17 authority of consular officers, “yet make[s] it seem like we still have [authority] to decide.” Id.

18

The Harm Caused to Plaintiffs and their Clients and Members

19

162. Defendants’ implementation of the Proclamation’s waiver process has already

20 caused Plaintiffs and their members and clients substantial, concrete, and particularized injury,

21 in that it indefinitely prolongs the separation of close family members. The Proclamation’s

22 waiver provision, as currently implemented, threatens them with continued irreparable harm if

23 not permanently enjoined.

24

163. Plaintiffs Pamela Whitehall Raghebi and Afshin Raghebi have suffered and

25 will continue to suffer harm because of the Proclamation and the waiver process. Plaintiff

26 Pamela Raghebi has an approved I-130 petition and an I-601A waiver for her husband. Plaintiff

27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 30 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 31 of 68

1 Afshin Raghebi is currently living in Turkey, awaiting a visa to return to his wife, business, and

2 home in the United States.

3

164. Plaintiff Afshin Raghebi first moved to the United States in 2006. An Iranian

4 national, he left Iran due to fear of persecution for his religious beliefs and is now afraid to

5 return to Iran. Mr. Raghebi intended to, but never applied for asylum as he was fearful that

6 applying could eventually lead to his deportation. In United States, he learned the trade of

7 windows and glass installation. He met Mrs. Raghebi in Summer 2010 after he worked on the

8 windows at the senior living home where she worked as a receptionist. Mr. and Mrs. Raghebi

9 were married a few months later in December 2010. Together, Mr. and Mrs. Raghebi started a

10 glass and window installation business. Mrs. Raghebi handled the accounting, while Mr.

11 Raghebi was the primary glass installer at the company.

12

165. In January 2016, Mrs. Raghebi filed for an I-130 Petition to start the green card

13 process for Mr. Raghebi. They were approved for their I-130 Petition in April 2016, meaning

14 that USCIS had found that they had a bona fide relationship. Because Mr. Raghebi had been

15 living in the U.S. undocumented, he had to file for an I-601A waiver of the ‘unlawful presence’

16 grounds of inadmissibility. To qualify for an I-601A waiver, Plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. Raghebi

17 had to show that Mrs. Raghebi would suffer “extreme hardship” if her husband was not granted

18 permanent residency. Mrs. Raghebi was able to make this showing, in part due to her health.

19 USCIS found that Mrs. Raghebi made this showing of “extreme hardship,” and approved an I-

20 601A waiver for Mr. Raghebi in February 2017.

21

166. Upon the approval of the 1-601A waiver, Mr. Raghebi left the United States on

22 March 12, 2018 as the I-601A waiver required him to leave the United States to be able to

23 complete the I-130 petition process. However, Mr. Raghebi, despite having been granted the

24 I-601A waiver, has not been able to return to the United States due to the Proclamation. When

25 Mr. Raghebi left the United States, he believed that he would be able to return under the waiver

26 process outlined in the Proclamation.

27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 31 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 32 of 68

1

167. In March 2018, Mr. Raghebi had his green card interview with the U.S. embassy

2 in Abu Dhabi. At that time, Mr. Raghebi attempted to present materials to demonstrate that his

3 qualifications for a waiver of the travel ban. The consular officer did not ask to see these

4 materials and did not ask Mr. Raghebi any questions related to his eligibility for a waiver. Mr.

5 Raghebi was told he would learn whether he can return to the United States in two to three

6 months. However, more than four months since his consular interview, Mr. Raghebi still has

7 not received a determination on whether he will be granted a waiver under the Proclamation.

8

168. Mr. Raghebi is currently living in Turkey, as it one of the few countries that does

9 not require a visa for Iranian nationals. He is afraid to return to Iran, and wants to return to the

10 United States to be with his wife of over seven years.

11

169. The separation of these spouses has been emotionally devastating for each of

12 them. They speak every day by telephone, and Mrs. Raghebi has traveled to Turkey to see her

13 husband. Mrs. Raghebi suffers from a residual health condition that resulted from a severe bout

14 of shingles, which causes her much pain, and the pain has been exacerbated by the stress caused

15 by the separation from her husband. Mrs. Raghebi now takes anti-depressants to help her cope

16 with the emotional toll of the separation. The separation has also caused financial hardship to

17 the Raghebis, who own a window and glass installation business. Without Mr. Raghebi, who

18 had performed much of the work of the business, the business’s revenues are at one third of

19 what they were when Mr. Raghebi was here in the United States. Without a waiver, these

20 spouses of over seven years cannot be together, they suffer emotionally without each other, and

21 the business they own together has significantly declined.

22

170. Plaintiff Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, a U.S. citizen, has suffered and will

23 continue to suffer harm because of the Proclamation and the waiver process. Her two daughters

24 are Somali refugees living in Kenya, and in 2013, when her daughters were both 18 years old,

25 she submitted I-130 visa petitions to bring them to the safety of the United States.

26

171. After their petitions were approved and their cases transferred from the National

27 Visa Center to the United States Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, Plaintiff Hassan’s daughters

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 32 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 33 of 68

1 appeared for their consular interviews at the Embassy in Nairobi in October 2017. Because

2 these interviews took place before the Proclamation went into effect, Plaintiff Hassan’s

3 daughters received no opportunity to present evidence of their eligibility for a waiver, much

4 less notice that a waiver was even required for their entry to the United States. Their cases were

5 subsequently put into administrative processing but they received no updates on their case for

6 several months.

7

172. In April 2018, an immigration attorney Plaintiff Hassan had retained explicitly

8 requested that the Embassy consider Plaintiff Hassan’s daughters for a waiver under the

9 Proclamation. The Embassy responded that “[u]ntil the consular officer makes an

10 individualized determination on these three factors, these applications will remain refused under

11 Section 212(f).” After further pressure from the attorney, the Embassy stated that a consular

12 officer was “currently reviewing their eligibility for a waiver” but that the Embassy could not

13 provide any further information “until this process is completed.”

14

173. Plaintiff Hassan is devastated that the waiver process is prolonging the already

15 protracted process of bringing her daughters to be with her in the United States. She has not

16 seen them since 2016, and although she talks to them every night on the phone, she fears

17 constantly for their safety and physical well-being because they are young, foreign-born women

18 without a guardian in Kenya, where the government refuses to give Somali refugees the same

19 protection as Kenyan nationals. Plaintiff Hassan’s daughters are vulnerable either to being

20 kidnapped and forced into marriage and/or raped by gangs, which operate with impunity

21 throughout Kenya, or to being exploited by corrupt government officials seeking bribes from

22 Somali refugees who fear being detained and removed to Somalia.

23

174. Indeed, every time Plaintiff Hassan’s daughters leave their apartment to buy

24 food, they are accosted by police and must pay a bribe. Plaintiff Hassan constantly worries that

25 the money she sends them each month is not enough to pay for their rent, food, and bribes. She

26 fears that her daughters are not getting enough to eat and may be malnourished. But Plaintiff

27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 33 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 34 of 68

1 Hassan is unable to send more money, and what she already sends places a significant financial

2 strain on her.

3

175. Returning to Somalia, however, is not a realistic option for Plaintiff Hassan’s

4 daughters; the country is politically unstable and the al-Qaeda-aligned terrorist group al-

5 Shabaab, which continues to battle the UN-backed government in Somalia, considers Somali

6 refugees returned from Kenya to be spies for the Kenyan security forces. If her daughters are

7 deported to Somalia, Plaintiff Hassan is certain that they will be assaulted and possibly killed.

8 Every day that her daughters remain in limbo in the waiver process, Plaintiff Hassan worries

9 that something terrible will happen to them before she can reunite with them in the United

10 States.

11

176. Plaintiff Siraji Etha Siraji, a U.S. citizen, has suffered and will continue to

12 suffer harm because of the Proclamation and the waiver process. His wife, a refugee displaced

13 from her home country of Somalia for over a decade, is pregnant and currently living in Kenya

14 with their other three young children. Plaintiff Siraji filed an I-130 petition for his wife in 2013,

15 as well as Consular Reports of Birth Abroad (“CRBAs”) to obtain United States passports for

16 his children.

17

177. After Plaintiff Siraji’s I-130 petition for his wife was approved in 2014, she

18 appeared for her consular interview at the United States Embassy in Kenya in February 2015.

19 The consular officer told her that her visa application was complete, but that it would be held

20 until the children’s CRBAs were approved. However, it took almost two years longer, the

21 retention of an immigration attorney, and countless back-and-forth communications with the

22 U.S. Embassies in both Kenya and Uganda, where the children had been born, before the

23 Embassy in Uganda approved their CRBAs. The Embassy in Kenya then took almost another

24 year making various requests that Plaintiff Siraji’s wife update her medical reports, her DS-260

25 Immigrant Visa Electronic Application, and other paperwork.

26

178. On December 14, 2017, Plaintiff Siraji’s wife appeared at the Embassy in Kenya

27 to swear that her DS-260 was correct. At that appointment, she was told that she would need a

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 34 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 35 of 68

1 waiver under the Proclamation. Although she asked if she could submit more information, she

2 was told that the Embassy would contact her if any further information from her was needed.

3 Plaintiff Siraji and his wife subsequently heard nothing until their attorney wrote the Embassy

4 in Kenya for an update in April 2018. On April 19, 2018, the Embassy reported that the visa

5 for Plaintiff Siraji’s wife was “pending mandatory administrative process” and that “[t]he

6 consular officer is currently reviewing her eligibility for a waiver.”

7

179. The separation from his wife and children has taken an emotional and financial

8 toll on Plaintiff Siraji. Because his wife is a Somali refugee, she is constantly at risk of being

9 arrested by Kenyan authorities and deported with the children to Somalia, where their lives

10 would be at risk. The country is politically unstable, as al-Shabaab vies for control of the

11 government, and much of the country is a conflict zone where kidnapping, assault, and murder

12 are rampant. But remaining in Kenya is dangerous, because as Somali refugees, individuals like

13 Plaintiff Siraji’s family do not have the full protection of the government and have no legal

14 guarantee that they can remain in Kenya indefinitely. This exposes them to corruption and abuse

15 from exploitative government officials. Plaintiff Siraji worries constantly about the safety and

16 well-being of his family. Because Plaintiff Siraji’s wife cannot work in Kenya, Plaintiff Siraji

17 must send money to support her and their children, which is a constant and significant drain on

18 Plaintiff Siraji’s resources.

19

180. Plaintiff Siraji is desperate to bring his family to the United States so that they

20 can be together in a place where his wife and children do not have to live in constant fear of

21 being kidnapped, or becoming the victim of a criminal assault or terrorist act. He is frustrated

22 that the waiver process is prolonging what was already a protracted process—and now the

23 consulate will not even allow her to submit information about why she deserves a waiver. He

24 does not understand how the consulate can sincerely consider for her a waiver when they have

25 asked nothing about why she meets the eligibility criteria. And in the meantime, the waiver

26 process continues to prevent his reunification with his family.

27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 35 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 36 of 68

1

181. Plaintiff Malayeen Ahmed, a U.S. citizen, has suffered and will continue to

2 suffer harm because of the Proclamation and the waiver process. She has an approved I-130

3 petition for her father, who has survived airstrikes on his home in Yemen, and wishes to bring

4 him to the safety of the United States.

5

182. After two years of processing, Plaintiff Ahmed’s father interviewed with the

6 U.S. consulate in Djibouti in July 2017. Because this interview took place before the

7 Proclamation went into effect, Plaintiff Ahmed and her father had no opportunity to present

8 evidence of his eligibility for a waiver. Plaintiff Ahmed’s father has remained in Djibouti since

9 his interview because it is too dangerous for him to return to Yemen, where his hometown

10 continues to be shelled.

11

183. On January 17, 2018, Plaintiff Ahmed’s father received a letter from the U.S.

12 embassy in Djibouti stating that he was ineligible for a visa pursuant to Presidential

13 Proclamation 9645 and denied him a waiver. Plaintiff Ahmed and her family were devastated.

14 They have spent over $20,000 paying for fees, her father’s travel expenses to get to Djibouti,

15 and his living costs in Djibouti.

16

184. Further communications with the consulate have only confused them. As

17 recently as July 2018, the State Department indicated online that the visa application for

18 Plaintiff Ahmad’s father was actually pending in “administrative processing.” That same

19 month, the U.S. embassy in Djibouti sent plaintiff an “updated refusal letter” indicating that “a

20 waiver is being reconsidered” in their case. But in the meantime, Plaintiff Ahmed received no

21 information or instructions about how to request a waiver for her father. Plaintiff Ahmed

22 emailed the consulate in late July documenting why her father’s case merits a waiver. However,

23 they did not receive any confirmation or further communication from the U.S. embassy in

24 Djibouti.

25

185. The separation from her father has been physically, emotionally, and financially

26 stressful for both Plaintiff Ahmed and her father. Although they speak every week on the phone,

27 Plaintiff Ahmed’s father has missed the births of all three of her children, which has been

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 36 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 37 of 68

1 devastating for Plaintiff Ahmed. She wept at the birth of her first son, born in June 2018 after

2 two daughters, because her father could not be there to hold his first grandson. In addition,

3 supporting her father in Djibouti has been a strain on the family’s resources. Plaintiff Ahmed’s

4 husband often works 80 hours a week and overtime to support their family and to be able to

5 send money to her father. Every day that her father’s visa application remains on hold because

6 of the waiver process exacts a financial and emotional cost on Plaintiff Ahmed and her family.

7

186. Plaintiff Reza Azimi, a U.S. citizen, has suffered and will continue to suffer

8 harm because of the Proclamation and the waiver process. After Plaintiff Azimi’s wife became

9 pregnant with their first child, Plaintiff Azimi hoped his mother and father, both citizens of Iran,

10 would be granted tourist visas, so that they could come to the United States for the birth of

11 Plaintiff Azimi’s first child and provide temporary care for his wife and newborn baby.

12

187. In 2015, two years before Plaintiff Azimi’s wife became pregnant, his mother

13 and father had both applied for tourist visas and interviewed at the U.S. Consulate in Dubai,

14 United Arab Emirates. Because this interview took place years before the Proclamation went

15 into effect, Plaintiff Azimi’s parents had no opportunity to present evidence of their eligibility

16 for a waiver. Following the interview, Plaintiff Azimi’s mother was granted a visa and later

17 traveled to the United States to visit Plaintiff Azimi and his wife. His father’s application,

18 however, was placed in administrative processing, preventing him from making the trip to the

19 United States with Plaintiff Azimi’s mother.

20

188. After learning of the impending birth of her new grandchild in 2017, Plaintiff

21 Azimi’s mother applied for another tourist visa in July 2017 to visit Plaintiff Azimi in the United

22 States. She was granted an interview at the U.S. Consulate in Dubai in September 2017.

23 Because her interview took place before the Proclamation went into effect, Plaintiff Azimi’s

24 mother had no opportunity to present evidence of her eligibility for a waiver, and indeed no

25 notice of any waiver requirement. On January 3, 2018, however, Plaintiff Azimi’s mother

26 received a letter from the Nonimmigrant Visa Unit at the U.S. Consulate in Dubai informing

27 her she had been found ineligible for a visa pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 9645 and that

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 37 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 38 of 68

1 she had been denied a waiver. A subsequent letter from the Embassy dated January 10, 2018

2 further explained that Plaintiff Azimi’s mother’s visa had initially been approved and was in

3 administrative processing when the Embassy reversed its decision because of the Presidential

4 Proclamation. The January 10 letter also stated she would not receive a waiver but was allowed

5 to reapply for a visa.

6

189. On February 19, 2018, after his 2015 visa application had been in administrative

7 processing for over two years, Plaintiff Azimi’s father received a letter similar to the January 3

8 letter sent to Plaintiff Azimi’s mother. The letter stated Plaintiff Azimi’s father was ineligible

9 for a visa under the Presidential Proclamation and denied a waiver. Plaintiff Azimi’s father was

10 never given the opportunity to submit information in support of a waiver.

11

190. Plaintiff Azimi had hoped his parents would receive visas in time to see the birth

12 of his first child and their first grandchild. In December 2017, however, while his parents were

13 awaiting a decision on their visas, his wife gave birth. Plaintiff Azimi’s parents are heartbroken

14 they could not share that experience with Plaintiff Azimi and his wife, and now do not know if

15 or when they will be able to see their grandchild.

16

191. The separation from his parents has been difficult for Plaintiff Azimi and his

17 wife. They have no other family in Michigan, and Plaintiff Azimi’s job often requires him to

18 work long hours. As first-time parents, Plaintiff Azimi and his wife were depending on Plaintiff

19 Azimi’s mother and father to assist them during the critical first months of their child’s life.

20 Now Plaintiff Azimi and his wife do not know if his parents will ever be able to come and

21 provide support during the time in their child’s life when they most need it. Plaintiff Azimi’s

22 wife worries that without any familial support, she will not be able to return to work. The

23 situation has left Plaintiff and his wife anxious and grief-stricken. Without a waiver, Plaintiff

24 Azimi’s parents are prevented from helping his young family. Moreover, they are missing—

25 and will never be able to reclaim—all the precious early moments of their grandchild’s life.

26

192. Plaintiff Yahya Ghaleb, a U.S. citizen, has suffered and will continue to suffer

27 harm because of the Proclamation and the waiver process. In June 2016, Plaintiff Ghaleb

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 38 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 39 of 68

1 applied for an immigrant visa for his sixteen-year-old son, who lives in Yemen with Plaintiff

2 Ghaleb’s elderly mother-in-law. As the civil war in Yemen has intensified and his mother-in-

3 law’s health has declined, Plaintiff Ghaleb began to worry about his son’s safety and made

4 plans to bring him to live with him in Michigan.

5

193. Plaintiff Ghaleb’s son was granted an interview at the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti

6 on December 11, 2017. Although Plaintiff Ghaleb travelled from Michigan to meet his son in

7 Djibouti and attended the interview with him, Plaintiff Ghaleb’s son made the twenty-hour trip

8 from Yemen to Djibouti alone. During the interview, the consular officers did not tell Plaintiff

9 Ghaleb or his son about the availability of a waiver and made no inquiry into Plaintiff Ghaleb’s

10 son’s eligibility for a waiver. As a result, neither Plaintiff Ghaleb nor his son presented evidence

11 that might support the issuance of a waiver, as they were unaware of any such requirement for

12 a waiver. At the interview’s conclusion, a consular officer verbally informed and gave Plaintiff

13 Ghaleb a letter stating that his son’s visa application had been approved and that he now only

14 had to wait for the visa to be processed and printed.

15

194. On December 19, 2017, however, only a little more than a week after they

16 received notice that his son’s visa had been approved, Plaintiff Ghaleb received a second letter

17 from the Embassy, stating that a consular officer had found his son ineligible for a visa pursuant

18 to the Proclamation. The letter also stated a waiver would not be granted for his son.

19

195. Subsequently, in July 2018, after months of believing his son had no opportunity

20 to be granted a waiver, Plaintiff Ghaleb received yet another letter from the Embassy. This letter

21 informed Plaintiff Ghaleb that the Embassy had again reversed its decision and was now

22 reviewing his son’s eligibility for a waiver, but that doing so could be a lengthy process. Online,

23 the status of the visa petition for Plaintiff Ghaleb’s son was changed to “administrative

24 processing.”

25

196. The denial of Plaintiff Ghaleb’s son’s waiver and the Embassy’s shifting and

26 contradictory decisions about his son’s visa application has caused Plaintiff Ghaleb significant

27 stress and uncertainty. Plaintiff Ghaleb is overcome with anxiety and constantly worries about

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 39 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 40 of 68

1 his son’s care and safety. The village where his son stays has faced missile strikes, not far from

2 the neighborhood where his son and his mother-in-law live. Plaintiff Ghaleb’s mother-in-law

3 calls him frequently, worried her grandson will be killed if he remains in Yemen.

4

197. Plaintiff Ghaleb has had difficulty concentrating and sleeping, as he imagines

5 his son stranded in a dangerous part of a war-torn country, thousands of miles from his only

6 parent. Because of the cost and time required to travel to Yemen, Plaintiff Ghaleb’s contact

7 with his son has been infrequent. He has missed spending birthdays and holidays with his son

8 and has been unable to provide him with the parental support and instruction he needs. The

9 waiver process is now prolonging Plaintiff Ghaleb’s separation from his son and he is afraid

10 something will happen to his son before he is able to come to the safety of the United States.

11

198. Plaintiff Mitra Hannani, a national of Iran, has suffered and will continue to

12 suffer harm because of the Proclamation and the waiver process. Plaintiff Hannani is the

13 beneficiary of an approved I-130 petition filed by her mother, a U.S. citizen who resides in

14 Virginia. Plaintiff Hannani’s parents and siblings are all U.S. citizens and her only son, 24 years

15 old, is a lawful permanent resident pursuing a graduate degree in podiatric medicine. Plaintiff

16 Mitra Hannani wishes to emigrate to the United States with her husband and seventeen-year-

17 old daughter so they can reunite with the rest of their family.

18

199. After her mother’s I-130 visa petition for her was approved, Plaintiff Hannani

19 and her family appeared for their consular interview at the United States Consulate in Abu

20 Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, in February 2017. Because their interview occurred before the

21 Proclamation into effect, they had no opportunity to present evidence of their eligibility for a

22 waiver, to say nothing of notice that providing such evidence might be necessary.

23

200. Having heard nothing for months from the consulate regarding the status of her

24 visa application, Plaintiff Hannani e-mailed the consulate in Abu Dhabi in May 2018 to request

25 a waiver for herself and her family and attached a waiver packet outlining her and her family’s

26 qualifications for a waiver. Approximately one month after sending this request, Plaintiff

27 Hannani received an email from the consulate, via her mother’s immigration attorney, with a

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 40 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 41 of 68

1 request to complete the Form DS-5535, Supplemental Questions for Visa Applicants, which

2 asks for, among other things, the applicant’s travel, address, and employment history for the

3 last fifteen years, and all e-mail addresses and social media handles used for the last five years.

4 She provided responses promptly.

5

201. Plaintiff Hannani has not otherwise received any affirmative communication

6 from the consulate about the status of her family’s visa applications or the waiver request she

7 made in May 2018. For most of 2017 and 2018, the DOS website indicated that she and her

8 husband were in “administrative processing,” but that their seventeen-year-old daughter’s case

9 was “refused.” In late July 2018, their daughter’s status changed from “refused” to

10 “administrative processing,” but it remains unclear how long Plaintiff Hannani, her husband,

11 and her daughter must wait before they receive a decision on their waivers and visa applications.

12

202. Plaintiff Hannani is perplexed as to why her family’s eligibility for a waiver is

13 taking so long to process because they had previously been admitted to the United States in

14 2011 on non-immigrant visas. During a three-week trip, they visited their family and respected

15 and observed all laws and immigration requirements of the United States.

16

203. The separation from her family, which the waiver process is prolonging, is

17 physically painful and emotionally distressing for Plaintiff Hannani. She has always had a deep

18 connection with her twin sister and views her younger brother like a second son because she

19 cared for him after their parents emigrated to the United States. She now sees them only rarely

20 and being separated from her sister and family causes her grief, stress, and anxiety. Plaintiff

21 Hannani is also concerned about the health of her parents, who are now in their 70s and 80s.

22 When she speaks with them over the phone, it is apparent how much they have aged even in

23 the last few years. Plaintiff Hannani is distressed that her parents may pass away before they

24 are able to reunite and be together. If admitted to the United States, Plaintiff Hannani would be

25 able to care for her parents in their old age.

26

204. Plaintiff Hannani’s separation from her son is even more painful for her. He

27 came to the United States seven years ago, when he was seventeen, to pursue his education, and

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 41 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 42 of 68

1 he is unable to travel back to Iran because of the political situation there. As a result, Plaintiff

2 Hannani has missed her son’s maturation from a teenager into a young man, and she and her

3 husband and daughter were not able to be present when he graduated from university and earned

4 his Bachelor’s degree. Plaintiff Hannani is now afraid that she will not be able to attend his

5 graduation from medical school and will miss this important milestone in his life. Although

6 Plaintiff Hannani speaks to her son on a regular basis via phone and on-line communication

7 apps like WhatsApp, she knows that her son, like she and her husband, is depressed due to their

8 separation. Plaintiff Hannani and her husband do their best to hide their anxiety and depression

9 at being separated from their son when they speak with him, but it has become increasingly

10 difficult to do so.

11

205. Plaintiff Nicolas Hanout, a Lawful Permanent Resident, has suffered and will

12 continue to suffer harm because of the Proclamation and the waiver process. Three years ago,

13 he married his wife, a Syrian national, and subsequently filed an I-130 immigrant visa petition

14 on her behalf in 2016.

15

206. After Plaintiff Hanout’s I-130 petition for his wife was approved, she appeared

16 for her consular interview at the United States Embassy in Jordan in April 2018. The consular

17 interview only lasted ten to fifteen minutes, during which time the consular officer told her that

18 she was eligible for a waiver from the Proclamation and asked her to provide answers to

19 questions substantially similar to those on Form DS-5535, Supplemental Questions for Visa

20 Applicants. After she promptly provided answers to the questions, Plaintiff Hanout placed a

21 follow-up call to the Embassy to ask whether he needed to do anything else for his wife’s visa

22 application. He was told to wait for the Embassy to call him.

23

207. The separation from his wife has placed great emotional and financial strain on

24 Plaintiff Hanout. It pains him that he has missed birthdays and wedding anniversaries with his

25 wife. Although they would like to start a family together, they do not know when this will even

26 be possible because there is no certainty as to when and where they will be together

27 permanently.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 42 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 43 of 68

1

208. Because his wife cannot come to the United States to be with him, Plaintiff

2 Hanout tries to visit her as much as he can to keep their relationship healthy, even though this

3 is no real substitute for being together in the same place and being able to plan their life together.

4 But traveling to Al Mouzeina, Syria is expensive and dangerous; every trip requires four days

5 of round-trip travel and thousands of dollars for transport, and all entry points to Syria are

6 through or near conflict zones, where international travelers are vulnerable to attack, extortion,

7 harassment, and detainment. As a result, Plaintiff Hanout is self-employed as a care giver, and

8 has had to postpone his graduate studies and pass up professional opportunities, to maintain the

9 necessary level of flexibility and income that will allow him to see his wife for more than just

10 a couple weeks out of the year. Indeed, both he and his wife have had to postpone their Master’s

11 degrees in computer science because of their uncertainty about their future together. Because

12 he spends all his available time and savings traveling to visit his wife, he has been unable to

13 save to buy a home for the family he and his wife wish to have.

14

209. Not being able to live with his wife and start a family together is excruciating

15 for Plaintiff Hanout. He is concerned about his wife’s well-being because their separation has

16 caused her to suffer from depression. Their constant worry about their future plans makes it

17 impossible for them to talk about normal, everyday things in the course of their daily lives

18 because their indefinite separation always intrudes on their thoughts and conversations. The

19 waiver process is now prolonging Plaintiff Hanout’s separation from his wife and he is afraid

20 they will never be allowed to live together in the United States.

21

210. Plaintiff Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, an Iranian national lawfully present

22 in the United States pursuing an electrical engineering Ph.D. on an F-1 student visa, has suffered

23 and will continue to suffer harm because of the Proclamation and the waiver process. As a result

24 of the waiver process, his father-in-law, brother, sister-in-law, and mother have been prevented

25 or discouraged from coming to the United States. Because Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi

26 himself is present in the United States on a student visa, he fears that if he ever attempts to visit

27 his family in Iran, he will not be allowed to reenter the United States.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 43 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 44 of 68

1

211. When he learned that his wife, who is also pursuing a doctoral degree on an F-1

2 visa, was pregnant with their first child, Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi worked with his wife’s

3 parents to apply for tourist visas so they could come to the United States for the birth of their

4 first grandchild and to provide temporary help Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi, his wife, and

5 their newborn. Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi’s parents-in-law interviewed at the U.S. Embassy

6 in Dubai on October 12, 2017.

7

212. Because this interview took place before the Proclamation went into effect,

8 Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi’s parents-in-law had no opportunity to present evidence of their

9 eligibility for a waiver, or were even aware of the requirement of a waiver. A visa for Plaintiff

10 Zamani Hosseinabadi’s mother-in-law was approved shortly after her interview. Months later,

11 she visited Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi, his wife, and child in the United States before

12 returning to Iran.

13

213. The visa application for Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi’s father-in-law,

14 however, was placed in administrative processing. Subsequently, in January 2018, Plaintiff

15 Zamani Hosseinabadi’s father-in-law received a letter informing him that he had been found

16 ineligible for a visa pursuant to the Proclamation and that he would not be granted a waiver.

17 While the Embassy’s letter states that Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi’s father-in-law may

18 resubmit a visa application, he is skeptical a visa or waiver would be granted in his case and is

19 reluctant to reapply because he cannot afford the cost of attending interviews in Dubai.

20

214. Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi was also relying on his brother and sister-in-law

21 to assist with caring for his child. After being selected for a visa through the diversity visa

22 lottery program, Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi’s brother interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in

23 Abu Dhabi in March 2018. Although Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi had prepared

24 documentation about himself and his child in the United States for his brother to bring to his

25 consular interview, officials at the Embassy informed his brother even before the interview

26 occurred, as well as at the interview itself, that he would not be granted a visa because of the

27 Proclamation and would not be granted a waiver.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 44 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 45 of 68

1

215. Because of the experiences his brother and father-in-law have had with the

2 waiver process, Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi has delayed applying for a tourist visa for his

3 own mother, who he hoped would be able to meet and help care for his newborn child. Like his

4 father-in-law, Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi’s mother is of modest means and cannot afford to

5 travel to Dubai for interviews given the uncertainty created by the waiver process.

6

216. Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi’s father-in-law, brother, sister-in-law, and

7 mother now worry they will never be able to meet Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi’s new child.

8 The separation from their family has been incredibly difficult for Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi

9 and his wife. Because the couple cannot afford to pay for childcare, they had planned to rely on

10 Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi’s family to provide additional care for their child in those early

11 months, as well as emotional support. Without Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi’s family’s help,

12 the couple has had difficulty balancing their roles as new parents with the obligations of their

13 doctoral studies. The couple worries that if one of them were to take a leave of absence from

14 their doctoral studies to care for their child, they would jeopardize their visa status.

15

217. Because their family members cannot come to the United States to visit them,

16 Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi and his wife would like to travel to Iran so that their family can

17 meet their new child. But because both Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi and his wife are in the

18 U.S. on single-entry student visas, they fear that they will be denied a new visa and reentry to

19 the U.S. upon attempting to return, stalling and perhaps ending their doctoral studies. This has

20 taken a considerable emotional toll on Plaintiff Zamani Hosseinabadi and his wife, as both

21 worry that given the waiver process, they will need to wait another four to five years until their

22 parents can see their grandchild.

23

218. Plaintiff Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, a national of Iran, has suffered and

24 will continue to suffer harm because of the Proclamation and the waiver process. She has

25 applied for an EB-5 investor visa and has made a $500,000 investment in the United States,

26 primarily with funds irrevocably gifted by her parents in lieu future inheritance, which she will

27 never be able to recover without a waiver and a visa.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 45 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 46 of 68

1

219. Under the EB-5 program, EB-5 investors must invest in a new commercial

2 enterprise that will create full-time positions for at least 10 qualifying employees. An

3 investment of at least $500,000 is required when a prospective investor is investing in a

4 “Targeted Employment Area” that is either a high-unemployment or rural area. Using most of

5 an irrevocable gift from her parents, Plaintiff Mohammadabadi has invested $500,000 in a

6 Kimpton Hotel project in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which is part of the Metropolitan Milwaukee

7 Association of Commerce Regional Center, an organization designated by USCIS to sponsor

8 capital investment projects for investment by EB-5 investors. Plaintiff Mohammadabadi’s

9 investment has been used to create jobs in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and to develop a new

10 Kimpton Hotel that will support tourism and businesses in the area for decades to come.

11

220. Plaintiff Mohammadabadi chose to use her parents’ irrevocable gift to apply for

12 an EB-5 investor visa because it was the fastest way for her to obtain a visa and emigrate to the

13 United States to pursue an architecture career, which has been difficult for her to do as a woman

14 in Iran, and to reunite with her sister, who is an asylum applicant and her closest relative. The

15 two women are separated by age by just a year and were deeply interdependent as they grew

16 up. When her sister emigrated to the United States, Plaintiff Mohammadabadi followed to be

17 near her sister and pursue her Master of Architecture degree. She was unable to finish the

18 required thesis and was forced to return to Iran in 2013 so she would not violate her student

19 visa, but Plaintiff Mohammadabadi realized that her long-term professional prospects in Iran

20 were limited, that she had fallen in love with the United States, and that she wanted to be close

21 to her sister on a permanent basis.

22

221. Plaintiff Mohammadabadi’s parents subsequently decided to distribute their life

23 savings to their daughters, which amounted to just over $500,000 each, telling their daughters

24 that the only way they could guarantee that the inheritance went to their daughters, and be able

25 to see their daughters make use of it, was by giving it to them before they passed away. Plaintiff

26 Mohammadabadi decided to use most of her parents’ irrevocable gift to pursue an EB-5 visa so

27 she could come to the United States as quickly as possible to reunite with her sister, finish her

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 46 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 47 of 68

1 Master’s degree, and pursue a career in architecture. At the moment, Plaintiff

2 Mohammadabadi’s sister cannot file an I-130 petition for her because her asylum case has been

3 pending for more than two years. Although her sister could file such a petition after becoming

4 a citizen, the process would take over 25 years due to the wait time for sibling petitions.

5

222. Plaintiff Mohammadabadi’s I-526 Immigrant Petition for Alien Entrepreneur

6 was approved in less than two years in June 2016, and she appeared for her consular interview

7 at the United States Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia, in February 2017. Because this interview

8 occurred before the Proclamation went into effect, she had no notice that a waiver might be

9 required and no opportunity to present evidence of her eligibility for a waiver. Nevertheless,

10 less than a week after the Proclamation went into effect, on December 14, 2018, the embassy

11 in Yerevan issued Plaintiff Mohammadabadi a Waiver Refusal Worksheet stating that she had

12 been found ineligible for a visa under the Proclamation—one of hundreds, if not thousands of

13 perfunctory denials issued after the Proclamation took effect. She was not given an opportunity

14 to request a waiver under the Proclamation and has heard nothing from the embassy ever since.

15

223. Because Plaintiff Mohammadabadi’s priority date for her approved I-526

16 petition is current under the State Department’s Visa Bulletin, which summarizes the

17 availability of immigrant visas each month, she would be immediately eligible for an EB-5

18 investor visa if it were not for her waiver denial under the Proclamation.

19

224. The denial of a waiver has been devastating to Plaintiff Mohammadabadi. Her

20 $500,000 investment, which represents most of her gifted inheritance from her parents and the

21 majority of her wealth in the world, is at risk. Because she would never be able to recover that

22 amount of money in Iran as a woman, Plaintiff Mohammadbabadi would never again be able

23 to make such an investment again if she were to lose it.

24

225. Because her waiver has been denied, Plaintiff Mohammadabadi is also at risk of

25 losing her Master’s degree, which she must complete soon by completing her thesis and

26 defending it in person at the University of Hartford. Because EB-5 visas are typically granted

27 within two years and she was advised that it would be unlikely for her to be granted another

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 47 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 48 of 68

1 student visa while her EB-5 visa petition was pending, she decided to wait until receiving her

2 EB-5 visa to complete her degree. But she has now been denied a waiver, and if she is not

3 granted re-entry to the United States to complete her thesis, she will lose the credits she had

4 accumulated and all her studies will have been for nothing.

5

226. Plaintiff Mohammadabadi also despairs of ever being able to reunite with her

6 sister. Because of the degrading relations between the United States and Iran and her sister’s

7 pending asylum application, it is impossible for Plaintiff Mohammadabadi’s sister to return to

8 Iran safely to visit her even briefly, and although they talk to each other almost every day, it is

9 not the same as being together in the same place. When Plaintiff Mohammadabadi’s I-526

10 petition was approved, the two sisters rejoiced at the prospect of reuniting in the United States.

11 That prospect is now indefinitely on hold, if not extinguished, because of the waiver process.

12

227. Plaintiff Maral Tabrizi, a Lawful Permanent Resident, has suffered and will

13 continue to suffer harm because of the Proclamation and the waiver process. After Plaintiff

14 Tabrizi told her mother and father she was pregnant with her first child, they applied for tourist

15 visas, hoping to help Plaintiff Tabrizi and her husband care for her newborn child after her

16 January 2018 delivery date.

17

228. In October 2017, Plaintiff Tabrizi’s parents were granted visa interviews at the

18 U.S. Consulate in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Shortly after her interview, Plaintiff Tabrizi’s

19 mother learned her visa had been approved but decided to delay picking up her visa until the

20 Consulate had approved Plaintiff Tabrizi’s father’s visa, allowing them to travel to the

21 Consulate in Dubai together. Because their interviews took place before the Proclamation went

22 into effect, Plaintiff Tabrizi’s parents had no opportunity to present evidence of their eligibility

23 for a waiver.

24

229. However, in December 2017, while Plaintiff Tabrizi’s mother waited for a

25 decision on her husband’s visa, she received a letter from the Consulate stating she had in fact

26 been found ineligible for a visa because of the Proclamation and denied a waiver. Months later,

27 in February 2018, Plaintiff Tabrizi’s father received a similar letter. It stated that he too had

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 48 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 49 of 68

1 been found ineligible for a visa pursuant to the Proclamation, and that a waiver would not be

2 granted in his case. Plaintiff Tabrizi’s mother had visited the United States previously and

3 complied with all requirements of her visa.

4

230. Although Plaintiff Tabrizi had hoped that her parents would receive visas in time

5 for them to be present for the birth of her baby, they did not. Plaintiff Tabrizi gave birth in

6 February 2018, and both she and her parents were devastated that her parents could not be there.

7 They worry whether Plaintiff Tabrizi’s parents will ever be able to meet their grandchild.

8

231. The situation has caused Plaintiff Tabrizi anxiety and depression. Plaintiff

9 Tabrizi had expected her parents to help care for her child during the first months after her

10 delivery, allowing Plaintiff and her husband to return to work. Because Plaintiff Tabrizi cannot

11 afford a caregiver, she has entrusted care of her child to her sister-in-law while she is at work.

12 However, because of her sister-in-law’s medical condition and obligations to three other young

13 children, she is unable to provide the regular attention and care Plaintiff Tabrizi expected her

14 parents would provide for her infant child.

15

232. Plaintiff Tabrizi has also had difficulty caring for her child because of a painful

16 connective tissue disorder, which has made it difficult for her to bear the burdens of being a

17 new parent. The waiver process has only prolonged the considerable hardship Plaintiff Tabrizi

18 has faced without her parents’ assistance and emotional support.

19

233. Plaintiff John Doe #1, a native-born U.S. citizen, has suffered and will continue

20 to suffer harm because of the Proclamation and the waiver process. Living conditions in Libya

21 have become increasingly difficult and dangerous for Plaintiff John Doe #1’s aging parents,

22 and he wishes to bring them to the United States so he can take care of them.

23

234. After Plaintiff John Doe #1 received an approval for his I-130 petition for his

24 parents in September 2014, his parents were scheduled for an interview at the U.S. Consulate

25 General in Casablanca in October 2016. But because Morocco now requires Libyans to have

26 visas to enter the country, Plaintiff John Doe #1 had to reschedule his parents’ consular

27 interview appointment to get his parents travel visas that would allow them to fly to Morocco.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 49 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 50 of 68

1 They ultimately had to make three international trips—first, to apply for the Moroccan visa in

2 Tunisia; again, to pick the visa up in Tunisia; and a third time to appear for the actual consular

3 interview in Morocco in January 2017.

4

235. At the interview, the consular officer requested additional paperwork, such as

5 police records and an affidavit of support. Although John Doe #1 and his parents were diligent

6 in gathering the requested paperwork, this process was extremely time-consuming because of

7 delays in the consulate’s responses to any communications. For example, it took the consulate

8 four months to tell John Doe #1 that he needed to provide originals of his parents’ police

9 records, not copies. The consulate ultimately confirmed in October 2017 that they required no

10 further information, and said that Plaintiff John Doe #1’s parents’ visa applications were in

11 administrative processing.

12

236. In January 2018, Plaintiff John Doe #1 received an e-mail stating that his

13 parents’ visas had been refused under the Proclamation. He and his parents were devastated.

14

237. After speaking to an attorney, Plaintiff John Doe #1 learned about the waivers

15 available under the Proclamation. In March 2018, he e-mailed the consulate to formally request

16 a waiver for his parents, providing information to support the request. A week later, the

17 government sent Plaintiff John Doe #1 a form e-mail, identical to the one he’d received in

18 January, stating that his parents’ visas had been refused under the Proclamation.

19

238. The uncertainty about his parents’ visas, as well as the difficult situation his

20 parents are living in, has frustrated and depressed John Doe #1. He is unable to sleep at night

21 and has recently considered applying for medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave

22 Act to get psychiatric treatment. He worries about his parents’ safety constantly because Libya

23 is politically unstable and civilians like his parents are at the mercy of armed militias and gangs,

24 who regularly kidnap people for ransom. An old high school classmate, who lives in the same

25 town as John Doe #1’s parents, was recently kidnapped and held for over $100,000 in ransom,

26 and John Doe #1 fears that this could happen to his parents, too. Apart from the danger presented

27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 50 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 51 of 68

1 by the militias, his parents have health issues and do not always have access to food and health

2 care.

3

239. Plaintiff John Doe #1 has been extremely disappointed by the Proclamation and

4 the waiver process. He does not understand how he, a U.S. citizen, can be prevented from seeing

5 his parents and bringing them to safety. The form letters he has received from the consulate

6 make it seem to him like the government won’t even acknowledge his existence or his

7 humanity. He feels like the government is treating his family this way because they are Muslim.

8

240. Plaintiff John Doe #2, a U.S. citizen, has suffered and will continue to suffer

9 harm because of the Proclamation and the waiver process. He and his two U.S. citizen

10 daughters, aged seven and eleven, have been separated from his wife and their mother since

11 2016. In August 2016, Plaintiff Doe #2 filed an I-130 immigrant visa petition for his wife so

12 that their family can reunite and live together in Michigan.

13

241. After Plaintiff John Doe #2’s I-130 petition for his wife was approved, she

14 interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti in late December 2017. Despite informing her that

15 her application was strong, and despite failing to inquire about any of the waiver eligibility

16 criteria, the consular officer informed Plaintiff John Doe #2’s wife that she was ineligible for a

17 visa pursuant to the Proclamation and denied her a waiver. Before handing her a letter indicating

18 her visa ineligibility and waiver denial, the officer told Plaintiff John Doe #2’s wife that if it

19 were his decision to make, he would have granted her a visa.

20

242. The Consulate’s decision to deny Plaintiff John Doe #2’s wife a waiver has

21 devastated Plaintiff John Doe #2 and his family. Plaintiff John Doe #2’s seven- and eleven-

22 year-old daughters are confused, anxious, and heartbroken their mother cannot be with them in

23 the U.S. Plaintiff Doe #2’s wife desperately misses her children and worries about them

24 constantly. She does so while living thousands of miles away in a neighborhood that has

25 experienced armed violence and missile strikes because of the conflict in Yemen. Plaintiff John

26 Doe #2 is also anguished and overwhelmed, as he cares for two young daughters without their

27 mother’s support and care.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 51 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 52 of 68

1

243. After the end of his daughters’ school semester in spring 2018, Plaintiff John

2 Doe #2 traveled with them to Egypt, a place where they have no family, so that they could be

3 briefly reunited with their mother, who traveled to meet them there. In order to make the trip,

4 Plaintiff John Doe #2 had to leave his job and now lives off his family’s savings. Given the

5 family’s strained financial situation, as well as the need for his daughters to continue their

6 education in the United States, Plaintiff John Doe #2 does not believe he can remain in Egypt

7 for long or make repeated trips with his daughters to visit their mother.

8

244. Plaintiff John Doe #3, a native-born U.S. citizen, has suffered and will continue

9 to suffer harm because of the Proclamation and the waiver process, which are prolonging his

10 separation from the love of his life and future wife-to-be, Plaintiff Jane Doe #1, and indefinitely

11 placing his dreams for the future on hold.

12

245. In 2009, he met and established a relationship with his fiancée, Plaintiff Jane

13 Doe #1, while they were exchange students in Dubai. Several years later they rekindled their

14 relationship while Plaintiff John Doe #3 was stationed in the Middle East as part of his work

15 with the U.S. government. When in 2017, they became engaged, Plaintiff John Doe #3 was

16 elated and his entire family traveled to Dubai, UAE, for the engagement celebration. They

17 planned a wedding in Southern California and began making arrangements, including arranging

18 for Plaintiff Jane Doe #1’s move to the United States.

19

246. Plaintiff John Doe #3’s I-129F petition on behalf of Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 was

20 approved in early April of this year, giving Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 a four-month window to apply

21 for and receive a K-1 fiancée visa. Believing Plaintiff Jane Doe #1’s visa approval imminent,

22 Plaintiff John Doe #3 set about deciding on career opportunities in a location conducive for his

23 fiancée to continue her professional work, finding a larger (and more expensive) apartment for

24 them both, purchasing personal items she would need, planning their wedding in the U.S.,

25 adding her to bank and financial accounts, and planning future family vacations. All of this has

26 amounted to significant mental and emotional energy for John Doe #3 and great financial

27 expense.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 52 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 53 of 68

1

247. To Plaintiff John Doe #3’s shock, however, Plaintiff Jane Doe #1’s visa was

2 denied within minutes of her arriving at the consulate for her consular interview. Plaintiff John

3 Doe #3 is heartbroken to face the now indefinite separation from his fiancée. Moreover, due to

4 the nature of his prior work with the U.S. government and recent data breaches which have

5 caused his employment and clearance information to be made public, Plaintiff John Doe #3 is

6 unable to travel to Iran to visit his fiancée, nor can the couple marry abroad. Plaintiff John Doe

7 #3 has reason to believe his affiliation to the U.S. Government, if made known to the

8 Government of Iran, could adversely affect Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 or her family members, some

9 of whom reside in Iran.

10

248. Plaintiff John Doe #3 has spent countless hours trying to determine what can be

11 done to secure his fiancée’s travel to the United States within the four-month period his

12 approved I-129F petition is valid. He has spoken with his U.S. Representative’s office,

13 numerous immigration practitioners, a senior U.S. diplomat, and several officers in the U.S.

14 Departments of State and Homeland Security. In this correspondence, he has received

15 conflicting and confusing advice – some have absolutely no information about the waiver

16 process, some have suggested he should first get married and then reapply, others have said

17 there is nothing to do but wait for the ban to be lifted and then re-apply, and still others have

18 suggested that completing various additional forms may allow his fiancée’s application to be

19 reconsidered. One U.S. State Department official indicated to Plaintiff John Doe #3 that waiver

20 considerations are not decided by consular officers, as stated in Section 3 of the Presidential

21 Proclamation, but instead brought before a panel at the Department’s headquarters in

22 Washington, D.C. This has left Plaintiff John Doe #3 confused and desperate for accurate

23 information about what to do next.

24

249. Plaintiff John Doe #3 has also spent considerable financial resources in support

25 of being reunited with Plaintiff Jane Doe #1, including fees related to the I-129F petition, fees

26 related to the visa application, significant travel expenses for him and his fiancée, and legal

27 advice – amounting to over $11,000 over the past several months. He cannot maintain this level

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 53 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 54 of 68

1 of expense to continue re-submitting the I-129F petition every four months if his fiancée

2 continues to be denied a waiver under the current process.

3

250. Plaintiff Jane Doe #1, an Iranian national, has suffered and will continue to

4 suffer harm because of the Proclamation and the waiver process. She grew up primarily in the

5 United States, where she lived for nearly a decade, and she attended a U.S. university for her

6 undergraduate studies. While she was studying abroad during her undergraduate studies in

7 Dubai, she met Plaintiff John Doe #3.

8

251. She applied for a K-1 visa as the beneficiary of Plaintiff John Doe #3’s approved

9 I-129F petition. At the time she was living in Oman under a work visa. In the Spring of 2018

10 she received notice from the U.S. Embassy in Muscat, Oman, that she should schedule her

11 consular interview. The notice did not provide any indication that the Presidential Proclamation

12 would preclude her family from being together. She promptly scheduled her interview and

13 arranged to make the several-hour journey to the consulate office.

14

252. Because a condition of her employment required her to provide at least 3

15 months’ notice before resigning and the K-1 visa, once granted, is only good for a short window

16 of time, she resigned from her position to ensure that the effective date of her resignation would

17 fall within that window.

18

253. When Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 arrived at her consular interview, she brought all of

19 the paperwork suggested in the consulate’s “Instructions for a Nonimmigrant Visa for

20 Fiancé(e),” including full copies of the initial I-129F approved application, prior DHS USCIS

21 approval notices, the I-134, and all required and suggested supporting documentation. None of

22 the paperwork she received from the consulate in advance of the interview noted the

23 Proclamation or the waiver process. Plaintiff Jane Doe #1’s consular interview lasted only

24 several minutes. She was not asked any questions related to the waiver criteria and she was not

25 provided an opportunity to present evidence that might demonstrate her eligibility for a waiver.

26

254. After her interview, Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 received a notice indicating she had

27 been denied a visa under the Proclamation and denied a waiver. She was devastated. Not only

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 54 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 55 of 68

1 were her plans to reunite with her fiancé and get married now indefinitely on hold, but she had

2 already made provisions to leave Oman for the United States, including by resigning from her

3 job. As a result, Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 will be imminently losing her residency in Oman, which

4 was conditioned on her remaining employed, and she will soon be forced to return to Iran. She

5 is ineligible to return to her previous employer without going through a lengthy selection

6 process (which may lead to denial), and since she studied at a U.S. accredited school for her

7 graduate degree and lacks a native understanding of Farsi, she is ineligible to continue her

8 vocation in her home country of Iran. The Presidential Proclamation has left her with no

9 employment options and forced her into a nomadic lifestyle attempting to figure out what is

10 next. She has no present income, and instead will require John Doe #3’s continual financial

11 support.

12

255. Organizational Plaintiff Pars Equality Center has suffered and will continue

13 to suffer harm because of the Proclamation and the waiver process. Since the Proclamation took

14 effect and Defendants began implementing the waiver provision, the Pars legal team has been

15 inundated with telephone calls, emails, and messages from community members asking

16 questions and expressing concerns. Individuals with different immigration status — dual

17 citizens, lawful permanent residents, visa holders, asylees, refugees, those seeking protected

18 status, and Iranian refugee applicants outside the United States — have called Pars with anxious

19 questions about how the Proclamation and waiver process will affect them or their loved ones.

20 Responding to these inquiries has diverted significant resources from other areas of Pars’

21 practice and services. Instead of devoting its resources to representing clients in their

22 immigration cases, the Pars legal team has been forced to spend most of its time advising clients

23 and other community members on the Proclamation and assisting individuals in seeking

24 waivers, work which has almost entirely culminated in a dead end.

25

256. Pars continues to respond to an overwhelming volume of inquiries—at least 15

26 every week—including many email inquiries and in-person consultations. Pars has to

27 continually update its website with up-to-date information about the Proclamation and the

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 55 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 56 of 68

1 waiver process. As a result of the Proclamation and its attendant waiver requirement, Pars has

2 produced weekly video content on its Facebook and Instagram pages to provide the community

3 with desperately sought after information, as well as distributed regular press releases, all at the

4 expense of its regular immigration services.

5

257. Members of the Pars legal team have met with over one hundred affected

6 individuals, either in person or telephonically, answered their waiver inquiries and in some

7 cases, signed retainer agreements to represent them in seeking a waiver. Preparing waiver

8 packets for individuals affected by the Proclamation is an arduous process, involving hours of

9 long-distance communication with visa applicants abroad. The time and effort spent in seeking

10 waivers for clients have exhausted Pars’ legal resources, an expenditure that has gone to waste

11 because none of Pars’ clients have thus far obtained a final waiver approval.

12

258. Furthermore, the Proclamation and ineffectual waiver process have the long-

13 term effect of reducing Pars’ potential client pool – indefinitely. One of the central tenets of

14 Pars’ mission is to assist Iranian immigrants with their integration into America society. Close

15 to 90 percent of Pars’ immigration and social services clients are Iranian immigrants. The

16 Proclamation’s bar on admission for Iranian nationals and the inability to meaningfully access

17 a waiver for these clients puts Pars’ continued operation in serious jeopardy.

18

259. The grants that Pars receives from the County of Santa Clara and the State of

19 California are dependent on the number of immigration consultations performed and the

20 number of immigration cases filed per quarter. Because Iranian immigrants are no longer

21 allowed entry, Pars risks losing 90 percent of its clientele, thereby putting Pars at risk of failing

22 to meet its grant deliverables. This would have a devastating impact on Pars’ operating budget,

23 potentially forcing it to drastically cut its workforce and even forcing it to cease operations.

24

260. As a result of the Proclamation and Defendants’ implementation of the waiver

25 provision, the existing Iranian American community who have been Pars’ clients for many

26 years now feel stigmatized and discriminated against. The effect of these policies has been to

27 instill fear and anxiety in the Iranian American community, exacerbating challenges that

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 56 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 57 of 68

1 immigrants, especially those from primarily Muslim countries, already face in the United

2 States. Pars’ clients have expressed fear of being treated as second class citizens, which has in

3 turn undermined Pars’ civic engagement efforts and citizenship curriculum by instilling a loss

4 of faith in the system among the participants. The Proclamation and waiver process have

5 restricted Pars’ ability to carry out its work and mission.

6

261. In addition to the harms Pars faces directly, Pars has existing and prospective

7 clients who will be harmed by the Proclamation and Defendants’ implementation of the waiver

8 provision. These clients face numerous barriers to participating directly in a lawsuit challenging

9 the waiver process. These include, but are not limited to, unfamiliarity with the U.S. legal

10 system, fears over whether participation in a lawsuit could jeopardize their ability to reunite

11 with family members abroad, and various language and cultural barriers.

12

262. Organizational Plaintiff OneAmerica has suffered and will continue to suffer

13 harm because of the Proclamation and the waiver process. Since the Proclamation went into

14 effect on December 8, 2017, OneAmerica has been forced to focus a growing percentage of

15 community education work on the Proclamation and Defendants’ implementation of the waiver

16 provision.

17

263. OneAmerica has had to reassign existing staff away from prior commitments to

18 work focused on the Proclamation and the waiver process.

19

264. One of OneAmerica’s full-time organizers is now spending about one-third of

20 her time on know-your-rights trainings related to the Proclamation and the waiver process.

21 Prior to this shift in her work, her time was dedicated to building up an educational reform

22 program that OneAmerica has been working on for the past 5 years. This organizer’s efforts

23 on the educational reform project, which involved organizing parents, students, teachers, and

24 school administrators to expand access to bilingual education in the State of Washington, has

25 now all but ceased as a result of the Proclamation and waiver process.

26

27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 57 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 58 of 68

1

265. Expanding access to bilingual education is a core component of OneAmerica’s

2 mission to build power in immigrant communities through organizing, and advance democracy

3 through civic engagement.

4

266. Another one of OneAmerica’s full-time organizers has had to shift

5 approximately one-third of her work away from organizing small business owners in the

6 Muslim community towards answering concerns and providing community education on the

7 Proclamation and the waiver process.

8

267. The success of OneAmerica’s work is largely dependent on active participation

9 by its membership in OneAmerica organized-events and community education efforts. The

10 Proclamation and its attendant waiver process has had a chilling effect on the willingness of

11 Muslim community members to participate because of the fear that it has caused in the

12 community.

13

268. The Proclamation and Defendants’ implementation of the waiver provision has

14 caused OneAmerica to divert resources away from its core mission and organizational

15 commitments and priorities and has chilled participation of Muslim community members in

16 particular, thereby harming OneAmerica’s ability to achieve its core mission and purpose.

17

Class Allegations

18

269. Individual Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule

19 of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and (b)(2), on behalf of themselves and all other persons in the

20 United States for whom the Defendants’ implementation of the waiver provision interferes with

21 family reunification or the ability to travel internationally and return to the United States. This

22 class includes:

23

a. Individuals in the United States with an approved petition to be reunited with

24

family members who are (i) a national of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, or Yemen

25

(the “Designated Countries”), (ii) subject to the Proclamation, and (iii) currently

26

awaiting a decision on a waiver or have been denied a waiver (“U.S. Petitioner

27

Subclass”);

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 58 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 59 of 68

1

b. Nationals of the Designated Countries who are lawfully present in the United

2

States who, but for the uncertainty created by the Proclamation and Defendants’

3

implementation of the waiver provision, wish to travel abroad and return to the

4

United States (“Lawfully Present Foreign National Subclass”);

5

c. Individuals who have applied for a visa who are (i) nationals of the Designated

6

Countries, (ii) subject to the Proclamation, and (iii) currently awaiting a decision

7

on a waiver or have been denied a waiver (“Visa Applicant Subclass”).

8

270. The Plaintiff Class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable.

9

271. According to the Annual Report of the Visa Office, in 2017, the last year for

10 which data are available, the United States issued approximately 45,901 immigrant and non-

11 immigrant visas to nationals from the five countries banned by the Proclamation.

12

272. The claims of the Plaintiff Class members share common issues of law,

13 including but not limited to whether the Defendants’ implementation of the waiver provision

14 violates their rights under the APA, INA, and Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

15

273. The claims of the Plaintiff Class members share common issues of fact,

16 including but not limited to the manner of process provided by Defendants’ implementation of

17 the waiver provision, and whether that process has prevented or will prevent them or their

18 family members from reuniting, or from re-entering the United States should they choose to

19 leave briefly.

20

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

21 defenses of the members of the Plaintiff Class.

22

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

23 Plaintiff Class. The named Plaintiffs have no interest that is now or may be potentially

24 antagonistic to the interests of the Plaintiff Class. The attorneys representing the named

25 Plaintiffs include experienced civil rights attorneys who are considered able practitioners in

26 federal constitutional litigation. These attorneys should be appointed as class counsel.

27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 59 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 60 of 68

1

276. Defendants have acted, have threatened to act, and will act on grounds generally

2 applicable to the Plaintiff Class, thereby making final injunctive and declaratory relief

3 appropriate to the class as a whole. The Plaintiff Class may therefore be properly certified

4 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

5

277. Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Plaintiff Class

6 would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications and would establish incompatible

7 standards of conduct for individual members of the Plaintiff Class. The Plaintiff Class may

8 therefore be properly certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1).

9

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

10

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Administrative Procedure Act)

11

(On behalf of All Plaintiffs, including the Class)

12

278. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth

13 herein.

14

279. Defendants have taken a number of actions in purported reliance on Section 3(c)

15 of the Proclamation, including but not limited to issuing the “worldwide guidance” referenced

16 in the State Department’s February 22 letter and the State Department guidance, cables, sample

17 Q’s & A’s and instructions referenced in the Richardson declaration, as set forth above.

18

280. The actions Defendants have taken in purported reliance on Section 3(c) of the

19 Proclamation constitute final agency action(s) within the meaning of the Administrative

20 Procedure Act. See Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997).

21

281. Defendants’ actions have resulted in a waiver process in which, among other

22 things, visa applicants have been denied waivers without ever having received notice of a

23 waiver process, and/or have been denied waivers without ever having had a consular interview

24 or other opportunity to provide evidence of their eligibility for a waiver, in contravention of 22

25 C.F.R. §§ 41.121 and 42.81, which state that when refusing the issuance of a visa, a consular

26 officer must inform the visa applicant “whether there is, in law or regulations, a mechanism

27 (such as a waiver) to overcome the refusal.” See 22 C.F.R. § 41.121(b)(1).

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 60 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 61 of 68

1

282. Defendants’ actions have resulted in a waiver process in which, among other

2 things, visa applicants have had no consistent or meaningful process by which to submit

3 evidence of waiver eligibility or to have such evidence considered by consular officers, which

4 has resulted in vastly different practices within and across consulates.

5

283. Defendants’ actions have resulted in a waiver process in which, among other

6 things, the eligibility criteria for a waiver and the exemplar situations in which a waiver may

7 be appropriate, as set out in the Proclamation, have been misinterpreted and misapplied to

8 require a higher standard of proof of visa applicants than the Proclamation itself requires.

9

284. Defendants’ actions have resulted in a waiver process in which, among other

10 things, consular officers do not have discretion over whether and when to grant a waiver, and

11 thus no discretion over whether they may grant a visa to an individual subject to the

12 Proclamation, in contravention of the Proclamation itself as well as 8 U.S.C. § 1104(a), which

13 states that consular officers have complete discretion over the issuance of visas and that such

14 discretion may not be circumscribed by the Secretary of State.

15

285. Defendants’ actions, as set forth above, are based on legal error; failed to

16 consider all relevant factors; are contrary to the Proclamation; and lacked a rational explanation,

17 particularly in light of the reliance interests at stake; and are therefore arbitrary, capricious, an

18 abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law, in violation of the Administrative

19 Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

20

286. Defendants’ actions, as set forth above, are contrary to constitutional rights,

21 including Plaintiffs’ rights not to be deprived of their liberty interest in family reunification,

22 and statutory and regulatory rights to petition for visas for their family members, without due

23 process and as protected by the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, in

24 violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B).

25

287. Defendants’ actions, as set forth above, are ultra vires and in excess of any

26 authority granted by the Proclamation, regulation, or statute, including 8 U.S.C. §1104(a), and

27 not otherwise in accordance with law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 61 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 62 of 68

1 § 706(2)(C). Defendants’ actions, as set forth above, affect the Plaintiffs’ substantive rights

2 and were made without observance of procedure required by law in violation of the

3 Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).

4

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Accardi Doctrine & Administrative Procedure Act)

5

(On behalf of All Plaintiffs, including the Class)

6

288. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth

7 herein.

8

289. Defendants’ actions have resulted in a waiver process in which, among other

9 things, visa applicants have been denied waivers without ever having received notice of a

10 waiver process, and/or have been denied waivers without ever having had a consular interview

11 or other opportunity to provide evidence of their eligibility for a waiver, in contravention of 22

12 C.F.R. §§ 41.121 and 42.81, which state that when refusing the issuance of a visa, a consular

13 officer must inform the visa applicant “whether there is, in law or regulations, a mechanism

14 (such as a waiver) to overcome the refusal.” See 22 C.F.R. § 41.121(b)(1).

15

290. Defendants’ actions have resulted in a waiver process in which, among other

16 things, the eligibility criteria for a waiver and the exemplar situations in which a waiver may

17 be appropriate, as set out in the Proclamation, have been misinterpreted and misapplied to

18 require a higher standard of proof of visa applicants than the Proclamation itself requires.

19

291. Defendants’ actions have resulted in a waiver process in which, among other

20 things, consular officers do not have discretion over whether and when to grant a waiver, and

21 thus no discretion over whether they may grant a visa to an individual subject to the

22 Proclamation, in contravention of the Proclamation itself as well as 8 U.S.C. § 1104(a), which

23 states that consular officers have complete discretion over the issuance of visas and that such

24 discretion may not be circumscribed by the Secretary of State.

25

292. Defendants’ actions, as set forth above, violate agency procedures, including

26 those found at 22 C.F.R. §§ 41.121 and 42.81, which state that when refusing the issuance of a

27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 62 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 63 of 68

1 visa, a consular officer must inform the visa applicant “whether there is, in law or regulations,

2 a mechanism (such as a waiver) to overcome the refusal.” See 22 C.F.R. § 41.121(b)(1).

3

293. Defendants’ actions, as set forth above, should therefore be set aside under the

4 principle articulated in United States ex. rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954).

5

294. Defendants’ actions, as set forth above, fail to comply with the issuing agencies’

6 regulations and are therefore arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

7 accordance with law, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

8

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Due Process, Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)

9

(On behalf of Plaintiffs Whitehall Raghebi, Hassan, Siraji, Ahmed, Azimi, Ghaleb,

Hanout, Zamani Hosseinabadi, Tabrizi, John Does #1-3, Pars, OneAmerica, and the

10

“U.S. Petitioner Subclass”)

11

295. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth

12 herein.

13

296. Defendants’ actions have resulted in a waiver process in which, among other

14 things, visa applicants have been denied waivers without ever having received notice of a

15 waiver process, and/or have been denied waivers without ever having had a consular interview

16 or other opportunity to provide evidence of their eligibility for a waiver, in contravention of 22

17 C.F.R. §§ 41.121 and 42.81, which state that when refusing the issuance of a visa, a consular

18 officer must inform the visa applicant “whether there is, in law or regulations, a mechanism

19 (such as a waiver) to overcome the refusal.” See 22 C.F.R. § 41.121(b)(1).

20

297. Defendants’ actions have resulted in a waiver process in which, among other

21 things, visa applicants have had no consistent or meaningful process by which to submit

22 evidence of waiver eligibility or to have such evidence considered by consular officers, which

23 has resulted in vastly different practices within and across consulates.

24

298. Defendants’ actions have resulted in a waiver process in which, among other

25 things, the eligibility criteria for a waiver and the exemplar situations in which a waiver may

26 be appropriate, as set out in the Proclamation, have been misinterpreted and misapplied to

27 require a higher standard of proof of visa applicants than the Proclamation itself requires.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 63 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 64 of 68

1

299. Defendants’ actions have resulted in a waiver process in which, among other

2 things, consular officers do not have discretion over whether and when to grant a waiver, and

3 thus no discretion over whether they may grant a visa to an individual subject to the

4 Proclamation, in contravention of the Proclamation itself as well as 8 U.S.C. § 1104(a), which

5 states that consular officers have complete discretion over the issuance of visas and that such

6 discretion may not be circumscribed by the Secretary of State.

7

300. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

8 provides that “[n]o person . . . shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process

9 of law.”

10

301. Congress has created statutory rights related to the petitioning for and issuance

11 of visas and other immigration benefits.

12

302. Federal agencies have created regulatory rights related to the petitioning for and

13 issuance of visas and other immigration benefits.

14

303. Individuals must be given due process prior to the deprivation of these statutory

15 and regulatory rights.

16

304. Additionally, United States citizens and lawful permanent residents have

17 constitutionally protected liberty interests in family reunification and in the ability of their

18 family members to travel to the United States. Individuals must be given due process prior to

19 any deprivation of these liberty interests.

20

305. Defendants’ actions, as set forth above, deprive individuals, including Plaintiffs

21 and their members or clients, of the aforementioned statutory and regulatory rights, and liberty

22 interests, without due process.

23

306. Defendants’ actions, as set forth above, thus violate the procedural due process

24 guarantee of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

25

26

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

27

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for the following relief:

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 64 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 65 of 68

1

A. Declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that that Defendants’ actions in

2

implementing and enforcing Section 3(c) of the Presidential Proclamation to

3

date, including the issuance of internal guidance, have been arbitrary, capricious,

4

and otherwise in violation of law, including Section 3(c)(ii) of the Proclamation;

5

B. Enjoin Defendants, their officials, agents, employees, assigns, and all persons

6

acting in concert or participating with them from implementing or enforcing any

7

portion of Section 3(c) of the Proclamation in a manner that violates the APA,

8

INA, the U.S. Constitution, or Section 3(c) of the Proclamation;

9

C. Vacate the agency guidance, policies and procedures that implement Section

10

3(c) of the Presidential Proclamation;

11

D. Remand the agency guidance, policies and procedures to the agencies;

12

E. Direct Defendants to publicly issue “guidance” that “address[es] the standards,

13

policies, and procedures” for determining whether an applicant is entitled to a

14

waiver under Section 3(c), and which comports with the APA, the INA, the U.S.

15

Constitution, and Section 3(c) of the Proclamation;

16

F. Direct Defendants, including the State Department and its employees, officers,

17

and agents, as well as any other government employee, officer, or agent involved

18

in deciding whether a waiver should be granted to consider all pending and

19

future waivers under the guidance described in Paragraph E;

20

G. Direct Defendants, including the State Department and its employees, officers,

21

and agents, as well as any other government employee, officer, or agent involved

22

in deciding whether a waiver should be granted to reconsider waivers for all visa

23

applicants who had been denied or refused waivers before this Court’s injunction

24

under the guidance described in Paragraph E;

25

H. Certify this case as a class action lawsuit, and appoint class counsel of record,

26

as proposed herein;

27

I. Award Plaintiffs costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 65 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 66 of 68

1

pursuant to any applicable law; and

2

J. Grant any other and further relief as the Court deems equitable, just, and proper.

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
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 66 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 67 of 68

1

DATED: July 31, 2018.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
14

By: s/Esther H. Sung

15

Esther H. Sung

Pro Hac Vice Pending 16 By: s/Jana Whalley

Jana Whalley

17

Pro Hac Vice Pending

By: s/Joshua Stehlik

18

Joshua Stehlik

Pro Hac Vice Pending 19 By: s/Melissa S. Keaney

Melissa S. Keaney

20

Pro Hac Vice Pending

By: s/Nicholas Espiritu

21

Nicholas Espiritu

Pro Hac Vice Pending 22 3450 Wilshire Blvd. #108-62

Los Angeles, CA 90010 23 Telephone: (213) 639-3900

Emails: sung@nilc.org

24

whalley@nilc.org

stehlik@nilc.org

25

keaney@nilc.org

espiritu@nilc.org 26

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 27

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 67 NO.

LANE POWELL, PC
By: s/Darin Sands Darin Sands, WSBA No. 36865
By: s/Dustin O’Quinn Dustin O’Quinn Pro Hac Vice Pending
By: s/Jessica Walder Jessica Walder, WSBA No. 47676
By: s/Aaron Fickes Aaron Fickes, WSBA No. 51584
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 91302 Seattle, WA 98111-9402 Telephone: 206-223-7000 Facsimile: 206-223-7107 Emails: sandsd@lanepowell.com
oquinnd@lanepowell.com walderj@lanepowell.com fickesa@lanepowell.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
IRANIAN AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
By: s/Babak G. Yousefzadeh Babak G. Yousefzadeh Pro Hac Vice Pending
5185 MacArthur Blvd. NW, Suite 624 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (415) 774-3191 Email: President@iaba.us Attorney for Plaintiffs
LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-BHS Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 68 of 68

ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC

1

LLP

RELATIONS, CALIFORNIA

2

By: s/John A. Freedman

By: s/Brittney Rezaei

John A. Freedman

3

Pro Hac Vice Pending

Brittney Rezaei Pro Hac Vice Pending

601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

4

Washington, DC 20001-3743

By: s/Zahra A. Billoo Zahra A. Billoo

Telephone: (202) 942-5000

Pro Hac Vice Pending

5

Email: john.freedman@arnoldporter.com 3160 De La Cruz Blvd., Suite 110

6

Attorney for Plaintiff

Santa Clara, CA 95054 Telephone: (408) 986-9874

Emails: brezaei@cair.com

7

zbilloo@cair.com

8

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ADVANCING JUSTICE – ASIAN LAW

9

CAUCUS

10 By: s/Elica S. Vafaie

Elica S. Vafaie

11

Pro Hac Vice Pending

By: s/Christina Sinha

12

Christina Sinha

Pro Hac Vice Pending 13 55 Columbus Ave.

San Francisco, CA 94111 14 Telephone: (415) 848-7711

Emails: elicav@advancingjustice-alc.org

15

christinas@advancingjustice-alc.org

16

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 68 NO.

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

 
 Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 68 Filed 10/09/18 Page 1 of 11

1

THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

AT SEATTLE

9 PARS EQUALITY CENTER;

)

ONEAMERICA; PAMELA WHITEHALL )

10 RAGHEBI; AFSHIN RAGHEBI; ZEINAB )

MOHAMED HASSAN; SIRAJI ETHA

)

11 SIRAJI; MALAYEEN AHMED; REZA )

AZIMI; YAHYA GHALEB; MITRA

)

12 HANNANI; NICHOLAS HANOUT;

)

HOSSEIN ZAMANI HOSSEINABADI; )

13 JOHN DOES #1-3; and JANE DOE #1,

)

)

14

Plaintiffs, )

)

15

v.

)

)

16 MIKE POMPEO; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN; )

KEVIN K. MCALEENAN; U.S.

)

17 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

)

18 STATE; and U.S. CUSTOMS AND

)

BORDER PROTECTION,

)

19

)

Defendants. )

20

)

)

21

No. 2:18-cv-1122 JOINT STATUS REPORT

22

23

24

25

26

27

JOINT STATUS REPORT NO. 2:18-CV-1122

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 68 Filed 10/09/18 Page 2 of 11

1 COME NOW THE PARTIES, collectively referenced herein as the “Parties,” and
2 submit their Joint Status Report to this Court after their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Conference on
3 September 18, 2018.
4 1. Nature and Complexity of the Case. Plaintiffs are challenging
5 Defendants’ implementation of the waiver provision of Presidential Proclamation No.
6 9645, “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into
7 the United States By Terrorists or other Public-Safety Threats” (“Proclamation”).
8 Plaintiffs assert claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution, and
9 seek injunctive and other equitable relief from the Court. In response, Defendants have
10 moved for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to
11 state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
12 2. Deadline for Joinder of Additional Parties. The Parties propose a deadline
13 of November 21, 2018 for joining additional parties.
14 3. Consent to Assignment to Magistrate Judge: No.
15 4. Discovery Plan: The Parties attended an FRCP 26(f) Conference on September
16 18, 2018 by telephone and propose the following discovery plan:
17 a. Initial Disclosures: Per the September 4 Order, the Parties exchanged Initial
18 Disclosures on October 2. Plaintiffs believe that the Initial Disclosures served by
19 Defendants are inadequate and reserve the right to move the court to compel more
20 adequate disclosures.
21 b. Subjects, timing and potential phasing of discovery:
22 Plaintiffs propose that:
23 i. Phase I of discovery will involve production of the Administrative
24 Record. Per Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the Administrative Record, the Record
25 should have been filed October 2. Once review of the record is complete,
26 Plaintiffs may seek to compel supplementation of the record.
27

JOINT STATUS REPORT - 1 NO. 2:18-CV-1122

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 68 Filed 10/09/18 Page 3 of 11

1 ii. Phase II will consist of any discovery necessary for class certification
2 discovery.
3 iii. Phase III will consist of any remaining discovery relevant to the
4 merits.
5 Defendants assert that discovery should not proceed until such time as the Court
6 has ruled on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants have moved to dismiss on the
7 ground that there are no agency decisions subject to review under the Administrative
8 Procedure Act (“APA”). If the Court does not dismiss the entire case and instead
9 identifies a final agency action that is subject to review under the APA, any discovery
10 should be limited to the administrative record before the agency at the time the action
11 under review was taken. See 5 U.S.C. § 706; Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470
12 U.S. 729, 743-44 (1985). Defendants maintain that, to date, Plaintiffs have failed to
13 identify what, if any, specific final agency action they are challenging, and therefore
14 which administrative record they believe should be produced. Plaintiffs disagree and
15 contend that the Complaint identifies the final agency actions challenged. It is
16 Defendants’ position that if the case is not dismissed and Plaintiffs’ challenge is better
17 defined, Defendants will produce an administrative record with their Answer to the
18 Complaint, as contemplated in LCR 79(h).
19 c. Electronically stored information: Both Parties will likely have electronically
20 stored information. Plaintiffs anticipate that the vast majority of electronically stored
21 information will be in Defendants’ possession.
22 d. Privilege issues: The Parties anticipate that the Defendants will assert various
23 privileges. Any document withheld in full or in part on the basis of a privilege by either
24 Party will be identified on a log with sufficient particularity to allow assessment of the
25 privilege. To the extent documents are withheld from the administrative record or this
26 Court directs discovery beyond the administrative record, Defendants will provide
27

JOINT STATUS REPORT - 2 NO. 2:18-CV-1122

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 68 Filed 10/09/18 Page 4 of 11

1 Plaintiffs with a privilege log.
2 e. Proposed limitations on discovery: Plaintiffs will not be in a position to
3 determine whether the presumptive limits on numbers of depositions and interrogatories
4 under Rules 30 and 33 are adequate until access to the Administrative Record has been
5 provided. Defendants take the position there should be no discovery until their Rule 12
6 motion is decided. If the case is not dismissed in whole, Defendants believe that any
7 discovery should be limited to the administrative record. If this Court authorizes
8 discovery beyond the administrative record, Defendants believe the limits on
9 depositions and interrogatories under Rules 30 and 33 are appropriate.
10 f. The need for any discovery related orders: Plaintiffs have filed a motion to
11 compel production of the Administrative Record and Defendants’ initial disclosures.
12 Defendants will oppose the motion. Further, Defendants plan to file motions (i) to stay
13 discovery pending resolution of the Rule 12 motion, and (ii) for a protective order to
14 limit any discovery to the administrative record of the agency decision that the Court
15 identifies as subject to APA review.
16 5. The Parties Views, Proposals and Agreements on Local Rule 26(f)(1) Items:
17 a. Prompt case resolution: Plaintiffs believe that assessment of potential for
18 prompt case resolution is premature until the Administrative Record has been produced.
19 Subject to assessment of the Administrative Record, plaintiffs will promptly evaluate the case
20 for potential injunctive relief. The Defendants have filed a Rule 12 motion.
21 b. Alternative dispute resolution: The Parties agree this case is not a candidate
22 for alternative dispute resolution.
23 c. Related cases: Plaintiffs designated this case as related to Doe v. Trump,
24 2:17-cv-0178-JLR. See ECF 39. As Plaintiffs set out in their September 24, 2018 Opposition
25 to Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue, the Doe complaint includes allegations and claims
26 relating specifically to the Proclamation’s waiver provision and the manner in which it would
27

JOINT STATUS REPORT - 3 NO. 2:18-CV-1122

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 68 Filed 10/09/18 Page 5 of 11

1 be implemented. As argued in their September 6, 2018, Motion to Transfer Case, Defendants
2 do not agree that this case is related to Doe. Instead, Defendants believe this case is related to
3 Emami, et al. v. Nielsen, et al., No. 18-cv-01587-JD (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 13, 2018). Emami is
4 a putative class action case that raises substantially similar issues and was filed on behalf of a
5 putative class that is defined in almost the same way as the putative class here.
6 d. Discovery management: Plaintiffs are amenable to sharing discovery from
7 third parties, scheduling case management or discovery conferences and presenting discovery
8 disputes to the court by informal means. To the extent discovery proceeds and is not limited to
9 the administrative record, Defendants are amenable to scheduling case management or
10 discovery conferences and presenting discovery disputes to the court by informal means, when
11 appropriate. The Parties do not consent to presenting discovery issues to a magistrate judge.
12 e. Anticipated discovery sought: Plaintiffs anticipate that they will seek
13 discovery on their constitutional claims, including depositions, written party discovery and third
14 party discovery. Plaintiffs will not be in a position to determine whether the presumptive limits
15 on numbers of depositions and interrogatories under Rules 30 and 33 are adequate until access
16 to the Administrative Record has been provided. Defendants maintain that, should this case not
17 be dismissed under Rule 12, discovery should be limited to the administrative record of the
18 agency decision that the Court identifies as subject to APA review. Defendants will produce
19 an administrative record with their Answer to the Complaint, as contemplated in LCR 79(h). If
20 the case is not limited to record review, Defendants anticipate taking discovery from Plaintiffs
21 on both class certification and the merits.
22 f. Phasing motions: Plaintiffs anticipate filing a motion for class certification.
23 Following production of the complete Administrative Record, Plaintiffs will assess the potential
24 for moving for preliminary injunctive relief. Defendants have filed (i) a motion to transfer, and
25 (ii) a Rule 12 motion, and may seek to stay proceedings pending resolution of the Rule 12
26 motion.
27

JOINT STATUS REPORT - 4 NO. 2:18-CV-1122

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 68 Filed 10/09/18 Page 6 of 11

1 g. Preservation of discoverable information: Plaintiffs have issued document
2 holds. Defendants have issued document holds.
3 h. Inadvertent Production of Privilege issues: The Parties are willing to meet
4 and confer as to entry of an order governing inadvertent production of privileged information
5 in accordance with Rule of Evidence 502(d).
6 i & j. Model Protocol for Discovery of ESI and alternatives to Model Protocol:
7 The Parties will discuss the suitability of an ESI protocol when the scope of discovery and
8 potential ESI issue is clearer.
9 6. Discovery Deadline. The Plaintiffs propose a discovery deadline of nine months
10 from the date of production of the Administrative Record. Plaintiffs propose that class
11 certification discovery be completed three to four months after production of the Administrative
12 Record, and that an additional period of merits discovery follow that. Depending on timing and
13 extent of the Administrative Record and discovery ordered, Plaintiffs anticipate merits
14 discovery can be completed 6 months after class certification discovery. Defendants do not
15 believe discovery is appropriate. Should discovery proceed in this case, it should be limited to
16 the administrative record of the agency decision that the Court identifies as subject to APA
17 review. Defendants will produce an administrative record with their Answer to the Complaint,
18 as contemplated in LCR 79(h) and do not believe any other discovery deadline is necessary.
19 7. Bifurcation. Bifurcation is unnecessary.
20 8. Rule 16 Pretrial Statement and Pretrial Order: The Parties do not believe the
21 standard Rule 16 pretrial statements and pretrial order shall be dispensed with.
22 9. Individualized Trial Program: The Parties agree this matter is not a candidate
23 for the individualized trial program.
24 10. Shortening the Case. The Plaintiffs will evaluate the case for potential interim
25 injunctive relief once the Administrative Record has been produced. The Defendants have filed
26 a Rule 12 motion.
27

JOINT STATUS REPORT - 5 NO. 2:18-CV-1122

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 68 Filed 10/09/18 Page 7 of 11

1 11. Proposed Trial Date. Plaintiffs believe the case will be ready for trial ten
2 months from production of the Administrative Record, i.e., if the Administrative Record is
3 produced promptly, the case will be ready for trial in August 2019. If this Court finds
4 dismissal is inappropriate, Defendants believe this case should be resolved through summary
5 judgment motions based on the administrative record.
6 12. Jury Trial. Should this Court find trial necessary, the Parties agree that this
7 would be a non-jury trial.
8 13. Length of Trial. Plaintiffs believe this will require assessment of the
9 Administrative Record. Defendants believe this case should be resolved through summary
10 judgment motions based on the administrative record.
11 14. Trial counsel. Darin Sands, Jessica Walder, and Aaron Fickes of Lane Powell
12 PC will serve as trial counsel for Plaintiffs. August E. Flentje, Gisela Westwater, David Kim,
13 and Nicole Grant will serve as trial counsel for Defendants.
14 15. Trial counsel conflicts. The Parties have not identified any conflicts.
15 16. Service of Process. All Defendants have been served.
16 17. Scheduling Conference. Plaintiffs believe an initial scheduling conference
17 would be helpful, and that it would be most efficient to schedule this in conjunction with a
18 hearing on the Defendants’ Rule 12 motion, which Plaintiffs plan to request in their
19 Opposition to Defendants’ motion. Defendants believe that a scheduling conference should
20 be delayed until after the Court resolves Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss.
21 18. Corporate Disclosures: Plaintiffs filed corporate disclosures on August 8,
22 2018 (ECF 48 & 49). Defendants are exempt from corporate disclosures under LCR 7.1.
23

24

25

26

27

JOINT STATUS REPORT - 6 NO. 2:18-CV-1122

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 68 Filed 10/09/18 Page 8 of 11

1 Respectfully submitted on this the 9th day of October, 2018.
2

3

LANE POWELL, PC

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW 15 CENTER

By: s/Darin Sands Darin Sands, WSBA No. 36865
By: s/Dustin O’Quinn Dustin O’Quinn Admitted Pro Hac Vice
By: s/Jessica Walder Jessica Walder, WSBA No. 47676
By: s/Aaron Fickes Aaron Fickes, WSBA No. 51584
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 91302 Seattle, WA 98111-9402 Telephone: 206-223-7000 Facsimile: 206-223-7107 Emails: sandsd@lanepowell.com
oquinnd@lanepowell.com walderj@lanepowell.com fickesa@lanepowell.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
IRANIAN AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

16 By: s/Esther H. Sung

Esther H. Sung

17

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

By: s/Joshua Stehlik

18

Joshua Stehlik

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

19 By: s/Melissa S. Keaney

Melissa S. Keaney

20

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

3450 Wilshire Blvd. #108-62

21 Los Angeles, CA 90010

Telephone: (213) 639-3900

22 Emails: sung@nilc.org

stehlik@nilc.org

23

keaney@nilc.org

By: s/Babak G. Yousefzadeh Babak G. Yousefzadeh Admitted Pro Hac Vice
5185 MacArthur Blvd. NW, Suite 624 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (415) 774-3191 Email: President@iaba.us
Attorney for Plaintiffs

24 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

25

26

27

JOINT STATUS REPORT - 7 NO. 2:18-CV-1122

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 68 Filed 10/09/18 Page 9 of 11

1

ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC

2 LLP

RELATIONS, CALIFORNIA

3 By: s/John A. Freedman

John A. Freedman

4

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

5 Washington, DC 20001-3743

Telephone: (202) 942-5000

6 Email: john.freedman@arnoldporter.com

7 Attorney for Plaintiff

8

9

By: s/Brittney Rezaei Brittney Rezaei Admitted Pro Hac Vice
By: s/Zahra A. Billoo Zahra A. Billoo Admitted Pro Hac Vice
3160 De La Cruz Blvd., Suite 110 Santa Clara, CA 95054 Telephone: (408) 986-9874 Emails: brezaei@cair.com
zbilloo@cair.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

10 ADVANCING JUSTICE – ASIAN LAW US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

CAUCUS

11

By: JOSEPH H. HUNT

By: s/Elica S. Vafaie

Assistant Attorney General

12

Elica S. Vafaie

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

SCOTT G. STEWART

13 By: s/Christina Sinha

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Christina Sinha

14

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

AUGUST E. FLENTJE

55 Columbus Ave.

Special Counsel

15 San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 848-7771

WILLIAM C. PEACHEY

16 Emails: elicav@advancingjustice-alc.org

Director, Office of Immigration

christinas@advancingjustice-alc.org

Litigation District Court Section

17

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

GISELA A. WESTWATER

18

Assistant Director, Office of

Immigration Litigation District Court

19

Section

20

s/Nicole P. Grant

DAVID KIM

21

NICOLE P. GRANT

Trial Attorneys

22

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division

23

Office of Immigration Litigation

P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station

24

Washington, D.C. 20044

Phone: (202) 532-4094

25

Attorneys for the Federal Defendants

26

27

JOINT STATUS REPORT - 8 NO. 2:18-CV-1122

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 68 Filed 10/09/18 Page 10 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
JOINT STATUS REPORT - 9 NO. 2:18-CV-1122

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 68 Filed 10/09/18 Page 11 of 11

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 Pursuant to RCW 9A.72.085, the undersigned certifies under penalty of perjury under
3 the laws of the United States and the laws of the State of Washington, that on the 9th day of
4 October, 2018, the foregoing document will be served electronically upon registered
5 participants identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing.
6

7

Executed on the 9th day of October, 2018, at Seattle, Washington.

8

9

s/ Jessica Walder

Jessica Walder, WSBA No. 47676

10

1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200

P.O. Box 91302

11

Seattle, WA 98111-9402

Telephone: 206-223-7000

12

Facsimile: 206-223-7107

Email: walderj@lanepowell.com

13

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

JOINT STATUS REPORT - 10 NO. 2:18-CV-1122

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

 
 Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 80 Filed 12/12/18 Page 1 of 19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGI_ON

8

AT SEATTLE

9

10

PARS EQUALITY CENTER, et al.,

CASE NO. C18-1122JLR

11

Plaintiffs,

v.

12

MIKE POMPEO, et al., 13

Defendants. 14

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

15

I.

INTRODUCTION

16

Before the court is Defendants Mike Pompeo, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Kevin K.

17 McAleenan, United States Department of Homeland Security, United Sates Department

18 of State, and United States Customs and Border Protection's (collectively, "Defendants")

19 motion to transfer venue. (Mot. (Dkt. #55).) Plaintiffs Pars Equality Center ("Pars

20 Equality"), OneAmerica, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Afshin Raghebi, Zeinab Mohamed

21 Hassan, Siraji Etha Siraji, Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani,

22 Nicholas Hanout, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, John Does 1-3, and Jane Doe 1

ORDER-1

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 80 Filed 12/12/18 Page 2 of 19

1 (collectively "Plaintiffs") oppose the motion. (Resp. (Dkt. # 56).) Defendants filed a

2 reply. (Reply (Dkt. # 63).) The court has considered the motion, the parties' submissions

3 concerning the motion, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being

4 fully advised, 1 the court GRANTS Defendants' motion to transfer venue for the reasons

5 set forth below.

6

II. BACKGROUND

7

This lawsuit challenges Defendants' implementation of the waiver provision set

8 forth in Presidential Proclamation No. 9645, entitled "Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and

9 Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or Other

10 Public-Safety Threats" ("E0-3").2 See Proclamation No. 9,645, 82 Fed. Reg. 45,161

11 (Sept. 27, 2017); (Compl. (Dkt. # 1).) President Trump promulgated E0-3 in September

12 2017, following months of legal challenges to Executive Order No. 13,769, 82 Fed. Reg.

13 8,977 (Jan. 27, 2017) ("E0-1") and Executive Order No. 13,780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13,209

14 (Mar. 6, 2017) ("E0-2"). Among other measures, E0-1 and E0-2 imposed entry and

15 immigration restrictions on noncitizens from several majority-Muslim countries. See

16 //

17

18

1 No party requests oral argument on Defendants' motion (see Mot. at 1; Resp. at 1), and

the court has determined that oral argument would not be of assistance in deciding the motion.

19 See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(4).

20

2 The parties refer to Presidential Proclamation No. 9645 as "the Proclamation" (Mot. at

1; Resp. at 2), as did the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii,-- U.S.--, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018).

21

Ho-wever, the court refers to the Proclamation as "E0-3," so as to be consistent with the terminology employed in the court's prior orders concerning the President's executive actions on

immigration and refugee admissions. See, e.g., Doe v. Trump, 288 F. Supp. 3d 1045 (W.D.
22 Wash. 2018).

ORDER-2

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 80 Filed 12/12/18 Page 3 of 19

1 Doe v. Trump, 288 F. Supp. 3d 1045, 1055-57 (W.D. Wash. 2018) (summarizing E0-1

2 and E0-2).

3

E0-3 indefinitely bars from entering the United States all immigrants and various

4 categories ofnonimmigrants from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia,3 Syria, and Yemen.

5 See E0-3 § 2. Section 3(c) ofE0-3 ("the waiver provision") provides that nationals of

6 these countries may be permitted entry on a "case-by-case" basis if they apply for and are

7 granted a waiver. !d. § 3(c). Under the waiver provision, a consular officer or designee

8 of the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, may, in his or her discretion,

9 grant a waiver to a foreign national subject to E0-3 if the officer finds that the foreign

10 national satisfies three criteria: (1) "denying entry would cause the foreign national

11 undue hardship"; (2) "entry would not pose a threat to the national security or public

12 safety of the United States"; and (3) "entry would be in the national interest." Id.

13 § 3(c)(i). In addition, E0-3 directs the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland

14 Security to "coordinate to adopt guidance addressing the circumstances in which waivers

15 may be appropriate for foreign nationals seeking entry as immigrants or nonimmigrants."

16 Id. § 3(c).

17

Shortly after he promulgated E0-3, President Trump issued Executive Order No.

18 13,815, entitled "Resuming the United States Refugee Admissions Program with

19 Enhanced Vetting Capabilities" ("E0-4"). See Executive Order No. 13, 815, 82 Fed.

20

21

3 E0-3 subjects to "additional scrutiny" nationals of Somalia who seek to enter the

United States as nonimmigrants, but does not categorically suspend the entry of any class of
22 nonimmigrants of Somali origin. See E0-3 § 2(h)(ii).

ORDER- 3

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 80 Filed 12/12/18 Page 4 of 19

1 Reg. 50,055 (Oct. 24, 2017). Notwithstanding E0-4's title, the memorandum that

2 accompanied E0-4-known as the "Agency Memo"-imposed another ban on certain

3 categories of refugees. See Doe, 288 F. Supp. 3d at 1057-59 (describing the Agency

4 Memo). Additionally, the Agency Memo indefinitely suspended the entry of

5 following-to-join ("FTJ") derivative refugees to the United States. See id.

6

The President's executive actions on immigration and refugee admissions have

7 prompted a number of legal actions, including Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., C17-0178JLR

8 (W.D. Wash.) ("Doe"), originally filed in February 2017 as a challenge to E0-1. See

9 Doe, Dkt. # 1. Doe plaintiffs, who include refugees as well as individuals with lawful

10 nonimmigrant status, amended their complaint after the subsequent executive actions.

11 Id., Dkt. ## 10, 30, 42. Their third amended complaint, filed on November 6, 2017,

12 challenges both E0-3 and the Agency Memo that accompanied E0-4. !d., Dkt. # 42. On

13 December 23, 2017, this court enjoined federal officials from enforcing those provisions

14 of the Agency Memo that suspended the processing and admission of FTJ applicants and

15 refugees from select countries.4 See Doe, 288 F. Supp. 3d at 1086. Neither that order nor

16 any subsequent order in Doe addressed EO-3's waiver provision.

17

On July 31, 20 18, Plaintiffs filed the present action in the Western District of

18 Washington. (See Compl.) The case was reassigned, as related to Doe, to the

19 undersigned Judge. (See Not. of Related Case (Dkt. # 39).) Plaintiffs allege that

20

21

4 Shortly before the court issued the preliminary injunction, Doe was consolidated with

Jewish Family Serv. ofSeattle, eta!. v. Trump, eta!., No. Cl7-1707JLR (W.D. Wash), which 22 challenged E0-4 and the Agency Memo. See Doe, Dkt. ##52, 60, 61.

ORDER-4

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 80 Filed 12/12/18 Page 5 of 19

1 Defendants' implementation ofE0-3's waiver provision violates the Administrative

2 Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B), and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth

3 Amendment. (Compl. ~~ 278-306.) In brief, Plaintiffs argue that the waiver provision

4 "has been implemented in such a haphazard, opaque, and capricious manner, and so few

5 visa applicants have actually been granted waivers under [E0-3], that the process by

6 which waivers are supposedly granted has become part and parcel of the ban [effected by

7 E0-3] itself." (!d. ~ 2.)

8

Individual Plaintiffs challenge Defendants' implementation of the waiver

9 provision as representatives of three putative subclasses. (Id. ~ 269.) The "U.S.

10 Petitioner Subclass" includes "[i]ndividuals in the United States with an approved

11 petition to be reunited with [a] family member[]" who is (i) a national of Iran, Libya,

12 Somalia, Syria, or Yemen, (ii) subject to E0-3, and (iii) currently awaiting a decision on

13 a waiver or has been denied a waiver. (Id. ~ 269(a).) The "Lawfully Present Foreign

14 National Subclass" includes nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, or Yemen "who are

15 lawfully present in the United States [and] who, but for the uncertainty created by [E0-3]

16 and Defendants' implementation of the waiver provision, wish to travel abroad and return

17 to the United States." (!d. ~ 269(b).) Finally, the "Visa Applicant Subclass" includes

18 "[i]ndividuals who have applied for a visa" who are (i) nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia,

19 Syria, or Yemen, (ii) subject to E0-3, and (iii) currently awaiting a decision on a waiver

20 or have been denied a waiver. (!d. ~ 269(c).)

21

This action is not the only pending challenge to E0-3 's waiver provision. On

22 March 13, 2018, plaintiffs comprising U.S. citizens and lawfully present foreign nationals

ORDER- 5

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 80 Filed 12/12/18 Page 6 of 19

1 filed a putative class action in the Northern District of California, challenging the

2 government's implementation of the waiver provision. See Emami, et al. v. Nielson, et

3 al., 3:18-cv-01587-JD (N.D. Cal.) ("Emami"), Dkt. # 1. Like Plaintiffs here, Emami

4 plaintiffs allege that the government's implementation of the waiver provision violates

5 the APA and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id., Dkt. # 34 ~~ 315-334.

6 Emami plaintiffs include two subclasses. The "Family Member Class" comprises

7 "United States citizens and lawful permanent residents with approved family-based visa

8 petitions or whose family members have applied for visa categories covered by [E0-3],

9 and whose family members have been or will be refused pursuant to [E0-3] without an

10 opportunity to apply for and be meaningfully considered for a waiver or are awaiting

11 adjudication of a waiver." Id. ~ 11. The "Visa Applicant Class" comprises "Iranian,

12 Libyan, Somali, Syrian, and Yemeni nationals who have applied for immigrant or

13 nonimmigrant visas [who] have been or will be refused pursuant to [E0-3] without the

14 opportunity to apply for and be meaningfully considered for a waiver or who are awaiting

15 adjudication of a waiver." Id. ~ 12.

16

On September 24, 2018, Defendants filed the instant motion to transfer venue.

17 (See Mot.) Defendants argue that this action should be transferred to the Northern

18 District of California and consolidated with Emami under the first-to-file rule, because

19 the two cases present nearly identical claims on behalf of substantially similar putative

20 classes. (Mot. at 5-13.) Plaintiffs, in contrast, contend that this case is closely related to

21 Doe, such that Doe should be considered the first-filed action. (Resp. at 5-6.) Plaintiffs

22 further argue that the convenience considerations embraced by the federal transfer statute,

ORDER- 6

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 80 Filed 12/12/18 Page 7 of 19

1 28 U.S.C. §1404(a), weigh against transfer. (Id. at 6-12.) The court now turns to

2 Defendants' motion.

3

III. ANALYSIS

4 A. 5

Legal Standard The first-to-file rule is a "generally recognized doctrine of federal comity" that

6 allows a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an action if a case with substantially

7 similar issues and parties was previously filed in another district court. Pacesetter Sys.,

8 Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94 (9th Cir. 1982); Kahn Law Grp., Inc. v. Auto

9 Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1239-40 (9th Cir. 2015). "The rule is primarily

10 meant to alleviate the burden placed on the federal judiciary by duplicative litigation and

11 to prevent the possibility of conflicting judgments." Wallerstein v. Dole Fresh

12 Vegetables, Inc., 967 F. Supp. 2d 1289, 1292 (N.D. Cal. 2013). Accordingly, the

13 frrst-to-file rule "should not be disregarded lightly." Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods.,

14 Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Church ofScientology v. United States

15 Dep 't ofthe Army, 611 F.2d 738, 750 (9th Cir. 1979)).

16

When deciding whether to transfer, stay, or dismiss a case under the frrst-to-file

17 rule, a district court analyzes three factors: (1) the chronology of the actions; (2) the

18 similarity of the parties; and (3) the similarity of the issues. Kahn, 787 F.3d at 1240; see

19 also Bewley v. CVS Health Corp., No. C17-0803RSL, 2017 WL 5158443, at *2 (W.D.

20 Wash. Nov. 7, 2017). Notwithstanding these specific factors, the first-to-file rule "is not

21 a rigid or inflexible rule to be mechanically applied, but rather is to be applied with a

22 view to the dictates of sound judicial administration." Decker Coal Co. v.

ORDER-7

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 80 Filed 12/12/18 Page 8 of 19

1 Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Kohn, 787 F.3d

2 at 1240 (quoting Cradle Co. v. Whataburger ofAlice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599, 604 (5th Cir.

3 1999)) ("When applying the first-to-file rule, courts should be driven to maximize

4 'economy, consistency, and comity.'"). As a result, "[t]he most basic aspect of the 5 first-to-file rule is that it is discretionary." Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 628.5

6 B. First-to-File Factors

7

Defendants' motion argues in favor of an uncomplicated application of the

8 first-to-file factors. According to Defendants, transfer is warranted under the first-to-file

9 rule because this case is not related to Doe, was filed some four months after Emami, and

10 shares substantially the same issues and parties as Emami. (Mot. at 5-9.) Plaintiffs, in

11 contrast, argue that transfer is not warranted under the first-to-file rule because Doe "is

12 the longest-pending case challenging the Trump administration's implementation of

13 [E0-3's] waiver provision and ... is related to this case." (Resp. at 1.) Plaintiffs further

14 argue that the convenience factors embraced by the federal transfer statute, 28 D.S.C.

15 § 1404(a), weigh against transfer. (Id. at 6-12.)

16

At the outset, the court addresses Defendants' contention that Doe "do[es] not

17 reveal any clear challenge to ... [E0-3's] waiver provision or the manner in which the

18 Government has put that provision into effect" and thus should not bear on the court's

19 first-to-file analysis. (Rep. at 3.) On the face of their complaint, Doe plaintiffs'

20 5 A court may decline to apply the first-to-file rule "for reasons of equity," such as "when

21

the filing of the first suit evidences bad faith, anticipatory suit, or forum shopping." Inherent. com v. Martindale-Hubbell, 420 F. Supp. 2d 1093, 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2006); see also

Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 628. Plaintiffs do not allege that any such circumstances are present here. 22 (See generally Resp.)

ORDER- 8

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 80 Filed 12/12/18 Page 9 of 19

1 challenges to the waiver provision are perhaps less developed than their challenges to the

2 Agency Memo's suspension of the entry ofFTJ derivative refugees and refugees of

3 certain nationalities. Nonetheless, the fourth and fifth counts of the complaint are fairly

4 read to challenge the waiver provision as unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment's

5 Due Process Clause. See Doe, Dkt. # 42 at~~ 325-332; (see also Lin Decl. (Dkt. # 62)

6 ~~ 3-5.) Moreover, among the proposed subclasses outlined in the Doe complaint is a 7 "Non-immigrant Visa Class," comprising nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and

8 Yemen who are residents of Washington State, hold non-immigrant visas, lack unexpired 9 multiple-entry visas, and cannot leave the United States for fear of being denied reentry

10 under B0-3. Id. ~~ 300, 332. The court thus finds some degree of overlap between this

11 action and Doe and rejects Defendants' argument that Doe should not feature in the

12 court's analysis of the first-to-file factors. 6 (Se~JYiot. at 5-7.)

13

The presence of Doe on this court's docket is not dispositive for purposes of the

14 first-to-file rule, however. Where more than two pending actions implicate similar

15 claims, a court deciding a motion to transfer may assess which of the actions are "more

16 closely related" under the first-to-file analysis. Hengle v. Curry, No. 3:18-cv-100, 2018

17 WL 3016289, at *14 (B.D. Va. Jun. 15, 2018) (comparing the first-filed action with two

18 subsequently filed cases involving similar subject matter); see also Wenzel v. Knight, No.

19 3:14cv432, 2015 WL 222179, at *5-6 (B.D. Va. Jan. 14, 2015). Here, transfer under the

20

21

6 That Doe plaintiffs' challenges to the waiver provision are currently stayed (see Lin

22

Decl. ,-r 4) has no bearing on the court's assessment of Defendants' motion. Doe plaintiffs may, in the future, seek to lift the stay in that case. (See id. ,-r 5.)

ORDER- 9

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 80 Filed 12/12/18 Page 10 of 19

1 first-to-file rule would be appropriate should the court find that this action is more closely

2 related to Emami than it is to Doe. See Hengle, 2018 WL 3016289, at *14. Accordingly,

3 the court proceeds to compare the chronology, parties, and issues of this action, Emami,

4 and Doe.

5

1. Chronology

6

The chronology-of-actions factor is straightforward. Doe plaintiffs filed suit in

7 2017 and amended their complaint to challenge both E0-3 and the Agency Memo on

8 November 6, 2017. Doe, Dkt. # 42. Emami was filed on March 13,2018. Emami, Dkt.

9 # 1. Plaintiffs here filed suit on July 31,2018. (Compl.) Of the three challenges to

10 E0-3, Doe is the first-filed action. Viewed broadly, the chronology factor weighs against

11 transfer. Should the court find that the parties and issues of this action are more closely

12 related to Emami than to Doe, however, as between Emami and this action, Emami would

13 constitute the first-filed action for purposes of the first-to-file rule.

14

2. Similarity of Parties

15

The first-to-file rule "does not require exact identity of the parties." Kahn, 787

16 F.3d at 1240. Rather, the rule may apply where a court concludes that two actions

17 present "substantial similarity of parties." Id.; see also Music Grp. Servs. US, Inc. v.

18 inMusic Brands, Inc., No. Cl3-0183MJP, 2013 WL 1499564, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr.

19 11, 2013) ("The requirement of similar parties is satisfied if the parties are substantially

20 similar, although nonidentical."). In the context of class actions, a court should compare

21 the putative classes, rather than the named plaintiffs, to determine whether the classes

22 encompass at least some of the same individuals. Bewley, 2017 WL 5158443, at *2; see

ORDER-10

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 80 Filed 12/12/18 Page 11 of 19

1 also Hilton v. Apple, Inc., No. C-13-2167 EMC, 2013 WL 5487317, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct.

2 1, 2013) (collecting cases).7

3

The court begins by comparing the putative classes in this action and in Doe. The

4 "Lawfully Present Foreign National Subclass" asserted here resembles the

5 "Non-immigrant Visa Class" proposed in Doe. (See Compl. ~ 269(c)); Doe, Dkt. # 42,

6 ~~ 300, 332. Both subclasses encompass nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and

7 Yemen who are lawfully present in the United States, wish to travel abroad and return to

8 the United States, and fear being subject to E0-3 and barred from reentering the country.

9 (See Compl. ~ 269(c)); Doe, Dkt. # 42, ~~ 300, 332. The scope of the subclasses differs,

10 however. Doe's "Non-immigrant Visa Class" is limited to nonimmigrants who reside in

11 Washington State, Doe, Dkt. # 42, ~ 300, whereas the subclass proposed here is national

12 in scope (Compl. ~ 269(c)). Finally, the other two subclasses proposed in this action-

13 the "U.S. Petitioner Subclass" and the "Visa Applicant Subclass"-appear not to be

14 represented in Doe. See generally Doe, Dkt. # 42.

15

The two subclasses absent in Doe, however are virtually identical to the two

16 subclasses proposed in Emami. The "U.S. Petitioner Subclass" asserted here and the

17 "Family Member Class" in Emami appear to encompass the same individuals: U.S.

18

19
7 As various courts have observed, if the first-to-file rule were to require a strict identity

20 of the named plaintiffs, the rule would rarely apply in class actions. See, e.g., Hilton, 2013 WL
5487317, at *7; Baatz v. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 814 F.3d 785, 791 (6th Cir. 2016).

21

"This result would be in direct conflict to the purposes of the first-to-file rule because class actions are frequently complex affairs which tax judicial resources-the very cases in which the

principles of avoiding duplicative proceedings and inconsistent holdings are at their zenith."
22 Hilton, 2013 WL 5487317, at *7.

ORDER- 11

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 80 Filed 12/12/18 Page 12 of 19

1 citizens and lawful permanent residents with an approved petition to be reunited with a

2 family member who is a national of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, or Yemen, is subject to

3 E0-3, and has been denied a waiver or is currently awaiting a decision on a waiver.

4 (Compl. ~ 269(a)); Emami, Dkt. # 34, ~ 11. Similarly, the "Visa Applicant Subclass"

5 proposed here closely tracks the "Visa Applicant Class" asserted in Emami. Both

6 proposed subclasses include Iranian, Libyan, Somali, Syrian, andYemeni nationals who

7 have applied for immigrant or nonimmigrant visas, are subject to E0-3, and have been

8 denied a waiver or are currently awaiting a decision on a waiver. (Compl. ~ 269(c));

9 Emami, Dkt. # 34, ~ 12. From the face of the complaints, and for purposes of the

10 first-to-file rule, the court can discern no meaningful differences in the parameters of

11 either set of subclasses.8 Plaintiffs do not argue otherwise. (See generally Resp.)

12

The court acknowledges that the "Lawfully Present Foreign National Subclass," as

13 well as Pars Equality and OneAmerica, are not represented in Emami. The absence in an

14 earlier-filed action of a subclass proposed in a later-filed action is not dispositive for

15 purposes of the first-to-file analysis, however. See, e.g., Herrera v. Wells Fargo Bank,

16 NA., No. C 11-1485 SBA, 2011 WL 6141087, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2011) (fmding

17 that "the absence of California subclass from the [first-filed] action is not determinative,

18

8 As Defendants point out, the "Family Member Class" proposed in Emami is in fact

19 slightly broader than the "U.S. Petitioner Subclass" proposed in this action. (Mot. at 10 n.3.)

The former includes not only United States citizens and lawful permanent residents who have

20 approved family-based immigration petitions, but also United States citizens and lawful
permanent residents who have noncitizen relatives abroad who wish to seek nonimmigrant visas

21

to enter the United States and are subject to E0-3. (See id.); see also Emami, Dkt. # 34, ,-r 11. Defendants correctly note that "while the two [subclasses] are not exactly coterminous, all

22

members of the 'U.S. Petitioner Subclass' in [this action] fall within the 'Family Member Class' in Emami." (Mot. at 10 n.3.)

ORDER-12

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 80 Filed 12/12/18 Page 13 of 19

1 particularly given that both actions involve the same defendant"). Nor is the absence in

2 Emami of the organizational Plaintiffs a determinative consideration, given the

3 significant overlap between the two above-mentioned subclasses. See Intersearch

4 WorldWide, Ltd. v. Intersearch Grp., Inc., 544 F. Supp. 2d 949, 959 n.6 (N.D. Cal. 2008)

5 ("The [first-to-file] rule is satisfied if some [of] the parties in one matter are also in the

6 other matter, regardless of whether there are additional unmatched parties in one or both

7 matters.").

8

In light of the substantial symmetry between this action's "U.S. Petitioner

9 Subclass" and "Visa Applicant Subclass," on the one hand, and Emami's "Family

10 Member Class" and "Visa Applicant Class," on the other, the court finds that Plaintiffs

11 are more closely related to the plaintiffs in Emami than to those in Doe. Two of the three

12 proposed subclasses in this case sweep in virtually the same individuals as the two

13 proposed subclasses in Emami. In contrast, this action shares with Doe just one putative

14 subclass, which although national in scope here, is limited in Doe to residents of

15 Washington. The court further observes that each of the Defendants in this action is also

16 a defendant in Emami. (See Compl. at 1); Emami, Dkt. # 34 at 1. Plaintiffs thus do not

17 seek relief against any individual or agency not already implicated in Emami. For these

18 reasons, the court concludes that the parties in this case and Emami are substantially

19 similar for purposes of the first-to-file rule. The similarity-of-parties factor weighs in

20 favor of transfer.

21 II

22 II

ORDER-13

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 80 Filed 12/12/18 Page 14 of 19

1

3. Similarity of Issues

2

"The first-to-file rule is satisfied by a sufficient similarity of issues." Intersearch

3 Worldwide, 544 F. Supp. 2d at 959 (emphasis omitted). District courts in this circuit

4 have held that the issues presented in the actions must be "substantially similar," rather

5 than identical, to warrant transfer. Adorna v. Univ. ofPhoenix, Inc., 711 F. Supp. 2d

6 1142, 1147 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Inherent. com v. Martindale-H-ubbell, 420 F. Supp.

7 2d 1093, 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2006)); see also Hill v. Robert's Am. Gourmet Food, LLC, No.

8 13-cv-00696-YGR, 2013 WL 3476801, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 10, 2013).

9

Plaintiffs allege that the wavier provision violates the Fifth Amendment's Due

10 Process Clause and the APA. (Compl. ~~ 278-306.) Doe also contests the

11 constitutionality of the waiver provision on Due Process grounds. See Doe, Dkt. # 42,

12 ~~ 325-332. Yet Plaintiffs' claims and the allegations underlying those claims share

13 more common ground with the Due Process and APA claims asserted in Emami. With

14 respect to the Due Process claims, Plaintiffs here and plaintiffs in Emami allege that the

15 government has deprived U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents of their

16 constitutionally protected interest in family reunification and certain statutory and

17 regulatory rights to petition for visas for their family members, without due process of

18 law. (Compl. ~~ 295-306); Emami, Dkt. # 34, ~~ 322-334. With respect to the APA

19 claims, Plaintiffs here and plaintiffs in Emami allege, among other things, that they have

20 been denied waivers without ever having received notice of the waiver process or an

21 opportunity to demonstrate their eligibility for a waiver. (See, e.g., Camp!. ~~ 281-285);

22 Emami, Dkt. # 34, ~~ 11-12, 319-320. Notably, Plaintiffs do not argue that their claims

ORDER-14

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 80 Filed 12/12/18 Page 15 of 19

1 differ in any meaningful fashion from those asserted in Emami. (See generally Resp.)

2 The court fmds that the issues presented in this action and in Emami are substantially

3 similar. The similarity-of-issues factor thus weighs in favor of transfer.

4

In sum, the court concludes that transfer of this action is warranted under the

5 first-to-file rule. In light of the congruence of two of the three proposed subclasses in this

6 action and in Emami, as well as the overlapping nature of the class members' claims,

7 transfer will obviate the risk that class members may face inconsistent rulings. Transfer

8 will also promote the principles of efficiency and comity that animate the first-to-file

9 rule. To allow two parallel class actions to proceed in separate districts would be

10 duplicative and inefficient. See, e.g., Henry v. Home Depot US.A., Inc., No.

11 14-cv-04858-JST, 2016 WL 4538365, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2016) (noting that in the

12 context of transfer under the first-to-file rule, "[t]he potential efficiency gains are

13 particularity heightened where ... the class actions involve overlapping claims and class

14 periods").

15 C. \ 16

Convenience Factors Plaintiffs argue that in assessing the first-to- file factors, the court may, in its

17 discretion, analyze the balance of convenience pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Resp. at

18 4, 6-7.) Plaintiffs further argue that Plaintiffs' ties to the Western District of Washington

19 weigh decisively against transfer. (Id.) To that end, Plaintiffs furnish the declarations of

20 four individual Plaintiffs, which illustrate their ties to this district and investment in these

21 proceedings. (See Whitehall Raghebi Decl. (Dkt. # 57); Raghebi Decl. (Dkt. # 58); Siraji

22 Decl. (Dkt. # 59); Hassan Decl. (Dkt. # 60).) Defendants, in contrast, assert that because

ORDER-15

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 80 Filed 12/12/18 Page 16 of 19

1 the first-to-file rule and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) afford separate bases for transfer, the court

2 need not reach the convenience factors Plaintiffs emphasize. (Reply at 4-5.)

3

District courts in the Ninth Circuit have expressly distinguished the first-to-file

4 nlle from 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer for the convenience of parties and

5 witnesses. See, e.g., TGN, Inc. v. CRS, LLC, No. C08-0680MJP, 2008 WL 11343671, at

6 *2 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 5, 2008). "As other district courts have pointed out, a motion to

7 transfer pursuant to the first-to-file rule does not depend on the presence or absence of the

8 § 1404(a) considerations." Priddy v. Lane Bryant, Inc., No. 08-06889 MMM (CWx),

9 2008 WL 11410109, at *9, n.52 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2008) (citation and quotation marks

10 omitted). On occasion, a court assessing the first-to-file factors may consider the extent

11 to which the convenience of parties and witnesses weighs against transfer. Pacesetter,

12 678 F.2d at 96. However, "[t]he Ninth Circuit has cautioned that relaxing the first-to-file

13 rule on the basis of convenience is a determination best left to the court in the first-filed

14 action." Wallerstein, 967 F. Supp. 2d at 1293 (citing Ward v. Follet Corp., 158 F.R.D.

15 645, 648 (N.D. Cal. 1994)); see also Pacesetter, 678 F.2d at 96 (stating that "normally

16 the forum non conveniens argument should be addressed to the court in the first-filed

17 action"). Accordingly, a court deciding a motion to transfer a later-filed action pursuant

18 to the first-to-file rule typically should decline to assess the convenience factors of

19 § 1404(a). See, e.g., Bewley, 2017 WL 5158443, at *3 n.5 ("Because the Court finds that

20 transfer is warranted under the first-to-file rule, the Court does not address whether

21 transfer would be appropriate pursuant to§ 1404(a)."); Wallerstein, 967 F. Supp. 2d at

22 II

ORDER-16

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 80 Filed 12/12/18 Page 17 of 19

1 1298 ("As this matter is transferred pursuant to the first-to-file rule, the Court will not

2 address transfer under Section 1404(a) ....").

3

Here, because Defendants move to transfer pursuant to the first-to-file rule, not 28

4 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and because this case is not the first-filed action, the court declines

5 Plaintiffs' invitation to assess the balance of convenience under§ 1404(a). Nonetheless,

6 the court observes that, in general, Plaintiffs' ties to this district are not as overwhelming

7 as Plaintiffs' counsel suggest. Plaintiffs state that a "plurality" of Plaintiffs-four

8 individuals and OneAmerica-reside in the Western District of Washington. (Resp. at

9 9.) Yet Plaintiffs also concede that three named Plaintiffs, as well as Pars Equality, have

10 "ties ... to the Northern District of California." (!d.) The court does not seek to

11 minimize the connections to this district of four individual Plaintiffs, as well as their

12 sincere investment in these proceedings. (See w·hitehall Raghebi Decl.; Raghebi Decl.;

13 Siraji Decl.; Hassan Decl.) But as set forth in the record before the court, the balance of

14 convenience hardly appears to weigh so heavily against transfer as to justify a departure

15 from the first-to-file rule. See, e.g., Am. Newland Communities, L.P. v. Axis Specialty

16 Ins. Co., No. 11CV1217 JLS (WMC), 2011 WL 5359335, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2011)

17 ("Because consideration of the respective convenience of the two courts is typically

18 addressed to the court in the first-filed action, ... and because the Court finds that the

19 balance of convenience is neutral or at most only slightly more favorable to the California

20 II

21 II

22 II

ORDER-17

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 80 Filed 12/12/18 Page 18 of 19

1 forum, it declines to exercise its discretion to depart from the frrst-to-file rule here."). 2 Transfer is thus warranted under the first-to-file rule.9

3

IV. CONCLUSION

4

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Defendants' motion to transfer this

5 action to the Northern District of California (Dkt. #55). The court DIRECTS the clerk to

6 strike from the court's calendar Defendants' pending motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 64),

7 Plaintiffs' pending motion to compel (Dkt. # 65), and Defendants pending motion for

8 II

9 II

10

11

9 The Ninth Circuit recently held that the first-to-file rule does not negate the statutory

requirement that an action may be transferred only to a district where it "might have been

12 brought." In re Bozic, 888 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting 28 U.S.C. §1404(a)). This

is so because "[a]lthough the first-to-file rule guides the district court's exercise of discretion in

13 handling related cases, the requirements of§ 1404(a) cabin the exercise of that discretion."

Bozic, 888 F.3d at 1054. The court understands Bozic to concern only§ 1404(a)'s final clause,

14 which restricts transfer to those districts in which the action "might have been brought," and not to require that a district court applying the first-to-file rule assess the convenience of the parties

15

and "the interest ofjustice." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). At least one other district court in this circuit has adopted the same reading of Bozic. Kutob v. L.A. Ins. Agency Franchising, No.

2:18-cv-01505-APG-PAL, 2018 WL 4286171, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 7, 2018).

16

Here, the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Bozic is satisfied because Plaintiffs could have brought

this action in the Northern District of California. Subject matter jurisdiction exists because
17 Plaintiffs bring claims arising under the Constitution and federal statutes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Defendants, federal officials and agencies, do not dispute that they are subject to personal

18 jurisdiction in the Northern District of California. (See generally Mot.; Reply.) Finally, venue is

proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), because at least one of

19 the original named Plaintiffs resides in that district. (See Compl. ~ 16 (noting that "Plaintiff Pars Equality Center is ... headquartered in Menlo Park, California"); id. ~ 31 (noting that "Plaintiff

20 Malayeen Ahmed ... lives in Santa Clara, California); id. ~ 35 (noting that "Plaintiff Nicolas
Hanout ... liv[es] in Castro Valley, California"); id. ~ 41 (noting that Plaintiff John Doe # 3 ...

21

lives in San Francisco, California")); see also F.L.B. v. Lynch, 180 F. Supp. 3d 811, 815 (W.D. Wash. 2016) (holding that in a putative class action against the United States Attorney General

and other officials, venue was proper under§ 1391(e) "because at least one of the original 22 plaintiffs resided in the district" where the action was filed).

ORDER-18

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 80 Filed 12/12/18 Page 19 of 19

1 reconsideration of the. court's order granting Plaintiffs' motion to proceed under

2 pseudonym (Dkt. # 70), and to close this file.

3

Dated this l-L~day of December, 2018.

4

JAMES . ROBART

5

United S ates District Judge

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER-19

 
 Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 39 Filed 08/01/18 Page 1 of 5

THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE 8

PARS EQUALITY CENTER;

)

9 ONEAMERICA; PAMELA WHITEHALL )

RAGHEBI; AFSHIN RAGHEBI; ZEINAB ) No. 2:18-cv-01122-BHS

10 MOHAMED HASSAN; SIRAJI ETHA

)

SIRAJI; MALAYEEN AHMED; REZA 11 AZIMI; YAHYA GHALEB; MITRA

) NOTICE OF RELATED CASES )

HANNANI; NICHOLAS HANOUT;

)

12 HOSSEIN ZAMANI HOSSEINABADI; )

HODA MEHRABI MOHAMMADABADI; )

13 JOHN DOES #1-3; and JANE DOE #1,

)

)

14

Plaintiffs, )

)

15

v.

)

) 16 MIKE POMPEO; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN; )

KEVIN K. MCALEENAN; U.S.

)

17 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

)

18 STATE; and U.S. CUSTOMS AND

)

BORDER PROTECTION,

)

19

)

Defendants. )

20

)

21

22

Plaintiffs Pars Equality Center, OneAmerica, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Afshin

23 Raghebi, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Siraji Etha Siraji, Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya

24 Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, John Does #1-3, and

25

26

27
NOTICE OF RELATED CASES - 1 NO. 2:18-CV-01122

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 39 Filed 08/01/18 Page 2 of 5

1 Jane Doe #1 hereby notify the Court that the following action before the Court is related to this

2 action:

3

 Doe v. Trump, Case No. 2:17-cv-0178-JLR

4

5

Doe v. Trump is currently pending before Judge James L. Robart. Both Pars Equality

6 Center et al. v. Pompeo and Doe v. Trump are class action suits that challenge provisions and

7 processes set forth by the Executive Orders that restrict immigration and travel from certain

8 Muslim-majority countries under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Due Process Clause

9 of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It appears likely that there will be an unduly

10 burdensome duplication of labor and the potential for conflicting results if the cases are

11 conducted before different judges. See Local Rule 3(g).

12

13

14

DATED: August 1, 2018.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

LANE POWELL, PC
By: s/Darin Sands Darin Sands, WSBA No. 36865
By: s/Dustin O’Quinn Dustin O’Quinn Admitted Pro Hac Vice
By: s/Jessica Walder Jessica Walder, WSBA No. 47676
By: s/Aaron Fickes Aaron Fickes, WSBA No. 51584
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 91302 Seattle, WA 98111-9402 Telephone: 206-223-7000 Facsimile: 206-223-7107 Emails: sandsd@lanepowell.com
oquinnd@lanepowell.com walderj@lanepowell.com fickesa@lanepowell.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

27
NOTICE OF RELATED CASES - 2 NO. 2:18-CV-01122

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 39 Filed 08/01/18 Page 3 of 5

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW

1

CENTER

2

By: s/Esther H. Sung

Esther H. Sung

3

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

By: s/Jana Whalley

4

Jana Whalley

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

5

By: s/Joshua Stehlik

Joshua Stehlik

6

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

By: s/Melissa S. Keaney

7

Melissa S. Keaney

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

8

By: s/Nicholas Espiritu

Nicholas Espiritu

9

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

3450 Wilshire Blvd. #108-62 10 Los Angeles, CA 90010

Telephone: (213) 639-3900 11 Emails: sung@nilc.org

whalley@nilc.org

12

stehlik@nilc.org

keaney@nilc.org

13

espiritu@nilc.org

14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15 ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
16

By: s/John A. Freedman

17

John A. Freedman

Admitted Pro Hac Vice 18 601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20001-3743 19 Telephone: (202) 942-5000

Email: john.freedman@arnoldporter.com 20

Attorney for Plaintiff

21

22

23 ADVANCING JUSTICE – ASIAN LAW CAUCUS
24

By: s/Elica S. Vafaie

25

Elica S. Vafaie

Admitted Pro Hac Vice 26 By: s/Christina Sinha

Christina Sinha

27

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

NOTICE OF RELATED CASES - 3 NO. 2:18-CV-01122

IRANIAN AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION By: s/Babak G. Yousefzadeh
Babak G. Yousefzadeh Admitted Pro Hac Vice 5185 MacArthur Blvd. NW, Suite 624 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (415) 774-3191 Email: President@iaba.us Attorney for Plaintiffs
COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS, CALIFORNIA By: s/Brittney Rezaei
Brittney Rezaei Admitted Pro Hac Vice By: s/Zahra A. Billoo Zahra A. Billoo Admitted Pro Hac Vice 3160 De La Cruz Blvd., Suite 110 Santa Clara, CA 95054 Telephone: (408) 986-9874 Emails: brezaei@cair.com
zbilloo@cair.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs
LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 39 Filed 08/01/18 Page 4 of 5

55 Columbus Ave.

1

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 848-7711

2

Emails: elicav@advancingjustice-alc.org

christinas@advancingjustice-alc.org 3

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

NOTICE OF RELATED CASES - 4 NO. 2:18-CV-01122

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

Case 2:18-cv-01122-JLR Document 39 Filed 08/01/18 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1

2

Pursuant to RCW 9A.72.085, the undersigned certifies under penalty of perjury under

3 the laws of the United States and the laws of the State of Washington, that on the 31st day of

4 July, 2018, the foregoing document was served on the following individuals in the manner set

5 forth below: N/A

6 7 and I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the document to the
8 following non-CM/ECF participants:

9 Michael R. Pompeo c/o United States Department of State
10 2201 C Street NW, Room 4330, Washington DC 20037
11

Kirstjen Nielsen c/o United States Department of Homeland Security 3801 Nebraska Ave NW Washington DC 20016

12 Kevin McAleenan

United States Department of Homeland

c/o United States Customs and Border Patrol Security

13 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20229

3801 Nebraska Ave NW Washington DC 20016

14 United States Department of State

United States Customs and Border

15 2201 C Street NW, Room 4330, Washington DC 20037

Protection 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

16

Washington, DC 20229

17

Executed on the 1st day of August, 2018, at Seattle, Washington.

18 s/ Jessica Walder

19

Jessica Walder, WSBA No. 47676

1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200

20

P.O. Box 91302

Seattle, WA 98111-9402

21

Telephone: 206-223-7000

Facsimile: 206-223-7107

22

Email: walderj@lanepowell.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

23

24

25

26

27
NOTICE OF RELATED CASES - 5 NO. 2:18-CV-01122

LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107

 
 Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

ADRMOP,CLOSED,RELATE

U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:18-cv-07818-JD

Pars Equality Center et al v. Pompeo et al Assigned to: Judge James Donato Relate Case Case: 3:18-cv-01587-JD
Case in other court: Washington Western, 2:18-cv-01122 Cause: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

Date Filed: 12/31/2018 Date Terminated: 03/23/2021 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 899 Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff

Pars Equality Center

represented by Daniel B. Asimow Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4024 415-471-3100 Fax: 415-471-3400 Email: daniel.asimow@arnoldporter.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darin M Sands Bradley Bernstein Sands LLP PO Box 4120 PMB 62056 Portland, OR 97208 United Sta (503) 734-2480 Email: sandsd@lanepowell.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Walder LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 4200 SEATTLE, WA 98101-2338 206-223-7000 Email: walderj@lanepowell.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron John Fickes LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 4200 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206-223-7141 Email: fickesa@lanepowell.com TERMINATED: 02/12/2019
Babak G. Yousefzadeh Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP 4 Embarcadero Center 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415-434-9100 Email: byousefzadeh@sheppardmullin.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei CAIR-CA 3160 De La Cruz BLVD Suite 110 Santa Clara, CA 95054 408-986-9874 Email: brezaei@cair.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha Asian Americans Advancing Justice Asian Law Caucus 55 Columbus Avenue San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 896-1701 Fax: (415) 896-1702 Email: christinas@advancingjusticealc.org TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Dustin J O'Quinn LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 4200

SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206-223-7949 Email: oquinnd@lanepowell.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE ASIAN LAW CAUCUS 55 COLUMBUS AVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415-848-7711 Email: elicav@advancingjustice-alc.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Hsiao-In Sung NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 3450 WILSHIRE BLVD. 108-62 LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 213-639-3900 Fax: Email: sung@nilc.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 3450 WILSHIRE BLVD #108-62 LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 213-908-1118 Email: whalley@nilc.org TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Javeria Jamil Asian Americans Advancing Justice Asian Law Caucus NSCR 55 Columbus Avenue San Francisco, CA 94511 415-896-1701 Fax: 415-896-1702 Email: javeriaj@advancingjustice-

alc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Freedman Arnold and Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001-3743 (202) 942-5316 Fax: (202) 942-5999 Email: john.freedman@arnoldporter.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 3450 WILSHIRE BLVD #108-62 WASHINGTON, DC 90010 213-639-3900 Email: stehlik@nilc.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Lee Herrera National Immigration Law Center P.O. Box 32358 Chicago, IL 60632-0358 213-770-1325 Email: herrera@nilc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Max Samuel Wolson National Immigration Law Center P.O. Box 34573 Washington, DC 20043 United Sta (202) 216-0261 Fax: (202) 216-0266 Email: wolson@nilc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney International Refugee Assistance Project
P.O. Box 2291 Fair Oaks, CA 95628 (916) 546-6125

Plaintiff OneAmerica

Email: mkeaney@refugeerights.org TERMINATED: 05/17/2019
Nicholas Espiritu NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 3450 WILSHIRE BLVD #108-62 LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 213-639-3900 Email: espiritu@nilc.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS, CALIFORNIA 3160 DE LA CRUZ BLVD, STE 110 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 408-986-9874 Email: zbilloo@cair.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron John Fickes , LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 4200 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206-223-7141 Fax: Email: fickesa@lanepowell.com TERMINATED: 02/12/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel B. Asimow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Hsiao-In Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Javeria Jamil (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address)

Plaintiff Pamela Whitehall Raghebi

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Lee Herrera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Max Samuel Wolson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2019
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron John Fickes , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/12/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel B. Asimow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Hsiao-In Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Javeria Jamil (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Afshin Raghebi

Kevin Lee Herrera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Max Samuel Wolson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2019
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron John Fickes , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/12/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel B. Asimow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Hsiao-In Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Javeria Jamil (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Lee Herrera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2021

Plaintiff Zeinab Mohamed Hassan

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Max Samuel Wolson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2019
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron John Fickes , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/12/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel B. Asimow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address)

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Hsiao-In Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Javeria Jamil (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Lee Herrera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Max Samuel Wolson

Plaintiff Siraji Etha Siraji

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2019
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron John Fickes , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/12/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel B. Asimow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Hsiao-In Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Javeria Jamil (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Lee Herrera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Max Samuel Wolson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Malayeen Ahmed

Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2019
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron John Fickes , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/12/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel B. Asimow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018

PRO HAC VICE
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Hsiao-In Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Javeria Jamil (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Lee Herrera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Max Samuel Wolson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2019

Plaintiff Reza Azimi

Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron John Fickes , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/12/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel B. Asimow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Dustin J O'Quinn

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Hsiao-In Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Javeria Jamil (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Lee Herrera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Max Samuel Wolson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2019
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address)

Plaintiff Yahya Ghaleb

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron John Fickes , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/12/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel B. Asimow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Hsiao-In Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Javeria Jamil (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Lee Herrera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Max Samuel Wolson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2019
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mitra Hannani

Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron John Fickes , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/12/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel B. Asimow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address)

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Hsiao-In Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Javeria Jamil (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Lee Herrera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Max Samuel Wolson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2019
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff Nicholas Hanout

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron John Fickes , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/12/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel B. Asimow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi

Esther Hsiao-In Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Javeria Jamil (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Lee Herrera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Max Samuel Wolson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2019
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron John Fickes ,

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/12/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel B. Asimow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Hsiao-In Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff
Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi TERMINATED: 08/03/2018

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Javeria Jamil (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Lee Herrera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Max Samuel Wolson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2019
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron John Fickes , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/12/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel B. Asimow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Hsiao-In Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley

Plaintiff JOHN DOES #1-3

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Javeria Jamil (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Lee Herrera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2019
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron John Fickes , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/12/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel B. Asimow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Hsiao-In Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Javeria Jamil (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jane Doe # 1

John A. Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Lee Herrera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Max Samuel Wolson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2019
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron John Fickes , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/12/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel B. Asimow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Hsiao-In Sung (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Javeria Jamil (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Maral Tabrizi TERMINATED: 08/03/2018

Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Lee Herrera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Max Samuel Wolson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2019
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron John Fickes , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/12/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Babak G. Yousefzadeh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brittney Rezaei (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel B. Asimow (See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin M Sands (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dustin J O'Quinn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elica S Vafaie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Hsiao-In Sung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Walder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Freedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Stehlik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Espiritu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Mike Pompeo

Zahra A Billoo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Sinha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Jana Whalley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2018 PRO HAC VICE
Javeria Jamil (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Lee Herrera (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2019
represented by David Kim United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 532-4094 Email: david.kim4@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gisela A Westwater US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (BOX 868) PO BOX 868 BEN FRANKLIN STATION

Defendant Secretary Kirstjen M Nielsen

WASHINGTON, DC 20044 202-532-4174 Email: gisela.westwater@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Patrice Grant United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 598-2731 Fax: (202) 305-7000 Email: nicole.p.grant@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Angel Martinez U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 598-8085 Email: Angel.Martinez2@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Kim (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gisela A Westwater (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Patrice Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Angel Martinez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacey Ilene Young United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation

Defendant Kevin K. McAleenan
Defendant Department of Homeland Security

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 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Kim (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gisela A Westwater (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Patrice Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Angel Martinez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacey Ilene Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Kim (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gisela A Westwater (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Patrice Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Angel Martinez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacey Ilene Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant U.S Department of State
Defendant U.S Customs and Border Protection

represented by David Kim (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gisela A Westwater (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Patrice Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Angel Martinez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacey Ilene Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Kim (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gisela A Westwater (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Patrice Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Angel Martinez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacey Ilene Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/31/2018

#

Docket Text

1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Receipt # 0981-5416939), filed by Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi

07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018

Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibits A-C)(Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/1/2018 to remove duplicate text re attorney and modify party names originally entered in ALL CAPS (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
2 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS re Mike Pompeo by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
3 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS re Kirstjen Nielsen by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
4 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS re Kevin K. McAleenan by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
5 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS re Department of Homeland Security by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
6 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS re U.S. Department of State by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
7 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS re U.S. Customs and Border Protection by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein

07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018

Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
8 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Babak G. Yousefzadeh FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417136 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
9 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Jana Whalley FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417146 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
10 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Dustin J. O'Quinn FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417158 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
11 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Brittney Rezaei FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417163 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
12 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Joshua Stehlik FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417164 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
13 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Zahra A. Billoo FOR LEAVE TO

07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018

APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417165 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
14 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Esther H. Sung FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417168 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
15 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY John A. Freedman FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417171 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
16 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Melissa S. Keaney FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417174 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
17 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Nicholas Espiritu FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417185 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
18 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Elica S. Vafaie FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417204 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018

07/31/2018 07/31/2018
07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018

(GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
19 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Christina Sinha FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5417207 (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
20 MOTION to Proceed Under Pseudonym re 1 Complaint, filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/17/2018, (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/1/2018 to remove duplicate text, correct parties entered in ALL CAPS, and update text so as to better describe attached document (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
21 DECLARATION of John Doe 1 filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha
Siraji re 20 Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym re 1 Complaint. (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/1/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
22 DECLARATION of John Doe 2 filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha
Siraji re 20 Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym re 1 Complaint. (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/1/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
23 DECLARATION of John Doe 3 filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi and Siraji Etha Siraji
re 20 Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym re 1 Complaint. (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/1/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
24 DECLARATION of Jane Doe 1 filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi and Siraji Etha Siraji

07/31/2018 07/31/2018 08/01/2018
08/01/2018
08/01/2018

re 20 Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym re 1 Complaint. (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/1/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
25 DECLARATION of Jessica N. Walder filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji
Etha Siraji re 20 MOTION to Proceed Under Pseudonym re 1 Complaint. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, p. 6-9, # 2 Exhibit B, p. 10-15, # 3 Exhibit C, p. 6-19, # 4 Exhibit D, p. 20-25, # 5 Exhibit E, p. 26-86, # 6 Exhibit F, p. 87-111, # 7 Exhibit G, p. 112-116, # 8 Exhibit H, p. 117119, # 9 Exhibit I, p. 120-125, # 10 Exhibit J, p. 126-129)(Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/2/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 07/31/2018)
Plaintiff Maral Tabrizi (omitted from caption of complaint; first named on page 8, at No. 38) added to case. (SP) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
26 ORDER re 8 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Babak G Yousefzadeh for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe #1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Afshin Raghebi,and Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) Modified on 8/1/2018 (GMR). (Entered: 08/01/2018)
27 ORDER re 9 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Jana Whalley for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, JANE DOE #1, JOHN DOES #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, PAMELA WHITEHALL RAGHEBI, Afshin Raghebi, and SIRAJI ETHA SIRAJI, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
28 ORDER re 10 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Dustin J O'Quinn for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed,

08/01/2018 08/01/2018
08/01/2018 08/01/2018
08/01/2018

Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, for Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi and Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
Judge Benjamin H. Settle added. (CDA) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
29 ORDER re 11 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Brittney Rezaei for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
NOTICE Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 7.1, Pars Equality Center and OneAmerica must file a Corporate Disclosure Statement by 8/8/2018 (if applicable). (CDA) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
30 ORDER re 12 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Joshua Stehlik for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
31 ORDER re 13 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Zahra A Billoo for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza

08/01/2018 08/01/2018
08/01/2018

Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and for Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
32 Summons(es) Electronically Issued as to defendant(s) (Main document summons - Michael Pompeo) (Attachments: # 1 Kirstjen Nielsen, # 2 Kevin McAleenan, # 3 U S Department of Homeland Security, # 4 U S Department of State, # 5 U S Customs and Border Protection)(CDA) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
33 ORDER re 14 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Esther Sung for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) Modified on 8/1/2018 to add plaintiff Malayeen Ahmed to list of represented parties (GMR). (Entered: 08/01/2018)
34 ORDER re 15 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice,. The Court ADMITS Attorney John A Freedman for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi,John Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

08/01/2018 08/01/2018 08/01/2018 08/01/2018

35 ORDER re 16 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Melissa S. Keaney for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
36 ORDER re 17 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Nicholas Espiritu for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
37 ORDER re 18 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Elica S Vafaie for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
38 ORDER re 19 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Christina Sinha for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality

08/01/2018 08/03/2018 08/06/2018 08/06/2018 08/06/2018 08/06/2018

Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, and Siraji Etha Siraji, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
39 NOTICE of Related Case(s) 2:17-cv-0178-JLR, by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji. (Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
40 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal as to party(s) Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi and Maral Tabrizi, filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi. (Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
41 Affidavit of Service of Summons and Complaint CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan re 4 Summons on Kevin McAleenan (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/8/2018 to add document relationship (SP). Modified on 8/17/2018 to correct docket event (SP). (Entered: 08/06/2018)
42 Affidavit of Service of Summons and Complaint CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 2 Praecipe for a Summons, Summons Mike Pompeo (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/17/2018 to correct docket event (SP). (Entered: 08/06/2018)
43 Affidavit of Service of Summons and Complaint CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi Attorney General, Washington State (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/17/2018 to correct docket event (SP). (Entered: 08/06/2018)
44 Affidavit of Service of Summons and Complaint CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb,

08/06/2018 08/06/2018 08/06/2018 08/08/2018 08/08/2018 08/20/2018

Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 3 Praecipe for a Summons, Summons on Kirstjen Nielsen (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/17/2018 to correct docket event (SP). (Entered: 08/06/2018)
45 Affidavit of Service of Summons and Complaint CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 7 Praecipe for a Summons, Summons on US Customs and Border Protection (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/17/2018 to correct docket event (SP). (Entered: 08/06/2018)
46 Affidavit of Service of Summons and Complaint CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 6 Praecipe for a Summons, Summons on US Department of State (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/17/2018 to correct docket event (SP). (Entered: 08/06/2018)
47 Affidavit of Service of Summons and Complaint CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 5 Praecipe for a Summons, Summons on Department of Homeland Security (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 8/17/2018 to correct docket event (SP). (Entered: 08/06/2018)
48 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT indicating no Corporate Parents and/or Affiliates. Filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 7.1. Filed by Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji (Fickes, Aaron) (Entered: 08/08/2018)
49 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT indicating no Corporate Parents and/or Affiliates. Filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 7.1. Filed by OneAmerica (Fickes, Aaron) (Entered: 08/08/2018)
Judge James L. Robart added. Case transferred as related to C17178JLR. (TG) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018 08/21/2018
08/22/2018 08/23/2018 09/04/2018 09/04/2018 09/06/2018 09/24/2018 09/24/2018
09/24/2018

REFERRING 20 MOTION to Proceed Under Pseudonym to: Judge James L. Robart (TG) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
50 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Jana Whalley for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi. (Sung, Esther) (Entered: 08/21/2018)
51 ORDER granting Plaintiffs John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, and Jane Doe 1's 20 Motion to proceed under pseudonym. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM) (Entered: 08/22/2018)
52 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney David Kim on behalf of Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of State. (Kim, David) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
53 ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND JOINT STATUS REPORT by Judge James L. Robart. Joint Status Report due by 10/9/2018, FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 9/18/2018, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 10/2/2018. (AD) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
54 SCHEDULING ORDER REGARDING CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION by Judge James L. Robart. Deadline to complete discovery of class certification: 12/28/2018; Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion for class certification: 1/28/2019. (AD) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
55 MOTION to Transfer Case , filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Transfer Venue) Noting Date 9/28/2018, (Kim, David) (Entered: 09/06/2018)
56 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, to 55 MOTION to Transfer Case . (Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
57 DECLARATION of P. Raghebi filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 55 MOTION to Transfer Case (Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
58 DECLARATION of Afshin Raghebi filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars

09/24/2018 09/24/2018 09/24/2018 09/24/2018 09/28/2018 10/02/2018 10/04/2018

Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 55 MOTION to Transfer Case (Walder, Jessica) Modified on 9/26/2018 to add name of declarant(PM). (Entered: 09/24/2018)
59 DECLARATION of Siraji Siraji filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 55 MOTION to Transfer Case (Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
60 DECLARATION of Zeinab Hassan filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 55 MOTION to Transfer Case (Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
61 DECLARATION of Warsame filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 55 MOTION to Transfer Case (Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
62 DECLARATION of Tana Lin filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 55 MOTION to Transfer Case (Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
63 REPLY, filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of State, TO RESPONSE to 55 MOTION to Transfer Case (Kim, David) (Entered: 09/28/2018)
64 MOTION to Dismiss , filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order) Noting Date 10/26/2018, (Kim, David) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
65 MOTION to Compel Administrative Record Under Local Rule 79(h), filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi,

10/04/2018
10/08/2018 10/09/2018 10/10/2018 10/12/2018 10/15/2018 10/19/2018

Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 10/19/2018, (Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 10/04/2018)
66 DECLARATION of Jessica N. Walder in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Administrative Record filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 65 MOTION to Compel Administrative Record Under Local Rule 79(h) (Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 10/04/2018)
67 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Christina Sinha for Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi. (Vafaie, Elica) (Entered: 10/08/2018)
68 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties Filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi.(Walder, Jessica) (Entered: 10/09/2018)
69 MOTION to Stay Discovery, filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 10/26/2018, (Kim, David) (Entered: 10/10/2018)
70 MOTION Reconsideration of Court's Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym re 20 MOTION to Proceed Under Pseudonym, 51 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief , filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 11/2/2018, (Kim, David) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
71 RESPONSE, by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of State, to 65 MOTION to Compel Administrative Record Under Local Rule 79(h). (Kim, David) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
72 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin

10/22/2018 10/22/2018
10/22/2018 10/25/2018 10/25/2018 10/26/2018 12/06/2018

Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi, TO RESPONSE to 65 MOTION to Compel Administrative Record Under Local Rule 79(h) (Fickes, Aaron) (Entered: 10/19/2018)
73 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi, to 69 MOTION to Stay Discovery. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fickes, Aaron) (Entered: 10/22/2018)
74 DECLARATION of Esther H. Sung in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Stay filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 69 MOTION to Stay Discovery (Fickes, Aaron) (Entered: 10/22/2018)
75 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Jane Doe # 1, John Does #1-3, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi, to 64 MOTION to Dismiss . Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Fickes, Aaron) (Entered: 10/22/2018)
76 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Gisela A Westwater on behalf of Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Westwater, Gisela) (Entered: 10/25/2018)
77 NOTICE to Withdraw Pending Motion re 69 MOTION to Stay Discovery ; by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of State. (Westwater, Gisela) (Entered: 10/25/2018)
78 REPLY, filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of State, TO RESPONSE to 64 MOTION to Dismiss (Kim, David) (Entered: 10/26/2018)
79 Stipulated MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF CLASS DISCOVERY AND CERTIFICATION OF DEADLINES, filed by Plaintiffs Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi. Noting Date 12/6/2018, (Fickes, Aaron) (Entered: 12/06/2018)

12/12/2018
12/31/2018 12/31/2018 01/07/2019 01/28/2019 01/28/2019

80 ORDER granting Defendant's 55 Motion to Transfer Case to Northern District of California; striking Defendants' 64 Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiffs' 65 Motion to Compel, 70 Motion for Reconsideration; directing Clerk to close this file. Signed by Judge James L. Robart.
Case will be sent to the US District Court for the Northern District of California by electronic transfer 15 days from the date of this filing. (SWT) (Entered: 12/12/2018)
81 Case transferred in from District of Washington Western; Case Number 2:18-cv-01122. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. (Entered: 01/04/2019)
82 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 3/28/2019. Initial Case Management Conference set for 4/4/2019 01:30 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom F, 15th Floor. (slhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/31/2018) (Entered: 01/04/2019)
83 CLERK'S NOTICE Re: Consent or Declination: Plaintiffs and Defendants shall file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge by 1/22/2019. 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. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2019) (Entered: 01/07/2019)
84 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi.. (Yousefzadeh, Babak) (Filed on 1/28/2019) (Entered: 01/28/2019)
85 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.
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.

01/29/2019 01/29/2019
01/29/2019
01/30/2019 02/12/2019 02/20/2019
03/01/2019

This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2019) (Entered: 01/28/2019)
86 ORDER RELATING CASE. Signed by Judge James Donato on 1/28/19. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2019) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
87 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Richard Seeborg for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley no longer assigned to the case. 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. Signed by Executive Committee on 1/29/19. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2019) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
88 AMENDED ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge James Donato for all further proceedings. Judge Richard Seeborg no longer assigned to the case. 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. Signed by Executive Committee on 1/29/19. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2019) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
89 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Case Management Conference set for 4/4/2019 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 3/28/2019. Signed by Judge James Donato on 1/30/19. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2019) (Entered: 01/30/2019)
90 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Aaron John Fickes NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL AARON FICKES (Fickes, Aaron) (Filed on 2/12/2019) (Entered: 02/12/2019)
91 MOTION to Consolidate Cases and, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings filed by Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S Department of State. Motion Hearing set for 4/11/2019 10:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato. Responses due by 3/6/2019. Replies due by 3/13/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kim, David) (Filed on 2/20/2019) (Entered: 02/20/2019)
92 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 91 MOTION to Consolidate Cases and, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings ) filed byMalayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi,

03/12/2019 03/20/2019
03/21/2019 03/28/2019
04/01/2019 04/08/2019 04/09/2019 04/15/2019

Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Esther H. Sung, # 2 Exhibit A to Sung Declaration, # 3 Exhibit B to Sung Declaration, # 4 Exhibit C to Sung Declaration, # 5 Exhibit D to Sung Declaration, # 6 Exhibit E to Sung Declaration, # 7 Exhibit F to Sung Declaration, # 8 Exhibit G to Sung Declaration, # 9 Exhibit H to Sung Declaration, # 10 Exhibit I to Sung Declaration, # 11 Exhibit J to Sung Declaration, # 12 Exhibit K to Sung Declaration, # 13 Exhibit L to Sung Declaration)(Asimow, Daniel) (Filed on 3/1/2019) (Entered: 03/01/2019)
93 REPLY (re 91 MOTION to Consolidate Cases and, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings ) filed byDepartment of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S Department of State. (Kim, David) (Filed on 3/12/2019) (Entered: 03/12/2019)
94 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by John A. Freedman on Behalf of Plaintiffs ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-13187085.) filed by Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, JOHN DOES #1-3, Jane Doe # 1, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi. (Freedman, John) (Filed on 3/20/2019) (Entered: 03/20/2019)
95 ORDER by Judge James Donato granting 94 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to John A. Freedman. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2019) (Entered: 03/21/2019)
96 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT - Joint Case Management Conference Statement filed by Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, JOHN DOES #1-3, Jane Doe # 1, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi. (Asimow, Daniel) (Filed on 3/28/2019) (Entered: 03/28/2019)
97 CLERK'S NOTICE. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) Initial Case Management Conference continued to 4/11/2019 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2019) (Entered: 04/01/2019)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 91 MOTION to Consolidate Cases and, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings. Motion Hearing set for 4/11/2019 at 10:00 AM. (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2019) (Entered: 04/08/2019)
98 NOTICE of Appearance by Stacey Ilene Young (Young, Stacey) (Filed on 4/9/2019) (Entered: 04/09/2019)
99 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James Donato: Motion Hearing and Initial Case Management Conference held on

04/16/2019 04/16/2019 04/18/2019 04/22/2019
05/07/2019 05/09/2019 05/10/2019

4/11/2019. Proposed case schedule due by 4/18/2019. Defendants' complaint responses due by 5/13/2019. (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/15/2019) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
100 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 04/11/2019 before Judge James Donato by Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, JOHN DOES #1-3, Jane Doe # 1, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi, for Court Reporter Jo Ann Bryce. (Asimow, Daniel) (Filed on 4/16/2019) (Entered: 04/16/2019)
101 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 4/11/2019 before Judge James Donato by Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S Department of State, for Court Reporter Marla Knox. (Kim, David) (Filed on 4/16/2019) (Entered: 04/16/2019)
102 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 99 Motion Hearing,, Case Management Conference - Initial,, Terminate Motions, filed by Pars Equality Center. (Asimow, Daniel) (Filed on 4/18/2019) (Entered: 04/18/2019)
103 Transcript of Proceedings held on 4/11/19, before Judge James Donato. Court Reporter Jo Ann Bryce, telephone number 510-910-5888, joann_bryce@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 90 days. 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 (100 in 3:18-cv-07818-JD) Transcript Order, ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/22/2019. (jabS, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2019) (Entered: 04/22/2019)
104 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 99 Motion Hearing,, Case Management Conference - Initial,, Terminate Motions, to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint filed by Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S Department of State. (Kim, David) (Filed on 5/7/2019) (Entered: 05/07/2019)
105 ORDER. The Court grants the parties' stipulated requests (Dkt. No. 85 in Case No. 18-1587 & Dkt. No. 104 in Case No. 18-7818) and extends defendants' complaint response deadline in both cases to May 28, 2019. Signed by Judge James Donato on 5/9/2019. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2019) (Entered: 05/09/2019)
106 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 4/11/2019 before Judge

05/13/2019 05/13/2019 05/16/2019 05/28/2019 05/28/2019 05/29/2019
05/30/2019

James Donato for Court Reporter Jo Ann Bryce. (rjdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2019) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
107 MOTION for Extension of Time to File filed by Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Kim, David) (Filed on 5/13/2019) (Entered: 05/13/2019)
108 ORDER. The Court grants the federal defendants' unopposed motions for an extension of time. The deadline by which defendants must produce the administrative record is continued to May 15, 2019. Signed by Judge James Donato on 5/13/2019. (This is a textonly entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2019) (Entered: 05/13/2019)
109 NOTICE by Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, JOHN DOES #1-3, Jane Doe # 1, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL MELISSA S. KEANEY (Keaney, Melissa) (Filed on 5/16/2019) (Entered: 05/16/2019)
110 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1
Complaint,, filed by Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Kim, David) (Filed on 5/28/2019) (Entered: 05/28/2019)
111 Discovery Letter Brief to Compel Completion of the Administrative Record filed by Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, JOHN DOES #1-3, Jane Doe # 1, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi. (Freedman, John) (Filed on 5/28/2019) (Entered: 05/28/2019)
112 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 110 Second MOTION for Extension of
Time to File Response/Reply as to 1 Complaint,, ) filed byMalayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, JOHN DOES #1-3, Jane Doe # 1, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi. (Freedman, John) (Filed on 5/29/2019) (Entered: 05/29/2019)
113 ORDER re (89 in 3:18-cv-01587-JD) Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer. The parties are advised that extension requests filed on the day of the deadline will be summarily denied going forward. Defendants may respond on or before June 18, 2019, to the complaints. No further extensions will be granted. Signed by Judge

06/03/2019
06/03/2019
06/04/2019 06/07/2019 06/10/2019 06/11/2019
06/13/2019

James Donato on 5/30/2019. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2019) (Entered: 05/30/2019)
114 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for attorney Max S. Wolson ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-13400867.) filed by Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, JOHN DOES #1-3, Jane Doe # 1, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Wolson, Max) (Filed on 6/3/2019) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
115 ORDER re Discovery Letter Brief, Dkt. No. 90 in 3:18-cv-01587-JD & Dkt. No. 111 in 3:18-cv-07818-JD. The Court calls for a response from defendants by June 10, 2019, following the same letter brief format as described in the Court's civil discovery standing order. Signed by Judge James Donato on 6/3/2019. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2019) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
116 ORDER by Judge James Donato granting 114 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Max S. Wolson. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2019) (Entered: 06/04/2019)
117 NOTICE by Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S Department of State re 113 Order,,, Terminate Motions,, of Public Release of State Department Report on Waiver Statistics (Kim, David) (Filed on 6/7/2019) (Entered: 06/07/2019)
118 Discovery Letter BriefResponding to Plaintiffs' Request to Compel Completion of Administrative Record filed by Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S Department of State. (Kim, David) (Filed on 6/10/2019) (Entered: 06/10/2019)
119 ORDER re (90 in 3:18-cv-01587-JD), (111 in 3:18-cv-07818-JD) Discovery Letter Brief to Compel Completion of the Administrative Record. The Court sets a discovery hearing and status conference for 7/11/2019 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor. The parties should be prepared to discuss the appropriate scope of discovery for plaintiffs' Accardi claim. Signed by Judge James Donato on 6/11/2019. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2019) (Entered: 06/11/2019)
120 MOTION to Dismiss , MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S Department of State. Motion Hearing set for 7/25/2019 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato.

06/17/2019 06/17/2019 06/18/2019 06/21/2019 06/27/2019
07/02/2019

Responses due by 6/27/2019. Replies due by 7/5/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Administrative Record)(Kim, David) (Filed on 6/13/2019) (Entered: 06/13/2019)
121 Discovery Letter BriefRequesting Stay of Discovery Deadlines Pending the Court's Scheduled July 11 Discovery Hearing filed by Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S Department of State. (Kim, David) (Filed on 6/17/2019) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
122 Discovery Letter Brief filed by Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, JOHN DOES #1-3, Jane Doe # 1, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Discovery Letter Brief, # 2 Exhibit B to Discovery Letter Brief)(Yousefzadeh, Babak) (Filed on 6/17/2019) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
123 CLERK'S NOTICE. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) Discovery Hearing continued to 7/25/2019 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato. Status Conference continued to 7/25/2019 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2019) (Entered: 06/18/2019)
124 ORDER re (99 in 3:18-cv-01587-JD) Discovery Letter Brief, (101 in 3:18-cv-01587-JD) Discovery Letter Brief. The Court will take up these newly-filed discovery dispute letters at the hearing on July 25, 2019. Signed by Judge James Donato on 6/21/2019. (This is a textonly entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2019) (Entered: 06/21/2019)
125 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 120 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment ) filed byMalayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, JOHN DOES #1-3, Jane Doe # 1, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Max S. Wolson, # 2 Exhibit A to Wolson Declaration, # 3 Exhibit B to Wolson Declaration, # 4 Exhibit C to Wolson Declaration, # 5 Exhibit D to Wolson Declaration, # 6 Exhibit E to Wolson Declaration, # 7 Declaration of Mahsa Khanbabai, # 8 Declaration of Former Consular Officers)(Asimow, Daniel) (Filed on 6/27/2019) (Entered: 06/27/2019)
126 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 120 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S

07/02/2019
07/05/2019 07/08/2019 07/11/2019
07/18/2019 07/22/2019 07/29/2019 07/30/2019
07/31/2019

Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Kim, David) (Filed on 7/2/2019) (Entered: 07/02/2019)
127 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 126 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 120 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment ) filed byMalayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, JOHN DOES #1-3, Jane Doe # 1, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi. (Freedman, John) (Filed on 7/2/2019) (Entered: 07/02/2019)
128 REPLY (re 120 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment ) filed byDepartment of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S Department of State. (Kim, David) (Filed on 7/5/2019) (Entered: 07/05/2019)
129 Notice of Withdrawal of Motion (Kim, David) (Filed on 7/8/2019) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
130 NOTICE by Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, JOHN DOES #1-3, Jane Doe # 1, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi re 125 Opposition/Response to Motion,,, - Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, for Summary Judgment (Asimow, Daniel) (Filed on 7/11/2019) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
131 Letter from Defendants in Response to Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority . (Kim, David) (Filed on 7/18/2019) (Entered: 07/18/2019)
132 Letter from Defendants Advising Court of Recent Waiver Grants . (Kim, David) (Filed on 7/22/2019) (Entered: 07/22/2019)
133 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James Donato: Discovery Hearing and Status Conference held on 7/25/2019. Further Discovery Hearing set for 9/12/2019 at 2:00 p.m. (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/29/2019) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
134 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on July 25, 2019 before Judge James Donato by Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, JOHN DOES #1-3, Jane Doe # 1, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi, for Court Reporter Belle Ball. (Yousefzadeh, Babak) (Filed on 7/30/2019) (Entered: 07/30/2019)
135 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 7/25/2019 before Judge James Donato by Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K.

08/01/2019
08/02/2019 09/05/2019
09/06/2019 09/11/2019 09/12/2019 09/19/2019 09/27/2019

McAleenan, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S Department of State, for Court Reporter Belle Ball. (Kim, David) (Filed on 7/31/2019) (Entered: 07/31/2019)
136 Transcript of Proceedings held on July 25, 2019, before Judge James Donato. Court Reporter Belle Ball, CSR, CRR, RDR, telephone number (415)373-2529, belle_ball@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. (Re (134 in 3:18-cv-07818-JD) Transcript Order, (135 in 3:18-cv-07818-JD) Transcript Order, ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/30/2019. (ballbb15S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2019) (Entered: 08/01/2019)
137 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Javeria Jamil (Jamil, Javeria) (Filed on 8/2/2019) (Entered: 08/02/2019)
138 STATUS REPORT Joint Discovery Report by Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, JOHN DOES #1-3, Jane Doe # 1, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Esther H. Sung, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(Freedman, John) (Filed on 9/5/2019) (Entered: 09/05/2019)
139 NOTICE by Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S Department of State re 120 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment UPDATED GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS IN ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Updated Guidance Documents in Administrative Record)(Kim, David) (Filed on 9/6/2019) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
140 ORDER. The Court's review of the joint discovery report demonstrates that the issues are suitable for a written order without a hearing. Consequently, the hearing set for September 12, 2019, is vacated. A discovery order will be filed. Signed by Judge James Donato on 09/11/2019. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Donato, James) (Filed on 9/11/2019) (Entered: 09/11/2019)
141 ORDER RE DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge James Donato on 9/12/2019. (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2019) (Entered: 09/12/2019)
142 Letter from Defendants Providing Status Update on Plaintiffs' Waiver Claims . (Kim, David) (Filed on 9/19/2019) (Entered: 09/19/2019)
143 NOTICE by Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan,

10/03/2019
10/07/2019 10/22/2019 10/22/2019
10/30/2019
03/18/2020 06/05/2020 06/19/2020 08/06/2020 11/24/2020

Kirstjen M Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S Department of State (Attachments: # 1 June 2019 State Dep't Report on Waiver Process)(Kim, David) (Filed on 9/27/2019) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
144 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice Kevin Herrera ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-13760882.) filed by Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, JOHN DOES #1-3, Jane Doe # 1, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji, Maral Tabrizi. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing) (Herrera, Kevin) (Filed on 10/3/2019) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
145 ORDER by Judge James Donato granting 144 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Kevin Herrera. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2019) (Entered: 10/07/2019)
146 NOTICE of Appearance by P. Angel Martinez (Martinez, P.) (Filed on 10/22/2019) (Entered: 10/22/2019)
147 NOTICE by Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S Department of State of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Yavari et al v. Pompeo et al (C.D. Cal.): Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss)(Martinez, P.) (Filed on 10/22/2019) (Entered: 10/22/2019)
148 NOTICE by Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S Department of State re 120 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment of Updated Records Declaration in Administrative Record (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Updated Records Declaration) (Martinez, P.) (Filed on 10/30/2019) (Entered: 10/30/2019)
149 Letter from Defendants Providing Status Update on Plaintiffs' waiver applications. (Martinez, P.) (Filed on 3/18/2020) (Entered: 03/18/2020)
150 ORDER RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge James Donato on 6/5/2020. (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2020) (Entered: 06/05/2020)
151 ANSWER to Plaintiffs' Complaint filed by Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S Department of State. (Kim, David) (Filed on 6/19/2020) (Entered: 06/19/2020)
152 Letter from Defendants Requesting Clarification on the Scope of Discovery . (Kim, David) (Filed on 8/6/2020) (Entered: 08/06/2020)
153 ORDER. The Court sets a status conference for January 7, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., with a joint status report due by December 30, 2020. Signed by Judge James Donato on 11/24/2020. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2020) (Entered:

12/23/2020 12/30/2020 01/07/2021 01/12/2021

11/24/2020)
154 MOTION to Continue the December 30, 2020 Joint Status Report and January 7, 2021 Status Hearing filed by Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support of Motion)(Kim, David) (Filed on 12/23/2020) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
155 ORDER. The status conference is continued to January 14, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., and will be held by Zoom Webinar. A joint status report is due by January 7, 2021. No further continuances will be granted. Signed by Judge James Donato on 12/30/2020. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/30/2020) (Entered: 12/30/2020)
156 STATUS REPORT JOINT by Malayeen Ahmed, Reza Azimi, Yahya Ghaleb, Mitra Hannani, Nicholas Hanout, Zeinab Mohamed Hassan, Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi, JOHN DOES #1-3, Jane Doe # 1, Hoda Mehrabi Mohammadabadi, OneAmerica, Pars Equality Center, Afshin Raghebi, Pamela Whitehall Raghebi, Siraji Etha Siraji. (Yousefzadeh, Babak) (Filed on 1/7/2021) (Entered: 01/07/2021)
157 CLERK'S NOTICE. For the status conference on January 14, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., each party should designate a lead counsel to speak at the conference by emailing the name of their lead counsel to Judge Donato's Courtroom Deputy, Ms. Lisa Clark, at jdcrd@cand.uscourts.gov by January 13, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. California time. The names for lead counsel are needed so that they can be identified during the Zoom hearing when the case is called. All lead counsel must call in fifteen minutes before the hearing to test internet, video, and audio capabilities.
All counsel, parties, members of the public, and press may join the webinar using the link or information below:
https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1617171523? pwd=VWJqM2ZYT1UvNFZ0ZHNZUUhGWTBCZz09
Webinar ID: 161 717 1523 Password: 213597
Or iPhone one-tap : US: +16692545252,,1617171523#,,1#,213597# or +16468287666,,1617171523#,,1#,213597#
Or Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 254 5252 or +1 646 828 7666
PLEASE NOTE: Persons granted remote access to court proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording,

01/13/2021 01/15/2021 01/24/2021 02/09/2021 02/11/2021
03/23/2021

and rebroadcasting of court proceedings (including those held by telephone or videoconference). See General Order 58 at Paragraph III. Any recording of a court proceeding held by video or teleconference, including "screen-shots" or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court-issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the court. Please see https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom for information on preparing for and participating in a Zoom Webinar.
(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2021) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
158 NOTICE of Appearance by Nicole Patrice Grant (Grant, Nicole) (Filed on 1/13/2021) (Entered: 01/13/2021)
159 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James Donato: Status Conference held on 1/14/2021. (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/15/2021) (Entered: 01/15/2021)
160 NOTICE by Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S Department of State re 159 Status Conference (Grant, Nicole) (Filed on 1/24/2021) (Entered: 01/24/2021)
161 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Kevin Lee Herrera (Herrera, Kevin) (Filed on 2/9/2021) (Entered: 02/09/2021)
162 NOTICE by Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S Department of State of Circuit Court Decisions Disposing of PP 9645 Cases on Mootness Grounds (Attachments: # 1 Attach. A Kavoosian Order Dismissing Plaintiffs' Appeal Based on Mootness, # 2 Attach. B - ACRL Order Remanding Case with Instructions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims as Moot)(Kim, David) (Filed on 2/11/2021) (Entered: 02/11/2021)
163 ORDER. Presidential Proclamation 10141, "Ending Discriminatory Bans on Entry to the United States," 86 Fed. Reg. 7005 (2021), revokes Presidential Proclamation 9645 and requires, among other things, plans within 45 days to ensure (i) that individuals whose immigrant visa applications were denied under PP 9645 "may have their applications reconsidered," and (ii) "that visa applicants are not prejudiced as a result of a previous visa denial" due to PP 9645. Plaintiffs in these related cases acknowledge that the new Proclamation's requirements, if carried out by the government, may remedy the harms plaintiffs have alleged in these cases. See Emami Dkt. Nos. 173, 175. The Court consequently finds it appropriate to stay these cases, terminate the pending discovery disputes, and administratively close the cases, pending further developments. The parties are directed to file a joint status update by June 7, 2021.

Signed by Judge James Donato on 3/23/2021. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/23/2021) (Entered: 03/23/2021)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

03/31/2021 09:05:23

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse: Client

2563377:0

Code:

Yu

Description :

Docket Report

Search Criteria :

3:18cv07818JD

Billable Pages:

30

Cost: 3.00

 
 Case 3:18-cv-01587-JD Document 152 Filed 06/05/20 Page 1 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7

FARANGIS EMAMI, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

v.

10

KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, et al.,

11

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-01587-JD
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Re: Dkt. No. 98

12 PARS EQUALITY CENTER, et al.,
13 Plaintiffs,
14 v.
15 MIKE POMPEO, et al.,
16 Defendants.
17

Case No. 18-cv-07818-JD Re: Dkt. No. 120

18

These related cases concern Presidential Proclamation 9645, “Enhancing Vetting

19 Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or

20 Other Public-Safety Threats.” 82 Fed. Reg. 45161 (2017) (the “Proclamation”). The

21 Proclamation sharply curtailed, and in some cases completely suspended, entry into the United

22 States by nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen and Somalia. Id.

23 at 45162, 45165-67.1 Plaintiffs focus on nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, and

24 challenge the government’s handling of a waiver program that would allow exceptions for entry

25 into the United States in certain circumstances. The gravamen of the complaints is that the

26

27

28

1 The restrictions on nationals of Chad have been lifted. Presidential Proclamation No. 9723, 83 Fed. Reg. 15937 (Apr. 10, 2018).

Case 3:18-cv-01587-JD Document 152 Filed 06/05/20 Page 2 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 government created guidance for waivers which it has systematically ignored to deny the vast

2 majority of waiver applications.

3

The Court granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss in the Emami case with

4 leave to amend, finding that plaintiffs had plausibly stated a claim under the Accardi doctrine.

5 Dkt. No. 74 (Emami) at 16. The heart of this claim was that “the State Department has acted

6 arbitrarily and unlawfully by disregarding its own procedures and rules in administering the

7 waiver program” established by the Proclamation. Id. at 14. The Emami plaintiffs filed a second

8 amended complaint. Dkt. No. 75 (Emami). As the Emami motion to dismiss proceedings were

9 under way, the Pars case was transferred here from the Western District of Washington. Dkt. No.

10 80 (Pars). The operative complaint in that case remains the initial complaint. Dkt. No. 1 (Pars).

11 Defendants have filed motions to dismiss, or to obtain summary judgment for, the second

12 amended complaint in Emami and the complaint in Pars. Dkt. No. 98 (Emami); Dkt. No. 120

13 (Pars). This order resolves those motions.

14

DISCUSSION

15

The parties’ familiarity with the record is assumed. The prior dismissal order provides a

16 detailed statement of the case and plaintiffs’ claims, and the governing standards for a motion to

17 dismiss. Dkt. No. 74 (Emami).

18 I. 19 20

MOTIONS TO DISMISS A. Pars Complaint The Court has not been called upon to review the plausibility of the Pars complaint until

21 now. The analysis of the Emami complaint in the dismissal order applies in full measure here, and

22 streamlines the discussion.

23

1. Justiciability

24

The Court squarely answered the government’s justiciability objection in Emami.

25 Dismissal for lack of a justiciable controversy was denied because the Emami plaintiffs are not

26 suing over “individual consular officer decisions on the merits . . . [or] the outcome of any

27 particular consular officer’s decision in a given case.” Dkt. No. 74 (Emami) at 11-12. They are

28 “challenging systemic practices with respect to the waiver program, and not individualized 2

Case 3:18-cv-01587-JD Document 152 Filed 06/05/20 Page 3 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 determinations for any specific person.” Id. at 12. So too in the Pars complaint. See Dkt. No. 1

2 (Pars); Dkt. No. 125 (Pars) at 6 (“Plaintiffs do not seek review of any individual, discretionary

3 decision by a consular officer,” rather, “they seek review of the policies and practices that

4 Defendants have adopted to implement the Proclamation”). This is a justiciable controversy

5 properly before the Court.

6

2. APA Claim

7

Defendants’ request to dismiss the APA claim in Pars is denied. Defendants say that the

8 APA does not apply at all. Dkt. No. 120 (Pars) at 9-10. But as the Court has already determined,

9 the Administrative Procedure Act “creates a ‘basic presumption of judicial review for one

10 suffering legal wrong because of agency action,’” and our circuit has construed the APA “to

11 provide for ‘broad judicial review of agency action.’” Dkt. No. 74 (Emami) at 13 (quoting

12 Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 139 S.Ct. 361, 370 (2018), and Regents of the

13 Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 908 F.3d 476, 494 (9th Cir. 2018)). Agency action

14 is not immunized from review just because it might be linked to a Presidential Proclamation. See

15 East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 932 F.3d 742, 770 (9th Cir. 2018) (“insofar as DOJ and

16 DHS have incorporated the Proclamation by reference into the Rule, we may consider the validity

17 of the agency’s proposed action, including its ‘rule . . . or the equivalent’”); Chamber of

18 Commerce of the U.S. v. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322, 1326 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (“agency regulations that

19 implement an executive order are reviewable under the APA”).

20

The Pars complaint is based on a final agency action properly subject to judicial review.

21 Defendants say that plaintiffs have “fail[ed] . . . to direct their complaint against any ‘final agency

22 action,’” Dkt. No. 128 (Pars) at 2-3, but that is not a fair characterization of plaintiffs’ complaint.

23 The Pars plaintiffs have identified, and are challenging, a final agency action consisting of “the

24 ‘worldwide guidance’ referenced in the State Department’s February 22 letter and the State

25 Department guidance, cables, sample Q’s & A’s and instructions referenced in the Richardson

26 declaration,” along with other actions taken by defendants in reliance of Section 3(c) of the

27 Proclamation. Dkt. No. 1 (Pars) ¶¶ 279-80. Plaintiffs further allege that these actions resulted in

28 a waiver process in which, among other things, “visa applicants have been denied waivers without 3

Case 3:18-cv-01587-JD Document 152 Filed 06/05/20 Page 4 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 ever having received notice of a waiver process, and/or have been denied waivers without ever

2 having had a consular interview or other opportunity to provide evidence of their eligibility for a

3 waiver, in contravention of 22 C.F.R. §§ 41.121 and 42.81, which state that when refusing the

4 issuance of a visa, a consular officer must inform the visa applicant ‘whether there is, in law or

5 regulations, a mechanism (such as a waiver) to overcome the refusal.’” Id. ¶ 281 (quoting 22

6 C.F.R. § 41.121(b)(1)). Plaintiffs also allege that the government has implemented a waiver

7 process in which “consular officers do not have discretion over whether and when to grant a

8 waiver, and thus no discretion over whether they may grant a visa to an individual subject to the

9 Proclamation, in contravention of the Proclamation itself as well as 8 U.S.C. § 1104(a), which

10 states that consular officers have complete discretion over the issuance of visas and that such

11 discretion may not be circumscribed by the Secretary of State.” Id. ¶ 284.

12

Defendants suggest that “the Proclamation [is] the only relevant source of law in this

13 case,” Dkt. No. 128 (Pars) at 2-3, but plaintiffs have identified a number of legal tests with which

14 to assay the government’s conduct, and defendants have not demonstrated that plaintiffs have

15 missed the mark. In effect, plaintiffs are following Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S.Ct. 2392, 2408

16 (2018), where the Supreme Court measured the Proclamation against the provisions of the

17 Immigration and Nationality Act, even after finding that the President had lawfully exercised his

18 “broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States” under § 1182(f) of that

19 statute. See Hawaii, 138 S.Ct. at 2411 (“We may assume that § 1182(f) does not allow the

20 President to expressly override particular provisions of the INA. But plaintiffs have not identified

21 any conflict between the statute and the Proclamation”). In this case, plaintiffs have plausibly

22 alleged conflicts between the government’s actions, 22 C.F.R. §§ 41.121 and 42.81, the

23 Proclamation, and 8 U.S.C. § 1104(a). Defendants effectively concede the point by sidestepping

24 the conflict allegations with factual arguments, such as “each Plaintiff received exactly what the

25 regulations require,” Dkt. No. 120 (Pars) at 11, and “Plaintiffs are wrong that consular officers are

26 denied discretion to grant waivers,” Dkt. No. 128 (Pars) at 7.

27

The Court also declines to dismiss at this juncture plaintiffs’ allegation that defendants’

28 implementation of the waiver provision violated the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements. 4

Case 3:18-cv-01587-JD Document 152 Filed 06/05/20 Page 5 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Dkt. No. 125 (Pars) at 11; Dkt. No. 1 (Pars) ¶ 287 (“Defendants’ actions, as set forth above, affect

2 the Plaintiffs’ substantive rights and were made without observance of procedure required by law

3 in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).”). “[W]hen an agency

4 promulgates regulations other than ‘interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of

5 agency organization, procedure, or practice,’ 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A), the statute provides the public

6 with pre-promulgation notice and comment. 5 U.S.C. § 553(b), (c).” Alcaraz v. Block, 746 F.2d

7 593, 610-11 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal citation omitted). The government cites Innovation Law Lab

8 v. McAleenan, 924 F.3d 503, 509 (9th Cir. 2019), for the proposition that the State Department’s

9 waiver guidance was not required to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking because it was

10 merely “a ‘general statement of policy’ to guide the exercise of discretion by its officials.” Dkt.

11 No. 128 (Pars) at 6. But that is not consistent with plaintiffs’ allegations here. Plaintiffs have

12 plausibly alleged for 12(b)(6) purposes that defendants have issued guidance which resulted in a

13 waiver process in which consular officers had no discretion to exercise at all. Dkt. No. 1 (Pars)

14 ¶¶ 279, 284. The government may, however, raise the argument again if warranted at a later stage

15 of the case, after development of the record.

16

3. Accardi Claim

17

As a second claim, the Pars plaintiffs essentially re-allege their first claim in the

18 alternative, this time under the “Accardi Doctrine & Administrative Procedure Act.” Dkt. No. 1

19 (Pars) ¶¶ 289-94. It will go forward for the reasons stated in the Emami order with respect to the

20 Accardi doctrine. The government says that “Accardi has no relevance here, where the

21 Proclamation and its related guidance are neither regulations nor internal documents that create

22 any procedural rights.” Dkt. No. 120 (Pars) at 10. This is in effect an improper request for

23 reconsideration of the Emami order, see Civil L.R. 7-9, and in any event, the Accardi doctrine is

24 not so circumscribed, as the government’s own case citations demonstrate. In Montilla v.

25 Immigration and Naturalization Service, 926 F.2d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 1991), the court held that

26 “[t]he Accardi doctrine is premised on fundamental notions of fair play underlying the concept of

27 due process. . . . Its ambit is not limited to rules attaining the status of formal regulations. As the

28 Supreme Court noted ‘where the rights of individuals are affected, it is incumbent upon agencies 5

Case 3:18-cv-01587-JD Document 152 Filed 06/05/20 Page 6 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 to follow their own procedures.’” The Montilla court further noted that “[t]he doctrine has

2 continued vitality, particularly where a petitioner’s rights are ‘affected.’” Id.

3

Two other aspects of the Montilla case are relevant here. It does not stand for the

4 proposition, as the government suggests, that “even assuming that an Accardi claim could survive

5 a motion to dismiss, the only relief available would be limited to a ‘remand’ with instructions for

6 the agency to comply.” Dkt. No. 120 (Pars) at 11. In Montilla, a remand to the Board of

7 Immigration Appeals made sense because petitioner’s sole contention on appeal was that “the

8 immigration judge did not follow the applicable regulation protecting an alien’s right to counsel, 8

9 C.F.R. § 242.16(a) (1990), and that this error constituted a denial of due process” in his

10 deportation proceeding. 926 F.2d at 166, 170. The Montilla court never said that a remand was

11 the only option for an Accardi violation; to the contrary, it emphasized that the doctrine was “still

12 alive and well” and that it was a “judicially-evolved rule ensuring fairness.” Id. at 168. This

13 underscores the flexibility inherent in the doctrine to fashion a remedy that fits the wrong.

14

Montilla is also notable for applying Accardi as a freestanding claim, untethered to the

15 APA or other statute. This is entirely consistent with the decision in Accardi itself, which was not

16 based on the APA. See United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954). The

17 Court has reached the same conclusion as Montilla that an Accardi claim can stand on its own and

18 “is at heart a claim of procedural fairness that owes as much to the Due Process Clause as to the

19 Administrative Procedures Act.” Dkt. No. 122 (Emami) at 2 (citing Jefferson v. Harris, 285 F.

20 Supp. 3d 173, 185 (D.D.C. 2018)). Plaintiffs’ decision to tie their Accardi claim to the APA is

21 analytically questionable, and they may find that they have imposed on themselves unnecessary

22 burdens by doing that. The request to dismiss the Pars plaintiffs’ second claim under the Accardi

23 doctrine is denied.

24

4. Fifth Amendment Due Process Claim

25

Plaintiffs’ third claim directly under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment for a

26 violation of procedural due process cannot go forward. In the Emami order, the Court dismissed

27 this claim due to plaintiffs’ “inability to allege a deprivation of an interest protected by the Due

28 Process Clause.” Dkt. No. 74 (Emami) at 17. This is a separate and different inquiry from the one 6

Case 3:18-cv-01587-JD Document 152 Filed 06/05/20 Page 7 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 under Accardi, and is subject to different standards. The Pars plaintiffs ask the Court to

2 “reconsider its view,” Dkt. No. 125 (Pars) at 12, on the basis of a circuit decision from 2008. See

3 id. at 12-13 (citing Bustamante v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2008)). This is also an

4 improper request for reconsideration, and it is unpersuasive in that Bustamante pre-dates Kerry v.

5 Din, 135 S.Ct. 2128 (2015), the main basis for the Court’s prior order on this issue, by nearly a

6 decade. The third claim is dismissed.

7

B. Emami Second Amended Complaint

8

The second amended complaint in Emami, and the attendant motion to dismiss arguments,

9 are Groundhog Day or déjà vu all over again, depending on one’s taste in clichés. The allegations

10 and arguments on both sides are virtually unchanged.

11

The Emami SAC continues to suffer from vague and conflicting allegations. To take one

12 example, the SAC says that defendants have failed to issue any guidance at all. See, e.g., Dkt. No.

13 75 (Emami) ¶ 313 (“Defendants have either failed to promulgate guidance or have promulgated

14 guidance that is arbitrary and capricious on its face”). This is an inherently odd assertion,

15 especially in light of plaintiffs’ own complaint exhibits in which the State Department recognized

16 its online postings as its “outward facing guidance” for waivers. Dkt. No. 74 (Emami) at 14.

17 Plaintiffs try to walk this back in their opposition to the motion to dismiss, where they say that

18 their claim “is not that no guidance has been issued at all, but rather that the issued guidance has

19 not been followed; that the guidance itself is arbitrary and capricious; and that it violates

20 Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.” Dkt. No. 104 (Emami) at 1-2. In light of this admission, the

21 portions and claims in the SAC alleging that no guidance was issued are dismissed. The Court

22 will not catalog here the other vague and inconsistent allegations in the SAC, but if they become

23 an issue in the case, they are likely to meet a similar disposition.

24

The government’s request to dismiss the first claim under the APA is denied. Plaintiffs

25 allege, among other things, that the government has “failed to follow their own policies and

26 procedures,” and have “put in place a waiver process in which applicants are denied waivers

27 without ever receiving notice or an opportunity to apply [and] applicants are denied waivers

28 without having had a consular interview since the time the Proclamation went into effect.” Dkt. 7

Case 3:18-cv-01587-JD Document 152 Filed 06/05/20 Page 8 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 No. 75 (Emami) ¶ 314. Plaintiffs allege that these actions should be invalidated under Accardi,

2 347 U.S. 260. Id. ¶ 317. The Court has already found this to be a viable claim, Dkt. No. 74

3 (Emami), and that conclusion holds.

4

The second and third claims for relief under the Fifth Amendment are again dismissed

5 based on an “inability to allege a deprivation of an interest protected by the Due Process Clause.”

6 Dkt. No. 74 (Emami) at 17. The Court has also determined that the equal protection claim “holds

7 together only if it is assumed that the Proclamation unconstitutionally excludes Muslims or

8 illegally discriminates on the basis of nationality, a proposition that the Supreme Court turned

9 aside in Hawaii.” Id. (citing 138 S.Ct. at 2413-23). The Court further noted that the equal

10 protection claim was likely to be subject to rational basis review, and that the Supreme Court “has

11 already concluded in reviewing the Proclamation that ‘the Government has set forth a sufficient

12 national security justification to survive rational basis review.’ Hawaii, 138 S.Ct. at 2423.” Id. at

13 18. The Emami plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claims are virtually unchanged from their previous

14 versions, and the Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion on either claim.

15

The mandamus claim is dismissed. The claim focuses on defendants’ alleged “fail[ure] to

16 develop meaningful guidance,” Dkt. No. 75 (Emami) ¶ 336, an allegation that plaintiffs have now

17 retracted. Plaintiffs have added a claim for unreasonable delay on decisions on individual visa and

18 waiver applications. Id. ¶ 337. But “[m]andamus is an extraordinary remedy and is available to

19 compel a federal official to perform a duty only if: (1) the individual’s claim is clear and certain;

20 (2) the official’s duty is nondiscretionary, ministerial, and so plainly prescribed as to be free from

21 doubt, and (3) no other adequate remedy is available.” Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th

22 Cir. 2003); see also Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984) (“The common-law writ of

23 mandamus, as codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1361, is intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only if

24 he has exhausted all other avenues of relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear

25 nondiscretionary duty.”). Plaintiffs do not identify any source of law that mandates that decisions

26 be issued within a certain period of time, and the decisions on individual waiver applications are

27 inherently discretionary. See 82 Fed. Reg. at 45168 (“a consular officer, or the Commissioner,

28 8

Case 3:18-cv-01587-JD Document 152 Filed 06/05/20 Page 9 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or the Commissioners’ designee, as

2 appropriate, may, in their discretion, grant waivers on a case-by-case basis”).

3 II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

4

The government’s motions for summary judgment are denied. The government relies on

5 an “administrative record” to “show[] that defendants have applied the waiver provision in an

6 orderly way.” Dkt. No. 98 (Emami) at 11. But this does not account for the Accardi claims, and

7 “there is no ‘administrative record’ when the essence of the claim is that the government has failed

8 to act in accordance with its own rules and regulations.” Dkt. No. 122 (Emami) at 2. In addition,

9 the multiple discovery dispute letters that have been filed in these cases underscore the degree to

10 which the parties disagree about the material facts and what the “administrative record” might

11 properly contain. These factual disputes preclude summary judgment at this time. See Federal

12 Trade Commission v. D-Link Systems, Inc., No. 17-cv-00039-JD, 2018 WL 6040192 (N.D. Cal.

13 Nov. 5, 2018). It is also doubtful that plaintiffs have had a full and fair opportunity to take

14 discovery from defendants and test the evidence the government has presented as the

15 administrative record.

16

CONCLUSION

17

In the Pars case, defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied as to plaintiffs’ APA claim and

18 Accardi claim, but granted as to the Fifth Amendment claim. The summary judgment motion is

19 denied without prejudice.

20

In the Emami case, defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied for plaintiffs’ APA claim, but

21 granted for plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection claims, and the

22 mandamus claim. Defendants’ summary judgment motion is denied without prejudice.

23

On this record, the Court declines to provide yet another round of pleading amendments to

24 either set of plaintiffs. The Emami plaintiffs have had multiple opportunities to amend, in which

25 case the Court’s discretion to deny further amendment is especially broad. See Chodos v. West

26 //

27 //

28 // 9

Case 3:18-cv-01587-JD Document 152 Filed 06/05/20 Page 10 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Publishing Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002). So too for the Pars plaintiffs, given the

2 procedural context of these closely related cases.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 Dated: June 5, 2020

5

6

7

JAMES DONATO United States District Judge

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 10