Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/12/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ) Case No. ________

ILLINOIS; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES )

UNION OF INDIANA; AMERICAN CIVIL ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY

LIBERTIES UNION OF IOWA; AMERICAN ) AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR

CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY; ) VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOM OF

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ) INFORMATION ACT, 5 U.S.C. § 552

MINNESOTA; AMERICAN CIVIL

) et seq.

LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI;

)

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF )

NEBRASKA; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES )

UNION OF OHIO; AMERICAN CIVIL

)

LIBERTIES UNION OF SOUTH DAKOTA; )

and AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION )

OF WISCONSIN,

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY and U.S. CUSTOMS AND

)

BORDER PROTECTION,

)

)

Defendants.

)

INTRODUCTION 1. The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, and American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “ACLU”) bring this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., to obtain injunctive and other appropriate relief requiring Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to respond to a FOIA request sent by Plaintiffs on February 2, 2017 (“Request”), and to disclose the requested records promptly.

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/12/17 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:2
2. The Request seeks records concerning CBP’s local implementation of President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” Exec. Order No. 13769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Feb. 1, 2017) (“Executive Order No. 1”), as well as any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding Executive Order No.1, including President Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order, identically titled, Exec. Order No. 13780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 6, 2017) (“Executive Order No. 2”) (collectively, “Executive Orders”). A true and correct copy of the Request is attached as Exhibit A.
3. Specifically, the Request seeks records concerning CBP’s local implementation of the Executive Orders at sites within the purview of CBP’s Chicago Field Office. These include O’Hare International Airport (“O’Hare”), Indianapolis International Airport, Des Moines International Airport, Louisville International Airport, Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, Lambert International Airport, Eppley Airfield, Port Columbus International Airport, General Mitchell International Airport, Kansas City International Airport, and Hopkins International Airport (“Local International Airports”) and ports of entry in Chicago, Indianapolis, Des Moines, Louisville, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City, Omaha, Columbus, Cleveland, and Milwaukee (“Port of Entry Offices”).
4. Among other things, the Executive Orders purport to halt refugee admissions and bar entrants from several predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States.
5. Defendants’ implementation of the Executive Orders has been the subject of significant public concern, as reflected by mass protests around the country, substantial news coverage, and numerous lawsuits filed following the President’s signing of each Executive Order.
6. Over the weekend of January 27–29, 2017, at least five lawsuits resulted in emergency court orders enjoining implementation of various sections of Executive Order No. 1.1
1 Vayeghan v. Kelly, No. CV 17-0702, 2017 WL 396531 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2017); Tootkaboni v. Trump, No. 17-CV-10154, 2017 WL 386550 (D. Mass. Jan. 29, 2017); Doe v. Trump, No. C17-
2

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/12/17 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:3
On March 15, 2017, a district court enjoined implementation of Sections 2 and 6 of Executive Order No. 2.2
7. News reports described Defendants’ implementation of the Executive Orders as “chaotic” and “total[ly] lack[ing] . . . clarity and direction.”3
8. Official DHS statements reflected this confusion. For example, DHS stated on January 28 that Executive Order No. 1 would “bar green card holders.”4 The next day, however,
DHS Secretary John Kelly deemed “the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest”5 and the government clarified that Executive Order No. 1 did not apply to green card holders.6
9. Reportedly spurred by this chaos, on January 29, Senators Tammy Duckworth
and Dick Durbin called upon the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security to investigate Defendants’ implementation of Executive Order No. 1.7 The Senators
specifically sought information regarding: any guidance Defendants provided to the White
126, 2017 WL 388532 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 28, 2017); Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-CV-116, 2017 WL 386549 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2017); Darweesh v. Trump, No. 17 CIV. 480 (AMD), 2017 WL 388504 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2017). 2 Hawai’i v. Trump, No. CV 17-00050 DKW-KSC, 2017 WL 1011673 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017). 3 See, e.g., Ryan Devereaux et al., Homeland Security Inspector General Opens Investigation of Muslim Ban, Orders Document Preservation, THE INTERCEPT, Feb. 1, 2017, available at https://theintercept.com/2017/02/01/homeland-security-inspector-general-opens-investigation-ofmuslim-ban-rollout-orders-document-preservation/. 4 See Max Greenwood, Immigration Ban Includes Green Card Holders: DHS, THE HILL, Jan. 28, 2017, available at http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/316670-trump-refugee-ban-barsgreen-card-holders-report. 5 Statement By Secretary John Kelly On The Entry Of Lawful Permanent Residents Into The United States, DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/statement-secretary-john-kelly-entry-lawful-permanentresidents-united-states. 6 See Robert Mackey, As Protests Escalate, Trump Retreats From Barring Green Card Holders, THE INTERCEPT, Jan. 29, 2017, available at https://theintercept.com/2017/01/29/trumpsexecutive-order-no-longer-bars-green-card-holders/. 7 See Ryan Devereaux et al., Homeland Security Inspector General Opens Investigation of Muslim Ban, Orders Document Preservation, THE INTERCEPT, Feb. 1, 2017, available at https://theintercept.com/2017/02/01/homeland-security-inspector-general-opens-investigation-ofmuslim-ban-rollout-orders-document-preservation/.
3

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/12/17 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:4
House in developing the order; any directions that were provided to Defendants in implementing it; whether CBP officers complied with the relevant court orders; and whether DHS and CBP officers kept a list of individuals detained at ports of entry under the order. In response, the Inspector General directed Defendants’ personnel to preserve all records “that might reasonably lead to the discovery of relevant information relating the implementation of” Executive Order No. 1.8
10. On January 28, 2017, CBP detained an estimated 17 travelers who had arrived at O’Hare that day for hours as a result of Executive Order No. 1. Many of those travelers were and are lawful permanent residents of the United States.
11. Throughout the afternoon and evening of January 28, hundreds of people gathered inside and outside of O’Hare’s Terminal 5 to protest the Executive Orders.
12. Approximately 150 attorneys, including two attorneys from the ACLU of Illinois, went to O’Hare’s international terminal, Terminal 5, to offer assistance to detained persons.
13. When ACLU lawyers and other lawyers approached CBP officials at the airport, the CBP officials told the lawyers that the Privacy Act prevented CBP from disclosing information about the detainees, even to lawyers who had been retained to represent particular individuals by their families.
14. In some instances, attorneys were able to confirm by telephone that specific persons were being held, but in no case was an attorney allowed to see or speak to a detained person.
15. Nor, as the day wore into the evening, were the attorneys able to obtain verifiable information first-hand about detained persons and clients. Instead, at approximately 10:00 p.m. on January 28, 2017, after the District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued the first injunction blocking parts of the Executive Order,9 attorneys were notified that all persons who had been detained under the Executive Order had been released.
8 Id. 9 Darweesh v. Trump, No. 17 CIV. 480 (AMD), 2017 WL 388504 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2017).
4

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/12/17 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:5
16. Disclosure of the records Plaintiffs seek through this action would thus facilitate the public’s understanding of how Defendants implemented and enforced the Executive Orders in the Chicago Field Office, including in particular at O’Hare. Such information is critical to the public’s ability to hold the government accountable.
17. This action is necessary because Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiffs with a determination as to whether they will comply with the Request, although more than 20 business days have elapsed since Defendants received the Request.
JURISDICTION 18. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action and personal jurisdiction over the parties under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
VENUE 19. Venue in Northern District of Illinois is proper under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and as the requested agency records are, upon information and belief, situated within this District at CBP facilities at or near Chicago and because Plaintiff ACLU of Illinois’s principal place of business is in the Northern District of Illinois. For the same reasons, venue also is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).
PARTIES 20. Plaintiffs are non-profit, 501(c)(4) membership organizations that educate the public about the civil liberties implications of pending and proposed state and federal legislation, provide analysis of pending and proposed legislation, directly lobby legislators, and mobilize their members to lobby their legislators. 21. Defendant Department of Homeland Security is a department of the executive branch of the U.S. government and is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1). 22. Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection is a component of DHS and is a federal agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1). 23. Plaintiffs are informed and therefore believe that Defendants have possession, custody, or control of the requested records.
5

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/12/17 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:6
FACTS 24. On February 2, 2017, Plaintiffs sent the Request to CBP’s Chicago Field Office and CBP’s FOIA Officer at CBP Headquarters via certified, trackable mail, with tracking numbers of 70033110000409697170 and 70033110000409697217, respectively. 25. The Request sought copies of CBP’s local interpretation and enforcement of the Executive Order at: 1) certain airports specified in the Request, including O’Hare; and 2) certain Port of Entry offices specified in the Request, including Chicago, Indianapolis, Des Moines, Louisville, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City, Omaha, Columbus, Cleveland, and Milwaukee. The Request expressly did not seek information from CBP Headquarters. 26. Specifically, the Request sought the following:
1. “Records created on or after January 27, 2017 concerning CBP’s interpretation, enforcement, and implementation of the following at Local International Airports: a. President Trump’s Executive Order, signed on January 27, 2017 and titled ‘Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States’; b. Any guidance ‘provided to DHS field personnel shortly’ after President Trump signed the Executive Order, as referenced in CBP’s online FAQ;10 c. Associate Director of Field Operations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Daniel M. Renaud’s email, sent at 11:12 A.M. on January 27, 2017, instructing DHS employees that they could not adjudicate any immigration claims from the seven targeted countries;11
10 To assist CBP in responding, the Request included the following information in a footnote for reference: “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (Jan. 31, 2017), available at https://www.cbp.gov/bordersecurity/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states (‘The Executive Order and the instructions therein were effective at the time of the order’s signing. Guidance was provided to DHS field personnel shortly thereafter.’) (emphasis added).” 11 The following footnote was included for reference: “See Alice Speri and Ryan Devereaux, Turmoil at DHS and State Department—‘There Are People Literally Crying in the Office Here,’ THE INTERCEPT, Jan. 30, 2017, available at https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/asylum-officialsand-state-department-in-turmoil-there-are-people-literally-crying-in-the-office-here/.”
6

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/12/17 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:7
d. Judge Donnelly’s Decision and Order granting an Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal, issued in the Eastern District of New York on January 28, 2017, including records related to CBP’s efforts to comply with the court’s oral order requiring prompt production of a list of all class members detained by CBP;12
e. Judge Brinkema’s Temporary Restraining Order, issued in the Eastern District of Virginia on January 28, 2017;13
f. Judge Zilly’s Order Granting Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal, issued in the Western District of Washington on January 28, 2017;14
g. Judge Burroughs’ Temporary Restraining Order, issued in the District of Massachusetts on January 29, 2017;15
h. Judge Gee’s Order granting an Amended Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order, issued in the Central District of California on January 29, 2017;16
i. Assurances from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that all individuals detained at Philadelphia International
12 The following footnote was included for reference: “Decision and Order, Darweesh v. Trump, No. 17 Civ. 480 (AMD) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2017), available at https://www.aclu.org/legaldocument/darweesh-v-trump-decision-and-order.” 13 The following footnote was included for reference: “Temporary Restraining Order, Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-116 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2017), available at https://www.justice4all.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/TRO-order-signed.pdf.” 14 The following footnote was included for reference: “Order Granting Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal, Doe v. Trump, No. C17-126 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 28, 2017), available at https://www.justsecurity.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/Seattle-Order.pdf.” 15 The following footnote was included for reference: “Temporary Restraining Order, Tootkaboni v. Trump, No. 17-cv-10154 (D. Mass. Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://aclum.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/6-TRO-Jan-29-2017.pdf.” 16 The following footnote was included for reference: “Order, Vayeghan v. Trump, No. CV 170702 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/vayeghan_-_order_re_tro.pdf.”
7

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/12/17 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:8
Airport under the Executive Order would be admitted to the United States and released from custody on Sunday, January 29, 2017; j. DHS’s ‘Response to Recent Litigation’ statement, issued on January 29, 2017;17 k. DHS Secretary John Kelly’s ‘Statement on the Entry of Lawful Permanent Residents Into the United States,’ issued on January 29, 2017;[18] l. DHS’s ‘Statement on Compliance with Court Orders and the President’s Executive Order,’ issued on January 29, 2017;19 and m. Any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding the Executive Order on or after January 27, 2017. 2. Records concerning the number of individuals who were detained or subjected to secondary screening, extend[ed] questioning, an enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver at Local International Airports pursuant to the Executive Order, including: a. The total number of individuals who remain detained or subject to secondary screening, extend[ed] questioning, an enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver at Local International Airports both as of the date of this request and as of the date on which this request is processed; and
17 The following footnote was included for reference: “Department of Homeland Security Response to Recent Litigation, DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/department-homeland-security-response-recentlitigation.” 18 Statement By Secretary John Kelly On The Entry Of Lawful Permanent Residents Into The United States, DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/statement-secretary-john-kelly-entry-lawful-permanentresidents-united-states. 19 The following footnote was included for reference: “DHS Statement On Compliance With Court Orders And The President’s Executive Order, DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/dhs-statement-compliance-courtorders-and-presidents-executive-order.”
8

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/12/17 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:9
b. The total number of individuals who have been detained or subjected to secondary screening, extend[ed] questioning, an enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver for any length of time at Local International Airports since January 27, 2017, including the number of individuals who have been i. released, ii. transferred into immigration detention, or iii. removed from the United States;
3. Records concerning the number of individuals who have been removed from Local International Airports from January 27, 2017 to date pursuant to the Executive Order;
4. Records concerning the number of individuals who arrived at Local International Airports from January 27, 2017 to date with valid visas or green cards who subsequently agreed voluntarily to return; and
5. Records containing the ‘guidance’ that was ‘provided to DHS field personnel shortly’ after President Trump signed the Executive Order.”20
Exh. A at 5-7. 27. The Request included an application for expedited processing, on the grounds that
there is a “compelling need” for these records under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II) because the information requested is “urgen[tly]” needed by an organization primarily engaged in disseminating information “to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” Exh. A at 8.
20 The following footnote was included for reference: “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (Jan. 31, 2017), available at https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entryunited-states (‘The Executive Order and the instructions therein were effective at the time of the order’s signing. Guidance was provided to DHS field personnel shortly thereafter.’) (emphasis added).”
9

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/12/17 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:10
28. The Request provided adequate detail showing that the ACLU is primarily engaged in disseminating information within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v), given that a critical and substantial aspect of the ACLU’s mission is to obtain information about government activity, analyze that information, and publish and disseminate that information widely to the press and public. Exh. A at 8.
29. The Request described examples of the ACLU’s information-dissemination function. Exh. A at 8-12.
30. The Request also included an application for a fee waiver or limitation under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) on the grounds that disclosure of the requested records is in the public interest and is “likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” In particular, the ACLU emphasized that the Request would significantly contribute to public understanding on a matter of profound public importance about which scant specific information had been made public, i.e., how local CBP Field Offices had enforced, and continue to enforce, the Executive Orders. The Request also made clear that the ACLU plans to disseminate the information disclosed as a result of the Request to the public at no cost. Exh. A at 13.
31. The Request also applied for a waiver of search fees under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II) on the grounds that Plaintiffs qualify as “representatives of the news media” and the records are not sought for commercial use, given the ACLU’s non-profit mission and substantial activities to publish information for dissemination to the public, as discussed in greater detail in ¶ 29 above. Exh. A at 13-15.
32. CBP’s Chicago Field Office received the Request on February 6, 2017, and CBP Headquarters received the Request on February 7, 2017. See Exhibit B.
33. Plaintiffs have not received any acknowledgment of receipt of the Request from CBP.
34. As of April 12, 2017, more than 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) have elapsed since CBP received the Request.
10

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/12/17 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:11
35. As of the filing date of this Complaint, Defendants have not notified Plaintiffs of a determination as to whether Defendants will comply with the Request.
36. Because Defendants failed to comply with the 20-business-day time limit provision of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i), Plaintiffs are deemed to have exhausted their administrative remedies with respect to the Request under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).
Violation of FOIA for Failure to Provide a Determination Within 20 Business Days
37. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 36 above, inclusive.
38. Defendants have a legal duty under FOIA to determine whether to comply with a request within 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after receiving the request, and also have a legal duty to immediately notify a requester of the agency’s determination and the reasons therefor.
39. Defendants’ failure to determine whether to comply with the Request within 20 business days after receiving it violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i), and applicable regulations promulgated thereunder.
Violation of FOIA for Failure to Make Records Available 40. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 36 above, inclusive. 41. Plaintiffs have a legal right under FOIA to obtain the specific agency records requested on February 2, 2017, and there exists no legal basis for Defendants’ failure to promptly make the requested records available to Plaintiffs, their members, and the public. 42. Defendants’ failure to promptly make available the records sought by the Request violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A), and applicable regulations promulgated thereunder. 43. On information and belief, Defendants currently have possession, custody or control of the requested records.
11

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/12/17 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:12
Violation of FOIA for Failure to Provide a Determination As To Expedited Processing Within 10 Days
44. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 36 above, inclusive.
45. Defendants have a legal duty under FOIA to determine whether to provide expedited processing, and to provide notice of that determination to Plaintiffs, within 10 days after the date of the Request.
46. Defendants’ failure to determine whether to provide expedited processing and to provide notice of that determination to Plaintiffs within 10 days after the date of the Request violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(ii)(I), and applicable regulations promulgated thereunder.
47. Because Defendants have not provided a complete response to the Request, this Court has jurisdiction under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iv), to review Defendants’ failure to make a determination concerning Plaintiffs’ request for expedited processing.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court award them the following relief: 1. Declare that Defendants violated FOIA by failing to determine whether to comply with the Request within 20 business days and by failing to immediately thereafter notify Plaintiffs of such determination and the reasons therefor; 2. Declare that Defendants violated FOIA by unlawfully withholding the requested records; 3. Declare that Defendants violated FOIA by failing to determine whether to provide expedited processing, and to provide notice of that determination to Plaintiffs, within 10 days; 4. Order Defendants to immediately disclose the requested records to the public and make copies immediately available to Plaintiffs without charge for any search or duplication fees, or, alternatively, provide for expedited proceedings to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ rights under FOIA; 5. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees; and 6. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
12

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/12/17 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:13

DATED this 12th day of April, 2017.

Respectfully submitted,
_/S/ Natalie J. Spears_ NATALIE J. SPEARS GREGORY R. NARON PATRICK S. KABAT KATHLEEN V. KINSELLA Dentons US LLP 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 876-8000 natalie.spears@dentons.com gregory.naron@dentons.com patrick.kabat@dentons.com kathleen.kinsella@dentons.com
REBECCA K. GLENBERG Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc. 180 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 201-9740 rglenberg@aclu-il.org
FREDA J. LEVENSON* ACLU of Ohio Foundation, Inc. 4506 Chester Avenue Cleveland, OH 44103 (216) 472-2205 flevenson@acluohio.org
AMY A. MILLER* ACLU of Nebraska, Inc. 134 S. 13th St. #1010 Lincoln NE 68508 402-476-8091 ext. 106 amiller@aclunebraska.org
ANTHONY E. ROTHERT* ACLU of Missouri Foundation 906 Olive Street, suite 1130 St. Louis, Missouri 63101 arothert@aclu-mo.org
WILLIAM E. SHARP* ACLU of Kentucky 315 Guthrie Street, Suite 300

13

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/12/17 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:14 Louisville, KY 40202 (502) 581-9746 sharp@aclu-ky.org *Pro Hac Vice application to be filed Attorneys for Plaintiffs
14

 
 Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 22 Filed: 05/11/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:116 Case Pending No. 28 Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 1 of 3

...
FILED
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES
JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION MAY 11 2011/(0

IN RE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS REGARDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 13769

THOMAS G. BRUTON CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT
MDL Docket No. _ _

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF ACTIONS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1407 FOR COORDINATED OR CONSOLIDATED PRETRIAL
PROCEEDINGS

CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Director, Federal Programs Branch
MATTHEW J. BERNS CHETAN A. PATIL Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 616-8016 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: matthew.j.bems@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants US. Department ofHomeland Security and US. Customs and Border Protection

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 22 Filed: 05/11/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:117

... ·

Case Pending No. 28 Document 1 Filed 05/08117 Page 2 of 3

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Defendants, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

("DHS") and U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"), respectfully move the Judicial Panel

on Multidistrict Litigation for an order transferring the actions listed on the Schedule of Actions

(the "Related Actions") attached to the accompanying memorandum to the United States District

Court for the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Each of

the thirteen cases at issue involves one or more Freedom oflnformation Act requests submitted

by one or more affiliates of the American Civil Liberties Union to CBP about the implementation

of Executive Order 13769, "Protecting the Nation from TetTorist Entry Into the United States," 82

Fed. Reg. 8977 (Jan. 27, 20 17). The reasons supporting consolidation and transfer are set forth in

the accompanying memorandum.

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Panel issue an Order transferring

the actions listed in the accompanying Schedule of Actions , as well as any subsequently filed

related actions, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the United States District

Court for the District of Columbia.

Dated: May 8, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General

ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Director, Federal Programs Branch

Is/ Matthew J. Berns MATTHEW J. BERNS CHETAN A. PATIL

-1 -

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 22 Filed: 05/11/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:118 Case Pending No. 28 Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 3 of 3
Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 616-8016 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: matthew.j .bems@usdoj.gov Counsel for Defendants US. Department ofHomeland Security and US. Customs and Border Protection
-2-

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 22-2 Filed: 05/11/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:138
Case Pending No. 28 Document 1-2 Filed 05/08/17 Page 1 of 6

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS REGARDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 13769

MDL Docket No. - - -

SCHEDULE OF ACTIONS

No.

Case Caption

Court

1 Plaintiffs:

District of

Maine,

American Civil Liberties Union Portland

of Maine; American Civil

Division

Liberties Union of New

Hampshire; American Civil

Liberties Union ofVermont;

American Civil Liberties Union

of Massachusetts; American

Civil Liberties Union of

Connecticut; American Civil

Liberties Union of Rhode Island

Defendants:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection; U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Docket No.

Judge

2:17-cv-00132 Hon. George Z. Sin gal

- 1-

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 22-2 Filed: 05/11/17 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:139
Case Pending No . 28 Document 1-2 Filed 05/08/17 Page 2 of 6

No.

Case Caption

Court

2 Plaintiffs:

Southern

American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties

District of California, San Diego Division

Defendants:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Docket No.

Judge

3:17-cv-00733 Hon. M. James Lorenz

3 Plaintiffs:

Southern

1:17-cv-21382 Hon. Darrin P. Gayles

'

District of

American Civil Liberties Union Florida,

of Florida

Miami

Defendants:

Division

U.S . Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Customs and Border Protection

4 Plaintiffs:

Western

2: 17-cv-00562 Hon. Robert S.

American Civil Liberties Union of Washington; American Civil Liberties Union of Montana;

District of Washington, Seattle Division

Lasnik

American Civil Liberties Union

ofNorth Dakota

Defendants:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Customs and Border Protection

- 2-

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 22-2 Filed: 05/11/17 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:140 Case Pending No. 28 Document 1-2 Filed 05/08/17 Page 3 of 6

No. '"' · Case Caption

Court
••

5 Plaintiffs:

District of

Arizona,

American Civil Liberties Union Phoenix

of Arizona

Division

Defendants:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Docket No.

I.Judge • •

2:17-cv-0 1083 Hon. Deborah M.

Fine (M.J.)

6 Plaintiffs:

Eastern

1:17-cv-00441 Hon. Leonie M.

District of

Brinkema

American Civil Liberties Union Virginia,

ofVirginia; American Civil

Alexandria

Liberties Union of Maryland; Division

American Civil Liberties Union

ofPennsylvania; American

Civil Liberties Union of

Delaware

Defendants:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Customs and Border Protection

-3-

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 22-2 Filed: 05/11/17 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:141 Case Pending No. 28 Document 1-2 Filed 05/08/17 Page 4 of 6

No.

Case Caption

Court

7 Plaintiffs:

Northern

District of

American Civil Liberties Union Illinois,

of Illinois; American Civil

Eastern

Liberties Union of Indiana;

Division

American Civil Liberties Union

of Iowa; American Civil

Liberties Union of Kentucky;

American Civil Liberties Union

of Minnesota; American Civil Liberties Union ofMissouri; American Civil Liberties Union ofNebraska; American Civil

Liberties Union of Ohio; American Civil Liberties Union

of South Dakota; American Civil Liberties Union of

Wisconsin

Defendants:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Docket No.

Judge

1:17-cv-02768 Hon. Robert M. Dow, Jr.

8 Plaintiffs:

Northern

4:17-cv-01970 Hon. Saundra B.

District of

Armstrong

American Civil Liberties Union California,

ofNorthern California;

Oakland

American Civil Liberties Union Division

of Hawaii; American Civil

Liberties Union ofUtah

Defendants:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Customs and Border Protection

-4 -

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 22-2 Filed: 05/11/17 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:142 Case Pending No. 28 Document 1-2 Filed 05/08/17 Page 5 of 6

No~

Case Caption

Court

9 Plaintiffs:

District of

Oregon,

American Civil Liberties Union Portland

of Oregon; American Civil

Division

Liberties Union of Alaska;

American Civil Liberties Union

of Colorado; American Civil

Liberties Union of Idaho;

American Civil Liberties Union

of Wyoming

Defendants:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Customs and Border Protection

10 Plaintiffs:

Eastern

District of

American Civil Liberties Union Michigan,

of Michigan

Southern

Division

Defendants:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Customs and Border Protection

11 Plaintiffs:

Southern

District of

American Civil Liberties Union Texas,

Foundation of Texas, Inc.

Houston

Defendants:

Division

U.S. Customs and Border Protection; U.S. Department of Homeland Security

DocketNo. ••. .....

Judge

3:17-cv-00575 Hon. Marco A. Hernandez

5:17-cv-11149 Hon. Judith E. Levy
4: 17-cv-01128 Hon. Vanessa D. Gilmore

- 5-

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 22-2 Filed: 05/11/17 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:143 Case Pending No. 28 Document 1-2 Filed 05/08/17 Page 6 of 6

No.

Case Caption

Court

12 Plaintiffs:

Northern

District of

American Civil Liberties Union Georgia,

of Georgia, Inc. ; American

Atlanta

Civil Liberties Union ofNorth Division

Carolina, Inc.; American Civil

Liberties Union of South

Carolina, Inc.; American Civil

Liberties Union of West

Virginia, Inc.

Defendants:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Customs and Border ProteCtion

Docket No.

Judge

1: 17-cv-01309 Hon. Richard W. Story

13 Plaintiffs:

Central

District of American Civil Liberties Union California,

of Southern California;

Western

American Civil Liberties Union Division

of Nevada

Defendants:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Customs and Border Protection

2: 17-cv-02778 Hon. Beverly Reid O'Connell, Hon. Alka Sagar (M.J.)

- 6-

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 22-3 Filed: 05/11/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:144
Case Pending No. 28 Document 1-7 Filed 05/08/17 Page 1 of 10

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS REGARDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 13769

MDL Docket No. - - -

PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion, Brief, Schedule of Actions, and this Proof of Service was served by email or first class mail on May 8, 2017, to the following:
Clerk, U.S. District Court for the District of Maine Edward T. Gignoux U.S. Courthouse 156 Federal Street Portland, ME 04101
Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California 333 West Broadway, Suite 420 San Diego, CA 92101
Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse 400 North Miami Avenue Miami, FL 33128
Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington 700 Stewart Street, Suite 2310 Seattle, WA 9810 1
Clerk, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona Sandra Day O' Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 130 401 West Washington Street, SPC 1 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2118
Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Albert V. Bryan U.S . Courthouse 401 Courthouse Square Alexandria, VA 22314
- 1-

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 22-3 Filed: 05/11/17 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:145 Case Pending No. 28 Document 1-7 Filed 05/08/17 Page 2 of 10
Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604
Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building & United States Courthouse Suite 400S, 1301 Clay Street Oakland, CA 94612
Clerk, U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon Mark 0. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse 1000 S.W. Third Avenue Portland, OR 97204
Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Federal Building 200 E. Liberty Street Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas David J. Bradley P.O. Box 61010 Houston, TX 77208
Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Richard B. Russell Federal Building 2211 United States Courthouse 75 Ted Turner Drive, SW Atlanta, GA 30303-3309
Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Suite 4311, 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012-4565
Counsel for Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Maine; American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire; American Civil Liberties Union ofVermont; American Civil Liberties Union ofMassachusetts; American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut; American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island D. Maine, Case No. 2:17-cv-00132
Zachary L. Heiden American Civil Liberties Union of Maine Foundation 121 Middle Street, Suite 303 Portland, ME 041 03 Email: Zheiden@aclumaine.org
-2-

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 22-3 Filed: 05/11/17 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:146
Case Pending No . 28 Document 1-7 Filed 05/08/17 Page 3 of 10
Jennifer A. Archer Kelly, Remmel & Zimmerman 53 Exchange Street P.O. Box 597 Portland, ME 04112-0597 Email: jarcher@krz.com
Counsel for Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties S.D. California, Case No. 3:17-cv-00733
Thomas Rohlfs Burke Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Email: Thomasburke@dwt.com
Daniel Aaron Laidman Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566 Emai I: Danlaidman@dwt.com
Mitra Ebadolahi ACLU Foundation of San Diego P.O. Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138 Emai I: Mebadolahi@acl usandiego.org
Counsel for Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of Florida S.D. Florida (Miami Division), Case No. 1:17-cv-21382
Andrea Flynn Mogensen The Law Office of Andrea Flynn Mogensen, P.A. 200 S. Washington Boulevard, Suite 7 Sarasota, FL 34236 amogensen@sunshinelitigation.com
Brian Lee Tannebaum Bast Amron One S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 1400 Miami, FL 33131 Email: Btannebaum@tannebaum.com
- 3-

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 22-3 Filed: 05/11/17 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:147
Case Pending No. 28 Document 1-7 Filed 05/08/17 Page 4 of 10
•
Nancy Ghana Abudu American Civil Liberties Union ofFiorida 4500 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 340 Miami, FL 33137 Email: Nabudu@aclufl.org
Benjamin James Stevenson ACLU Foundation of Florida, Inc. Suite 712, 3 W. Garden Street Pensacola, FL 32502-5636 Email: Bstevenson@aclufl.org
Counsel for Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Washington; American Civil Liberties Union of Montana; American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota W.D. Washington (Seattle Division), Case No. 2:17-cv-00562
Emily Chiang American Civil Liberties Union of Washington 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630 Seattle, WA 98164 Email: Echiang@aclu-Wa.org
Eric M Stahl DAVIS WRJGHT TREMAINE 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101-3045 Email: Ericstahl@dwt.com
Counsel for Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona D. Arizona, Case No. 2:17-cv-01083
David Jeremy Bodney Michael Anthony DiGiacomo Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555 Email: Bodneyd@ballardspahr.com Email: Digiacomom@ballardspahr.com
Kathleen E. Brody American Civil Liberties Union - Phoenix, AZ P.O. Box 17148 Phoenix, AZ 85011 Email: Kbrody@acluaz.org
- 4-

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 22-3 Filed: 05/11/17 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:148
Case Pending No. 28 Document 1-7 Filed 05/08/17 Page 5 of 10
•
Counsel for Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia; American Civil Liberties Union ofMaryland; American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania; American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware E.D. Virginia (Alexandria Division), Case No. 1:17-cv-00441
Maya Miriam Eckstein Hunton & Williams LLP 951 East Byrd Street, Riverfront Plaza Richmond, VA 23219 Email: Meckstein@hunton.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union oflllinois; American Civil Liberties Union oflndiana; American Civil Liberties Union oflowa; American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky; American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota; American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri; American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska; American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio; American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota; American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin N.D. Illinois (Eastern Division), Case No. 1:17-cv-02768
Natalie J. Spears Gregory R. Naron Kathleen V. Kinsella Patrick S. Kabat Dentons US LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 Email: Natalie.Spears@dentons.com Emai I: Gregory .Naron@dentons.com Emai I: Kathleen.Kinsella@dentons.com Email: Patrick.Kabat@dentons.com
Amy Anne Miller American Civil Liberties Union ofNebraska # 1010, 134 S. 13th Street Lincoln, NE 68508 Email: Amiller@aclunebraska.org
Rebecca Kim Glenberg Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc. 180 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 Email: Rglenberg@aclu-Il.org
-5 -

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 22-3 Filed: 05/11/17 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:149
Case Pending No. 28 Document 1-7 Filed 05/08/17 Page 6 of 10
John Bennett Gordon American Civil Liberties Union ofMinnesota Suite 180, 2300 Myrtle Avenue St. Paul, MN 55114 Email: Jgordon@aclu-Mn.org
Anthony E. Rothert American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation Suite 1130, 906 Olive Street St. Louis, MO 63101 Email: Arothert@aclu-Mo.org
Freda J. Levenson American Civil Libe1ties Union of Ohio Foundation 4506 Chester Avenue Cleveland, OH 44103 Email: Flevenson@acluohio.org
William Ellis Sharp American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky 315 Guthrie Street, Suite 300 Louisville, KY 40202 Email: Sharp@aclu-Ky.org
Counsel for Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California; American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii; American Civil Liberties Union of Utah N.D. California (Oakland Division), Case No. 4:17-cv-01970
Leah Farrell American Civil Liberties Union of Utah 355 North 300 West Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Email: Lfarrell@acluutah.org
Linda Lye ACLU Foundation ofNorthern California, Inc. 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Email: Llye@aclunc.org
Mateo Caballero American Civil Liberties Union ofHawaii P.O. Box 3410 Honolulu, HI 96801 Email: Mcaballero@acluhawaii.org
- 6-

.

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 22-3 Filed: 05/11/17 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:150
Case Pending No. 28 Document 1-7 Filed 05/08/17 Page 7 of 10

.J
Thomas R. Burke Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111-6533 Email: Thomasburke@dwt.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon; American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska; American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado; American Civil Liberties Union ofldaho; American Civil Liberties Union of Wyoming D. Oregon (Portland Division), Case No. 3:17-cv-00575
Gregory A. Chaimov Derek D. Green Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97201-5630 Email: Gregorychaimov@dwt.com Email: Derekgreen@dwt.com
Kelly K. Simon Mathew W. dos Santos American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon P.O. Box 40585 Portland, OR 97240 Email: Ksimon@aclu-Or.org Email: Mdossantos@aclu-Or.org
Counsel for Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan E.D. Michigan (Southern Division), Case No. 5:17-cv-11149
Andrew Goddeeris Andrew M. Pauwels Gabriel E. Bedoya Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP 2290 First National Bldg., 660 Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 48226 Email: Agoddeeris@honigman.com Email: Apauwels@honigman.com Email: Gbedoya@honigman.com
Michael J. Steinberg American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan 2966 Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 48201 Email: Msteinberg@aclumich.org

-7-

.•

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 22-3 Filed: 05/11/17 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:151 Case Pending No. 28 Document 1-7 Filed 05/08/17 Page 8 of 10

J
Miriam J. Aukerman American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan , West Michigan Regional Office 1514 Wealth Street, SE Grand Rapids, MI 49506 Email: Maukerman@aclumich.org
Counsel for Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Texas, Inc. S.D. Texas (Houston Division), Case No. 4:17-cv-01128
Edgar Saldivar American Civil Liberties Union of Texas 1500 McGowen, Suite 140 Houston, TX 77004 Email: Esaldivar@aclutx.org
Kali Alanna Cohn American Civil Liberties Union of Texas 6440 N. Central Expressway Dallas, TX 75206 Email: Kcohn@aclutx.org
Counsel for Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Inc.; American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Inc.; American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, Inc.; American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Inc. N.D. Georgia (Atlanta Division), Case No. 1:17-cv-01309
Gail Podolsky Carlton Fields, PA One Atlantic Center, Suite 3000 1201 W. Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30309 Email: Gpodolsky@cfjblaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California; American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada C.D. California (Western Division), Case No. 2:17-cv-02778
Thomas R. Burke Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 9411 Email: thomasburke@dwt.com

- 8-

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 22-3 Filed: 05/11/17 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:152 Case Pendin g No. 28 Document 1-7 Filed 05/08/17 Page 9 of 10
Brendan N. Charney Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566, Email: brendancharney@dwt.com Amy Rose ACLU of Nevada Foundation 601 S. Rancho Drive, Suite B-11 Las Vegas, NV 89106 Email: rose@aclunv.org Devon Porter Peter Bibring ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 West 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Email: dporter@aclusocal.org Email: pbibring@aclusocal.org Mitra Ebadolahi ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties P.O. Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138-7131 Email: mebadolahi@aclusandiego.org
- 9-

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 22-3 Filed: 05/11/17 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:153
Case Pending No. 28 Document 1-7 Filed 05/08/17 Page 10 of 10

"
Dated: May 8, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Director, Federal Programs Branch
Is/ Matthew J. Berns MATTHEW J. BERNS CRETAN A. PATIL Trial Attorneys U.S . Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 616-8016 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: matthew.j.bems@usdoj.gov
Counselfor Defendants US. Department ofHomeland Security and US. Customs and Border Protection

- 10 -

 
 Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 23 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:154

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

) )

No. 17 C 2768

) )

Judge Dow

)

)

)

)

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING DECISION ON MOTION TO TRANSFER

Defendants, the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and U.S.

Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby

respectfully move for a temporary stay of further proceedings in this action pending a decision

by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) on Defendants’ motion to transfer this

and other related actions for consolidated or coordinated proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1407. A memorandum in support is submitted along with this motion

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 23 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:155

Dated: May 12, 2017  

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
JOEL R. LEVIN Acting United States Attorney
THOMAS P. WALSH Assistant United States Attorney
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Director, Federal Programs Branch
/s/ Matthew J. Berns MATTHEW J. BERNS CHETAN A. PATIL Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel.: (202) 616-8016 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: matthew.j.berns@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

2

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 23-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:156

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

) )

No. 17 C 2768

) )

Judge Dow

)

)

)

)

DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
PENDING DECISION ON MOTION TO TRANSFER

Defendants, the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and U.S.

Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), respectfully move for a temporary stay of further

proceedings in this action pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

(“JPML”) on Defendants’ motion to transfer this and other related actions for consolidated or

coordinated proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407.

BACKGROUND

This case is one of thirteen actions pending in thirteen different districts involving

parallel Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests submitted by affiliates of the American

Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) to CBP, a component of DHS. Each FOIA request at issue asks

CBP to search one of its field offices (and corresponding airports and/or ports of entry) for

identical or similar categories of records about the implementation of Executive Order 13769,

“Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Jan. 27,

2017).

1

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 23-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:157
The cases are ACLU of Northern California, et al. v. DHS, et al., No. 17-cv-1970 (N.D. Cal. filed Apr. 10, 2017); ACLU of Virginia, et al. v. DHS, et al., No. 17-cv-441 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 12, 2017); ACLU of Georgia, Inc., et al. v. DHS, et al., No. 17-cv-1309 (N.D. Ga. filed Apr. 12, 2017); ACLU of Illinois, et al. v. DHS, et al., No. 17-cv-2768 (N.D. Ill. filed Apr. 12, 2017); ACLU of Florida v. DHS, et al., No. 17-cv-21382 (S.D. Fla. filed Apr. 12, 2017); ACLU of Maine, et al. v. CBP, et al., No. 17-cv-132 (D. Me. filed Apr. 12, 2017); ACLU of Washington, et al. v. DHS, et al., No. 17-cv-562 (W.D. Wash. filed Apr. 12, 2017); ACLU of Arizona v. DHS, et al., No. 17-cv-1083 (D. Ariz. filed Apr. 12, 2017); ACLU of Southern California, et al. v. DHS, et al., No. 17-cv-2778 (C.D. Cal. filed Apr. 12, 2017); ACLU of Oregon, et al. v. DHS, et al., No. 17-cv-575 (D. Or. filed Apr. 12, 2017); ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Cnties. v. DHS, et al., No. 17-cv-733 (S.D. Cal. filed Apr. 12, 2017); ACLU Found. of Texas, Inc. v. CBP, et al., No. 17-cv-1128 (S.D. Tex. filed Apr. 12, 2017); ACLU of Michigan v. DHS, et al., No. 17-cv-11149 (E.D. Mich. filed Apr. 12, 2017).
On May 8, 2017, Defendants filed a motion with the JPML pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to transfer all of the ACLU affiliates’ pending FOIA cases relating to Executive Order 13769 to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Copies of Defendants’ transfer motion, the supporting memorandum, and the schedule of related actions have been served on the Clerk of this Court and are attached as exhibits to the Notice filed with this Court by Defendants on May 8, 2017. As explained more fully in Defendants’ memorandum in support of their transfer motion, the JPML previously has centralized multidistrict FOIA litigation in substantially similar circumstances, and transfer is likely here.
Although the JPML has not yet scheduled a hearing on Defendants’ transfer motion, Defendants anticipate that the JPML will hear argument on the motion on July 27, 2017, and rule
2

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 23-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:158
on the motion shortly thereafter. Defendants respectfully request that the Court temporarily stay proceedings in this action
while the JPML considers Defendants’ motion to coordinate the handling of these cases. This brief stay would relieve the parties and the judiciary of the burdens associated with duplicative pretrial proceedings in thirteen separate cases that raise identical or highly related issues, would prevent conflicting pretrial rulings, and would not prejudice Plaintiffs in this action. Courts typically impose stays while motions are pending before the JPML, Good v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 5 F. Supp. 2d 804, 809 (N.D. Cal. 1998), and for the reasons set forth, it is appropriate for this Court to do so here as well.
ARGUMENT It is axiomatic that “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). Courts routinely exercise their power to stay proceedings pending a decision on a motion before the JPML to transfer cases for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. See Virginia ex rel. Integra Rec LLC v. Countrywide Sec. Corp., No. 3:14CV706, 2015 WL 222312, at *3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 14, 2015) (“Courts frequently grant stays while awaiting a JPML decision about the inclusion of a pending case into an MDL . . . .”); Kennedy v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., No. 022331, 2002 WL 31051601, at *1 (E.D. La. Sept. 12, 2002) (“[I]nterests of judicial economy will best be served by temporary stay [of] proceedings pending a [JPML] ruling . . . .”); Good, 5 F. Supp. 2d at 809 (courts “frequently grant stays pending a decision by the [JPML]”); Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1362 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (“[A] majority of courts have concluded that it is often appropriate to stay preliminary pretrial proceedings while a motion to
3

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 23-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:159
transfer and consolidate is pending with the [JPML].”); see also David F. Herr, “Multidistrict Litigation Manual: Practicing Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation” § 3:15 at 32 (“District courts . . . readily stay[] proceedings pending a Panel decision.”).
Courts look to several factors when determining whether to issue a stay of proceedings pending the JPML’s decision, including whether judicial economy would be served by avoiding duplicative litigation, the burden on the moving party if the action is not stayed, and any potential prejudice to the non-moving party. See Paul v. Aviva Life & Ann. Co., No. 09-1038, 2009 WL 2244766, at *1 (N.D. Ill. July 27, 2009); see also Douglas v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 13-cv-2331, 2013 WL 4013901, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2013); Rivers, 980 F. Supp. at 1360. A stay of proceedings, for the sole purpose and duration necessary for the JPML to decide Defendants’ motion, satisfies each of these factors.
A. Judicial Economy Requires a Stay Pending a Decision by the JPML Staying the proceedings in this action would further judicial economy by avoiding the need for multiple courts to deal with the same or similar pretrial issues. Courts typically grant temporary stays pending motions to transfer to the JPML where, like here, doing so would relieve the parties and the courts from engaging in simultaneous and duplicative pretrial proceedings. See Freitas v. McKesson Corp., No. C 11-05967, 2012 WL 161211, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2012) (“[G]ranting a stay in this case would prevent the Court from needlessly duplicating work that will be done by the MDL transferee court . . . .”); Naegele v. Albers, 355 F. Supp. 2d 129, 141 (D.D.C. 2005) (stating that “litigating essentially the same issues in two separate forums is not in the interest of judicial economy or in the parties’ best interests”). The thirteen related cases involve parallel FOIA requests, each of which seeks disclosure of similar or identical categories of records related to the implementation of Executive Order
4

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 23-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:160
13769 from different CBP field offices. To ensure consistency in responding to the ACLU affiliates’ FOIA requests, CBP’s headquarters in Washington, DC is coordinating the agency’s search for records responsive to all of the requests at issue in the related actions, as well as its processing of responsive records for potential release. Absent a stay, Plaintiffs may ask the Court to set a schedule for Defendants’ search for, and potential release of, responsive information. Particularly because the ACLU affiliates have been coordinating their handling of these lawsuits, any pretrial proceedings regarding the production schedule would likely duplicate those before other courts in the related actions, and, if the JPML grants Defendants’ motion to transfer, any ruling by the Court could ultimately be vitiated by the transferee court.
Given the early stage of the case and the status of Defendants’ processing of the ACLU affiliates’ FOIA requests, it is unlikely that any issues regarding the adequacy of CBP’s search, the appropriateness of CBP’s withholding of responsive information pursuant to the FOIA’s statutory exemptions, or the need for discovery will ripen for the Court’s consideration before the JMPL rules on Defendants’ transfer motion. Nevertheless, were any of these issues to arise, they would substantially overlap in each of the related actions. In a typical FOIA action, the defendant agency establishes its compliance with the requirements of the FOIA through declarations that set forth the procedures the agency followed in conducting its search and the basses for withholding responsive records. See, e.g., Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 126 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (per curiam). And although discovery is rare in FOIA cases, even when granted, it “is generally limited to the scope of the agency’s search and its indexing and classification procedures.” Heily v. Dep’t of Commerce, 69 F. App’x 171, 174 (4th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Thus, because CBP headquarters is coordinating the responses to the ACLU affiliates’ FOIA requests, any pretrial proceedings that could arise in this Court regarding the adequacy of the
5

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 23-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:161
agency’s searches, the application of the FOIA’s statutory exemptions, or requests for discovery would be duplicative in each of the related actions. A temporary stay would avoid this needless use of judicial resources.
B. A Stay Is Necessary to Avoid Hardship to Defendants Moving forward with the proceedings in this case would not only frustrate judicial economy, it would also prejudice Defendants. Defendants would be required to engage in simultaneous and duplicative pretrial practice, including responding to thirteen separate complaints that are materially identical. See Bd. of Trustees of Teachers’ Retirement Sys. of Illinois v. Worldcom, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 2d 900, 905 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (“[L]itigating essentially the same claims in courts all over the country is no doubt burdensome.”); see also Wilbanks v. Merck & Co., No. 05-1241, 2005 WL 2234071, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 13, 2005) (granting stay and stating that “in absence of a stay, the risk to [defendant] of duplicative motions and discovery is significant”). Moreover, moving forward could also result in rulings on pretrial issues that conflict with those of other districts or of the transferee court if the JPML grants the transfer motion. See Paul, 2009 WL 2244766, at *2 (granting stay because “if the JPML grants the motion to transfer, [movant] could be potentially faced with conflicting decisions on similar pre-trial issues from this court and the transferee court”); Namovicz v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 225 F. Supp. 2d 582, 585 (D. Md. 2001) (staying proceedings pending decision by JPML to consolidate cases because it is “necessary to ensure that, in the event consolidation of all cases for pre-trial is ordered, there is consistent treatment of the numerous lawsuits”). If proceedings are stayed and the transfer motion is granted, the transferee court would be able to set an efficient pretrial process that establishes a single production schedule (if necessary), avoids duplicative work and
6

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 23-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:162
competing demands on the same agency personnel, and “conserves the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.” In re Musha Cay Litig., 330 F. Supp. 2d 1364, 1365 (J.P.M.L. 2004); see also In re Air Crash Near Kirksville, Mo., 383 F. Supp. 2d 1382, 1383 (J.P.M.L. 2005).
C. Plaintiffs Would Not Be Prejudiced by the Stay Plaintiffs would not be prejudiced by the limited stay that Defendants have requested. This action is in the early stages of litigation, and Defendants have not yet responded to the Complaint. See Davis v. Pfizer, Inc., No. C 14-1204, 2014 WL 1599005, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2014) (finding no prejudice to plaintiff where the case was in the “very early procedural stage”). Defendants anticipate that the JPML will hold argument on Defendants’ motion on July 27, 2017, and will rule on it shortly thereafter, and therefore the stay would likely be of limited duration. See Hearing Information, United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, available at http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/hearing-information. See Am. Seafood, Inc. v. Magnolia Processing, Inc., Civ. Nos. 92-1030, 92-1086, 1992 WL 102762, at *1 (E.D. Pa. May 7, 1992) (holding plaintiffs would not be prejudiced where the stay “will only be in effect until the JPML issues its decision[, and t]herefore, there will be no extended delay”). Furthermore, Defendants are still in the process of compiling records responsive to the FOIA requests in the related actions. Defendants will continue to compile and review records during the pendency of any stay. As a result, a temporary stay until the JPML renders its decision should not significantly delay the eventual release of responsive records to the public.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, this Court should grant Defendants’ request for a stay of proceedings.
7

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 23-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:163

Dated: May 12, 2017  

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
JOEL R. LEVIN Acting United States Attorney
THOMAS P. WALSH Assistant United States Attorney
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Director, Federal Programs Branch
/s/ Matthew J. Berns MATTHEW J. BERNS CHETAN A. PATIL Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel.: (202) 616-8016 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: matthew.j.berns@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

8

 
 Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 29 Filed: 05/30/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:170

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,
Defendants.

) Case No. 1:17-cv-002768 ) ) ) The Honorable Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ACLU’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS By their Motion to Stay Proceedings (the “Stay Motion” or “Mot.”), the Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) (together, the “Agencies”) ask this Court to suspend its adjudication of this straightforward Freedom of Information Act lawsuit (the “Illinois Action”) because they have moved to consolidate it with other FOIA lawsuits in Washington, D.C. (the “MDL Action”).
The MDL Action, which the Agencies initiated in lieu of answering the Complaint, is a meritless attempt to persuade a single tribunal to oversee compliance by different Agency offices with different FOIA requests filed by different ACLU affiliates seeking non-overlapping records from local custodians in different jurisdictions. It is not likely to succeed. But its merits are not before this Court, and its pendency is irrelevant to the Agencies’ well-settled burden to justify halting progress in this action. What is relevant, and dispositive, is that this is a FOIA lawsuit.
Federal courts universally recognize that delays are inherently prejudicial in FOIA cases. The statute was enacted precisely to prevent the unilateral delays the Agencies ask the Court to bless, and the Agencies do not meaningfully dispute the prejudicial impact of a stay, failing the

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 29 Filed: 05/30/17 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:171
first of three factors they must satisfy. Instead, they simply pronounce that there is no prejudice, without citing a single FOIA case, much less one in which any court has issued a stay.
The Agencies’ showings on the other factors are similarly deficient. For harm, they claim that an additional layer of bureaucracy they have elected to implement will inconvenience the cumbersome and unlawful manner in which they propose to begin complying with Plaintiffs’ FOIA request. This “harm” is not only of the Agencies’ own making, but it flatly contravenes their legal duty to process the FOIA Request in the Illinois Action (which expressly disclaims any interest in centralized records, and seeks only records housed in local offices, pertaining to local incidents and enforcement) in a manner tailored to its particular facts and circumstances.
As for judicial economy, any progress in this case will aid judicial economy, however the MDL Panel may ultimately rule. And the notion that judicial economy will be advanced by dumping non-overlapping records from jurisdictions across the country in the lap of a single MDL panel en masse, and asking that same panel to render, as it must, fact-specific determinations as to particular records, and context-specific determinations as to searches of jurisdiction-specific offices, records systems and custodians, misunderstands FOIA litigation.
Plainly put, this Court should neither excuse the Agencies from their obligations in this case, nor cease to move it forward. The Stay Motion should be denied.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. The Freedom of Information Act
FOIA was enacted to prevent federal agencies from unilaterally determining how to comply with requests for public records. “Congress intentionally set harsh time limits for agencies to respond to FOIA requests because it recognized that information is often useful only if it is timely.” Gilmore v. Dep’t of Energy, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 1189 (N.D. Cal. 1998). Agencies must respond to FOIA requests within 20 days, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i), and FOIA
-2-

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 29 Filed: 05/30/17 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:172
creates an enforceable right to expedited disclosure where, as here, a request seeks records of heightened public interest. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II). Congress has repeatedly narrowed the circumstances under which agencies may lawfully extend statutory time limitations, and courts routinely deny stays requested by agencies seeking to suspend those deadlines. Donham v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 192 F. Supp. 2d 877, 882 (S.D. Ill. 2002) (agency backlogs do not justify stays or suspend expedited processing; reviewing cases).
To prevent lax case management from undermining these provisions, FOIA requires courts to minimize delays in adjudicating FOIA disputes. See, e.g., Ferguson v. FBI, 722 F. Supp. 1137, 1144 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (“Prompt review . . . is critical to FOIA users and to the purposes of the Act”). FOIA halves the answer deadline the United States ordinarily enjoys to 30 days, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(C), and in the Priorities Act, Congress required courts to expedite deadlines and the processing of responsive records in FOIA actions where the FOIA claims are non-frivolous and involve time-sensitive records. 28 U.S.C. § 1657(a); Ferguson, 722 F. Supp. at 1144; Freedom Commc’ns Inc. v. FDIC, 157 F.R.D. 485, 486 (C.D. Cal. 1994) (The “special designation makes FOIA actions first among equals.”); see also H.R. Rep. 98-985, 4, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5779, 5782-84 (expedited treatment is necessary where “there is a special public or private interest in expeditious treatment of their case” or where “failure to expedite would result in mootness or deprive the relief requested of much of its value”).
FOIA also constrains agency discretion in deciding how to search for responsive records, requiring agencies to tailor searches for responsive records to the facts and circumstances of particular FOIA requests, a “context-dependent standard” subject to challenge and judicial supervision. Rubman v. U.S. Citizenship & Imm. Serv’s, 800 F.3d 381, 387 (7th Cir. 2015).
-3-

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 29 Filed: 05/30/17 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:173
B. The Illinois Request On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order entitled “Protecting the
Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” which halted refugee admissions and barred entrants from a number of predominantly Muslim countries from the United States. See Complaint (Dkt. 1) at ¶¶ 2-4. News reports described Defendants’ implementation of the Executive Order as “chaotic” and “total[ly] lack[ing] . . . clarity and direction,” particularly at O’Hare, and both Illinois Senators Durbin and Duckworth called for a formal inquiry.1
Accordingly, on February 2, 2017, ACLU affiliates in the central Midwest submitted a FOIA request seeking purely local records related to CBP’s local interpretation and enforcement of the Executive Order at O’Hare International Airport, and other regional airports and ports of entry. Compl. ¶¶ 24-25 & Ex. A (the “Illinois Request”) at 4-5. The Illinois Request expressly excluded records centrally maintained at the Agencies’ headquarters. Id. ¶ 21 & Ex. A at 7. In light of the intense public controversy over the Executive Order and its problematic implementation, the Illinois Request sought expedited processing. Compl., ¶ 27 & Ex. A at 8.
The Agencies neither responded, nor addressed expedited processing. Compl. ¶¶ 37-47. C. The Illinois Action
To enforce its right to timely compliance with the Illinois Request, the ACLU filed the Illinois Action on April 12, 2017. On that date, ACLU affiliates in other regions of the country filed lawsuits seeking different, and purely local, records pertaining to the implementation of the Executive Order (the “Local Lawsuits”).2 See Dkt. 22-2 (listing the Local Lawsuits).
1See, e.g., Ryan Devereaux et al., Homeland Security Inspector General Opens Investigation of Muslim Ban Rollout, Orders Document Preservation (THE INTERCEPT, Feb. 1, 2017), available at https://theintercept.com/2017/02/01/homeland-security-inspector-general-opens-investigation-of-muslimban-rollout-orders-document-preservation/. 2 The insular nature of the Local Lawsuits is described more fully in the joint Opposition to the MDL Motion, a true and correct copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit A.
-4-

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 29 Filed: 05/30/17 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:174
D. The Agencies’ Motion to Consolidate The Agencies elected not to file a responsive pleading in the Illinois Action. Instead, the
Agencies commenced a separate action on May 8, 2017, a week before its answer deadline, before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “MDL Panel”), and filed an omnibus motion to transfer each of the Local Lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for consolidated pretrial proceedings. Dkt. 22.
Later that day, the Agencies informed the ACLU that it did not intend to prepare a responsive pleading in the Illinois Action, and requested the ACLU’s consent for an extension of time to answer.3 Eliding that each Local Lawsuit sought different records, maintained by different custodians in different record systems at different field offices, and arising from different incidents at the different local airports and ports of entry, the Agencies claimed that the Local Lawsuits sought “substantially identical categories of records from various CBP offices” and indicated that they would seek entry of a stay over the ACLU’s objection. The ACLU consented to an extension of time for the Agencies to Answer, but declined to consent to a stay,4 and on May 15, 2015, the Agencies’ Answer deadline was extended to June 29, 2017. Dkt. 25. E. The Belated Acknowledgment of the Illinois Request
By letter dated May 26, 2017, two weeks after the Agencies moved to stay this suit, DHS purported to respond to the Illinois Request and all of the FOIA requests at issue in the Local Lawsuits (the “Omnibus Response”).5 In that letter, DHS claimed that the FOIA requests at issue in the Illinois Action and the Local Lawsuits “seek the same or substantially the same categories of information,” and unilaterally stated that it would not tailor its searches to the circumstances of the local requests. Omnibus Resp. at 3 (“A single search for records responsive
3 A true and correct copy of that correspondence is appended hereto as Exhibit B. 4 A true and correct copy of that correspondence is appended hereto as Exhibit C. 5 A true and correct copy of that correspondence is appended hereto as Exhibit D.
-5-

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 29 Filed: 05/30/17 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:175
to the Coordinated Requests will be coordinated by CBP Headquarters.”). The Omnibus Response belatedly “granted” the ACLU’s request for expedited processing, but stated that a FOIA backlog would cause further delay. Omnibus Response at pp. 3-4.
ARGUMENT The Agencies have not met their burden to justify a stay, nor can they. Under well-settled provisions of FOIA of which the Agencies make no mention, further delays in the adjudication of their continuing noncompliance with the Illinois Request will further prejudice the public’s right of timely access to critical information about a rapidly evolving controversy. Contrary to the Agencies’ suggestion, “[t]he pendency before the JPML of a motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 does not . . . automatically entitle a party to a stay of a case as to which transfer is sought . . . . [and the] Court’s ‘jurisdiction continues until any transfer ruling by the Panel becomes effective.’” Terkel v. AT&T Inc., No. 06 C 2680, 2006 WL 1663456, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 9, 2006). Rather, the Agencies bear the burden of establishing why halting the progress of this straightforward FOIA lawsuit is necessary, Koyo Battery Co. v. Lunkes, 2008 WL 5155724, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2008), and showing that (1) the prejudice to the ACLU from a stay is outweighed by (2) hardship or inequity to the Agencies, and that “judicial economy favors a stay. Terkel, 2006 WL 1663456, at *1. None of these burdens are met. I. A Stay Prejudices The ACLU’s Rights Of Timely Access To Public Records And Prompt Adjudication Of The Agencies’ Noncompliance With FOIA. Pronouncing that “Plaintiffs would not be prejudiced by the limited stay that Defendants have requested” (Mot. 7), the Agencies fail to cite a single FOIA case.6 That is no surprise, because the requested stay inherently prejudices the rights that FOIA guarantees. Ferguson v.
6 See Mot. 7 (citing Davis v. Pfizer, Inc., 2014 WL 1599005, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2014) (products liability action) and American Seafood, Inc. v. Magnolia Processing, Inc., 1992 WL 102762, at *1 (E.D. Pa. May 7, 1992) (antitrust lawsuit against catfish producer)).
-6-

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 29 Filed: 05/30/17 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:176
FBI, 722 F. Supp. 1137, 1144 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (“Prompt review of decisions denying access to government information is critical to FOIA users and to the purposes of the Act.”); see also H.R. Rep. 98-985, 5-6, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5779, 5783-84 (“the value of disclosed information is transitory. If this information is not released in a timely manner, it may be of no value at all.”). As Congress recognized in the Priorities Act, which specifically references FOIA, delayed adjudication of FOIA disputes prejudices the interests it protects. 28 U.S.C. § 1657(a). And courts recognize their duty to ensure that requests for dilatory case management do not vitiate the very rights FOIA guarantees. Long v. IRS, 693 F.2d 907, 910 (9th Cir. 1982) (“[U]nreasonable delays in disclosing non-exempt documents violate the intent and purpose of the FOIA, and the courts have a duty to prevent these abuses.”).
Prejudice to ACLU’s right of prompt compliance is particularly severe in this case because the withheld records are central to a roiling public debate over the Executive Order. Repeatedly held unconstitutional, the Executive Order and its successor are the subject of several pending lawsuits,7 and the Attorney General has promised to appeal the latest affirmance of its unconstitutionality before the Supreme Court. As in other cases involving “great public and media attention” to controversial actions of government, the public’s interest in transparency here is particularly vulnerable to delays. EPIC v. DOJ, 416 F. Supp. 2d 30, 42 (D.D.C. 2006); see also ACLU v. DOD, 2006 WL 1469418, at *7-8 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2006) (“Getting the requested information quickly might be valuable to would-be protesters and opposition groups” to “help them decide how to express their political viewpoints”); Gerstein v. CIA, 2006 WL
7 See State of Washington v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR (filed Jan. 30, 2017); Ali v. Trump, No. 2:17cv-00135-JLR (filed Jan. 30, 2017); Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178-JLR (filed Feb. 7, 2017). Underscoring the public interest in this matter, the Ninth Circuit’s February 7, 2017 oral argument in State of Washington v. Trump has drawn more than 140,000 views on YouTube. See U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 17-35105, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPOFowWqFGU.
-7-

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 29 Filed: 05/30/17 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:177
3462658, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2005) (requiring expedited processing about “an issue that is not only newsworthy, but was the subject of an ongoing national debate”).
The Agencies do not refute the continuing harm caused by their noncompliance. Instead, they suggest it should be excused as de minimus because they “anticipate” that the MDL Panel will hold argument on their Motion to Consolidate at the end of July, and, expecting a quick ruling, claim that the stay “would likely be of limited duration.” Mot. 7. But as the Seventh Circuit has observed in a similar context, “[t]o delay or postpone disclosure undermines the benefit of public scrutiny and may have the same result as complete suppression.” Grove Fresh Distributors, Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893, 897 (7th Cir. 1994). Even a limited delay does not excuse the prejudice to the public’s right to improperly withheld information, especially where, as here, the legal and policy disputes over the Executive Order have rapidly evolved even in the four months since the Illinois Request was submitted. Rather, where access to information is unlawfully restricted, “each passing day” works irreparable harm to the public conversation that relies on it, as “suppressed information grows older” and “[o]ther events crowd upon it.” Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 423 U.S. 1327, 1329 (1975) (“Delay itself is a final decision.”).
Tellingly, the Agencies assert that a stay will be inconsequential because they claim they will now begin complying with FOIA. Mot. 7. But FOIA was enacted to guarantee the very judicial accountability that the Agencies ask this Court to suspend, and to supersede the status quo ante, in which agencies enjoyed the unsupervised discretion to comply with records requests that the Agencies ask this Court to reinstate. Hamlin v. Kelley, 433 F. Supp. 180, 182 (N.D. Ill. 1977) (“Congress established strict time limits to prevent the present practices of defendants, and it is Congress’ decision in law and not the agencies in delay which governs this case.”).
To stay proceedings would obviate the most essential right FOIA provides -- the right to obtain and enforce compliance with its procedural and substantive provisions in court. Indeed,
-8-

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 29 Filed: 05/30/17 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:178
the Agencies concede that they seek a stay to obtain a period of unfettered discretion in belatedly processing the Illinois Request, because the ACLU “may ask the court to set a schedule for Defendants’ search for, and potential release of, responsive information.” Mot. 5. But that is precisely the point of FOIA, which entitles a requestor to judicial supervision of prompt and remedial compliance. The rights a FOIA litigant enjoys once agency noncompliance gives it standing to sue, which include seeking appropriate case management orders, obtaining adequate searches, and enforcing expeditious processing of responsive records, are precisely the rights a stay would prejudice. See, e.g., Edmonds v. FBI, 417 F.3d 1319, 1323 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (expedited processing “is a statutory right, not just a matter of court procedure.”). II. The Agencies Will Not Suffer Any Hardship
By contrast, the only “harm” the Agencies invoke is both self-inflicted and illusory. The Agencies have improperly8 elected to conduct a single, centralized search of records, and on that basis, they claim that they will be inconvenienced by unspecified pretrial proceedings relating to that centralized search in multiple jurisdictions before the MDL Motion is inevitably granted.
As an initial matter, the MDL Motion does not excuse the Agencies from proving to this court that this lawsuit should be stayed. Terkel, 2006 WL 1663456, at *1. It “does not affect or suspend orders and pretrial proceedings in any pending federal district court action and does not limit the pretrial jurisdiction of that court.” MDL Rule 2.1(d). And courts do not simply rubberstamp motions to stay MDL proceedings as a matter of course; denials are legion. See e.g., Sehler v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, 2013 WL 5184216, at *3 (E.D. Va. Sept. 16, 2013); Sullivan v. Cottrell, Inc., 2012 WL 694825, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 29, 2012); St. Joe Co. v. Transocean
8 Delayed, post-suit referral is improper. See Keys v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 570 F. Supp. 2d 59, 70 (D.D.C. 2008) (referral was not prompt and significantly delayed resolution of FOIA request); McGehee v. CIA, 697 F.2d 1095, 1110 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (“when an agency receives a FOIA request for “agency records” in its possession, it must take responsibility for processing the request”); Paisley v. CIA, 712 F.2d 686, 691 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (directing agency to justify withholding of improperly referred records).
-9-

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 29 Filed: 05/30/17 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:179
Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., 774 F. Supp. 2d 596, 601 (D. Del. 2011); Barber v. BP, PLC, 2010 WL 2266760, at *2 (S.D. Ala. June 4, 2010). Indeed, by citing exclusively non-FOIA cases without providing a single instance in which a stay was granted in a FOIA suit, the Agencies reinforce the inappropriateness of such a measure here.
In any event, the Agencies make little effort to demonstrate any cognizable harm, much less establish “a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936). They identify no real hardship they would suffer absent the proposed blanket stay, other than having to defend this action on a normal schedule. See Mot. at 6-7. Instead, the Agencies speculate that “moving forward could also result” in conflicting rulings on pre-trial issues. Id. at 6 (emphasis added). But they do not identify these potential conflicts, or explain why they are imminent absent a stay. They simply assert that they are also litigating requests for “identical or similar categories of records” from requesters other than Plaintiffs, id. at 1 (emphasis added) -- ignoring that the legal issues will not be determined by the categories of records, but location- and fact-specific questions about the non-overlapping records themselves, which the Agencies will bear the burden to establish, on a document-bydocument basis, fall within FOIA’s exemptions. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(b); U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165, 180-181 (1993). Although it is impossible to know whether the Agencies will raise the same claimed exemptions in response to the Illinois Request as in others, the application of those exemptions to the particular facts and specific documents at issue will necessarily be factually distinct.
Likewise, the Agencies aver that a stay would avoid “competing demands on the same agency personnel.” Yet, if that is so, then they are processing the Illinois Request in violation of FOIA, because the persons capable of providing the direct knowledge reasonably calculated to return responsive records are personnel in the local field offices. Indeed, CBP’s own regulations
- 10 -

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 29 Filed: 05/30/17 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:180
require FOIA requesters who seek records from CBP field offices to serve their FOIA request on the field office itself, not CBP headquarters, and require CBP officers to attempt to locate any such local records upon receipt of a request. 19 C.F.R. § 103.5(d)(2), (g).
In any event, these conclusory averments cannot justify imposition of a stay. E.g. Ramos v. Capital One, 2017 WL 895635, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2017) (“Aside from conclusory assertions, Defendants have not provided any detail as to why simultaneous litigation of this case and [another] case that have substantial overlap in their factual and legal issues would cause a significant burden.”); In re Maxwell Techs., Inc., 2014 WL 2919297, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2014) (denying stay because moving party’s claim of hardship was “speculative”).
At bottom, the “harm” the Agencies profess is nothing more than the compliance FOIA requires of the Agencies in the ordinary course of FOIA litigation; their forecasted inconveniences are illusory and premature. Barber, 2010 WL 2266760, at *2 (denying “premature” motion to stay where “the only tangible effect of entering a stay at this time would be to allow defendants a three-month reprieve after service of process before being required to answer the allegations brought by plaintiffs in the Complaint.”). Here, as in Barber, “[s]uch a protracted delay appears both unnecessary and unwarranted,” and “there is no reason in the world why defendants cannot file responsive pleadings prior to the MDL’s determination on the pending transfer and consolidation issues,” because “[r]egardless of whether and where the MDL Panel ultimately transfers this action for consolidated and coordinated pretrial proceedings, defendants will need to file answers or responsive pleadings.” Id. III. A Stay Will Not Significantly Promote Judicial Economy
Judicial economy only favors a stay where “adjudication of the claim would be a waste of judicial effort.” 555 M Mfg., Inc. v. Calvin Klein, Inc., 13 F. Supp. 2d 719, 724 (N.D. Ill. 1998). Whichever tribunal ultimately supervises the Illinois Action, the Agencies will have to answer
- 11 -

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 29 Filed: 05/30/17 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:181
the Complaint, conduct adequate and site-specific searches, and attempt to justify nondisclosure
of non-overlapping, local records. Judicial economy is not advanced by suspending judicial
responsibilities, like FOIA’ various requirements that promote prompt disposition; it is advanced
by avoiding inefficiencies in performing them. Adjudicating such questions as may arise in the
pendency of the MDL Motion is not wasteful; it is necessary and required by FOIA.
Here again, the Agencies’ decision to “coordinat[e] [CBP’s] search for records
responsive to all of the requests” from “CBP’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.,” does not
improve judicial efficiency, it impairs it. Mot. at 5. Unlike the only two FOIA cases the
Agencies cite in their Motion to Consolidate, the FOIA requests at issue here and in the Local
Lawsuits did not seek agency-wide records, they sought non-overlapping locally maintained records.9 And unlike all of the non-FOIA cases the Agencies cite in their Motion to Stay, this
FOIA lawsuit presents seeks highly differentiated, fact-specific, and local-context-driven relief from the Local Lawsuits.10
Accordingly, even if the MDL Motion is granted, each ACLU affiliate in each Local
Lawsuit will be forced to unwind the Agencies’ improperly centralized search protocol under the
facts and circumstances of the local incidents and implementation sought by their non-
overlapping requests. For example, records pertaining to the following unique incidents would be
within the ambit of the Illinois Request:
9 See Dkt. 22-1 at 2 (citing In re Freedom Magazine/IRS FOIA Litig., No. 910 (J.P.M.L Feb. 12 1992); In re Church of Scientology Flag Serv. Org./IRS FOIA Litig., No. 892 (J.P.M.L. Sept. 4, 1991)); see also Ex. A at 11-12 (describing the inapposite nature of the Scientology cases, the only two instances in the history of FOIA that the MDL Panel has granted a motion to consolidate FOIA lawsuits). 10 See Wilbanks v. Merck & Co., Inc., 2005 WL 2234071, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 13, 2005) (cases raising similar jurisdictional issue had already been consolidated and “hundreds, possibly thousands, of others” were transferred or “awaiting transfer in other districts”); C.A. v. Pfizer, Inc., 2013 WL 6091766, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2013) (involving “cases previously transferred” to MDL panel); Namovicz v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 225 F. Supp. 2d 582, 583 n.2 (D. Md. 2001) (cases “filed on identical grounds seeking the same relief”); In re Mush Cay Litigation, 330 F. Supp. 2d 1364, 1365 (J.P.M.L. 2004) (cases arising “from the same underlying commercial transaction,” not addressing stay); In re Air Crash Near Kirksville, Missouri, 383 F. Supp. 2d 1382, 1383 (J.P.M.L. 2005) (same).
- 12 -

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 29 Filed: 05/30/17 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:182
1. The detention of at least 17 travelers, including lawful permanent residents, at O’Hare on January 28, 2017.11
2. The detention of persons with health conditions and the denial of access to medication at O’Hare.12
3. The detention of a woman of Syrian origin who flew from Saudia Arabia to O’Hare to visit her sick mother.13
4. The hundreds of protestors who gathered at O’Hare’s Terminal 5 to protest the Executive Order. 14
5. An elderly couple of Iranian origin who were lawful permanent residents of the United States and were returning to the United States from a visit to Iran, and interactions between ACLU lawyers and CBP officers who refused to confirm or deny that the couple was being held.
6. The communications breakdown in the CBP Chicago Field Office, which stopped answering telephone calls from attorneys and the public.
Unpacking the adequacy of a single, centralized search to capture these types of incidents, and
all of the unique incidents that transpired at the field offices and airports separately at issue in the
Local Lawsuits, will not be efficiently done by a single tribunal, and would be more efficiently
supervised as the Illinois Request and the other FOIA requests were filed -- on a jurisdiction-by-
jurisdiction basis, where the same local custodians and records systems, and the same incidents
and implementations, can be addressed in an efficient and focused manner. To the extent that
progress can be made in the months pending the MDL Panel’s ruling, it should not be stayed.
11 Grace Wong and Stacy St. Clair, Fear, anger at O’Hare: Travelers freed after being held over Trump order, lawyers say (Chicago Tribune, January 28, 2017), available at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-several-reportedly-detained-at-o-hareinternational-airport-20170128-story.html; Shannon Antinori, Muslim-Ban Detainees at O’Hare Released (Chicago Patch, January 29, 2017), available at https://patch.com/illinois/chicago/demonstratorsprotesting-ohare-over-trump-muslim-ban. 12 Emily Donovan, Terminal is just the start, lawyers vow (Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Jan. 31, 2017), available at http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/Archives/2017/01/31/Lawyers-immigrant-ban-1-3117.aspx; Anna Silman, These Are the Attorneys Fighting Trump’s Immigration Ban at Airports Around the Country (New York Magazine, Jan. 31, 2017), available at http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/01/thewomen-fighting-trumps-immigration-ban.html. 13 Christopher Mathias, American Just Sent Back a Syrian Woman Trying to Visit Her Sick Mother (Huffington Post, Jan. 28, 2017), available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syrian-woman-sickmother-muslim-ban_us_588cdcfce4b017637794a715. 14 See Alex Nitkin, Activists, Aldermen Pack O’Hare For ‘Emergency Protest’ Of Travel Ban (DNAInfo, Jan. 28, 2017), available at https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170128/ohare/activists-alderman-planemergency-protest-of-muslim-ban-at-ohare.
- 13 -

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 29 Filed: 05/30/17 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:183

Moreover, appropriate judicial efficiencies can be achieved by coordination, without

entry of a stay or consolidation before the MDL Panel. For example, in the wave of FOIA

litigation over Hillary Clinton’s emails, the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court in the District

of Columbia emphasized the value of informal coordination in the ordinary course of case

management, and rejected a motion to join FOIA lawsuits that presented similar issues. Order, In

Re: U.S. Department of State FOIA Litigation Regarding Emails of Certain Former Officials, No. 15-1188, ECF No. 41 at 2 (D.D.C. Oct. 8, 2015).15 Given the targeted local nature of the

Illinois Request, material duplication of effort by any of the parties or the various federal courts

is highly unlikely, but the ACLU is committed to collaborating and cooperating with the

Agencies and the Plaintiffs in the Local Lawsuits to avoid any inefficiencies. That coordination,

however, can and should be effected by appropriate case management in this action, not by

staying it wholesale.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the Agencies’ Motion.

DATED this 30 day of May, 2017.

Respectfully submitted,
_s/ Patrick S. Kabat _ Natalie J. Spears Gregory R. Naron Patrick S. Kabat Kathleen V. Kinsella DENTONS US LLP 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 876-8000 natalie.spears@dentons.com gregory.naron@dentons.com patrick.kabat@dentons.com kathleen.kinsella@dentons.com

15 A true and correct copy of this Order is appended hereto as Exhibit E. - 14 -

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 29 Filed: 05/30/17 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:184
REBECCA K. GLENBERG Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc. 180 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 201-9740 rglenberg@aclu-il.org FREDA J. LEVENSON ACLU of Ohio Foundation, Inc. 4506 Chester Avenue Cleveland, OH 44103 (216) 472-2205 flevenson@acluohio.org AMY A. MILLER ACLU of Nebraska, Inc. 134 S. 13th St. #1010 Lincoln NE 68508 402-476-8091 ext. 106 amiller@aclunebraska.org ANTHONY E. ROTHERT ACLU of Missouri Foundation 906 Olive Street, suite 1130 St. Louis, Missouri 63101 arothert@aclu-mo.org WILLIAM E. SHARP ACLU of Kentucky 315 Guthrie Street, Suite 300 Louisville, KY 40202 (502) 581-9746 sharp@aclu-ky.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs
- 15 -

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 29 Filed: 05/30/17 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:185
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 30, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing ACLU’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all attorneys of record.
/s/ Patrick S. Kabat

 
 Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 34 Filed: 06/07/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:383

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

) )

No. 17 C 2768

) )

Judge Dow

)

)

)

)

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
PENDING DECISION ON MOTION TO TRANSFER

In their Motion to stay the proceedings, Defendants requested that this Court impose a

brief stay of the proceedings—likely only for a matter of weeks—while their motion to transfer

this and twelve other related actions filed by ACLU affiliates is pending before the Judicial Panel

on Multidistrict Litigation. As Defendants have explained, a temporary stay of proceedings until

the JPML can decide Defendants’ motion to transfer serves the interests of judicial economy and

avoids any significant burden to either party. The JPML is likely to hear and decide the transfer

motion only a few weeks after the first deadline in this case. Any stay of this duration would

have no effect on the timing of Defendants’ release of responsive records, and thus Plaintiffs will

suffer no prejudice. Moreover, the strategic behavior of Plaintiffs and the other ACLU affiliates

in bringing the related actions as thirteen separate, but admittedly “coordinated” lawsuits

concerning parallel FOIA requests for identical or nearly identical categories of records, see

Transfer Mot. at 4-7 (ECF No. 19-3), clearly imposes a burden on Defendants from having to

engage in duplicative proceedings in thirteen courts. And Plaintiffs have not explained why this

1

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 34 Filed: 06/07/17 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:384
Court should now expend its resources on pretrial proceedings—including status reports,
scheduling conferences, and possible discovery—when those issues would duplicate those in the
twelve other related actions and would need to be re-litigated before the transferee court.
Stays pending a JPML motion, while not automatic, are routine. See, e.g., Defs.’ Mem. at
3-4 (ECF No. 23-1) (collecting authorities); see also, e.g., San Diego Unified Port Dist. v.
Monsanto Co., No. 15-cv-00578-WQH-JLB, 2016 WL 4496826, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2016)
(“majority of courts have concluded that it is often appropriate to stay preliminary pretrial
proceedings”); Automated Transactions, LLC v. Bath Sav. Inst., No. 2:12-cv-393-JAW, 2013
WL 1346470, at *2 (D. Me. Mar. 14, 2013) (courts grant stays “frequently”); Bonenfant v. R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 07-60301-CIV, 2007 WL 2409980, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2007) (granting stays is “common practice”).1 Contrary to Plaintiffs’ suggestion, there is no exception
to the typical practice when the government seeks transfer of FOIA cases. Indeed, as discussed
below, stays pending a decision of the JPML have been granted in numerous FOIA cases. In
light of the, burden that a piecemeal approach imposes on the government and the Court, the
ACLU affiliates’ strategic approach to the litigation, and the limited duration of any potential
stay here, this Court should grant Defendants’ request for a temporary stay.
1 Plaintiffs erroneously suggest that “denials [of stays pending a JPML decision] are legion.” Pls.’ Opp’n at 9. The cases they cite for this proposition are easily distinguishable, and, in any event, are against the clear weight of authority recognizing that stays in this context are routine. See Sehler v. Prospect Mortg., LLC, No. 1:13cv473(JCC/TRJ), 2013 WL 5184216, at *3 (E.D. Va. Sept. 16, 2013) (denying stay where defendant agreed to decertification of class before moving for consolidation before the JPML and where stay would have delayed case by four to six months, during which time trial would occur); Sullivan v. Cottrell, Inc., No. 11CV1076S, 2012 WL 694825, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 29, 2012) (holding that stay was not warranted where motion to remand raised issues regarding court’s jurisdiction and where court could decide remand motion and motion to dismiss before the JPML heard transfer motion); St. Joe Co. v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., 774 F. Supp. 2d 596, 600-02 (D. Del. 2011) (denying stay where motion to remand was fully briefed by parties and was granted by court in same opinion as stay motion); Barber v. BP, PLC, No. 10-0263-WS-B, 2010 WL 2266760, at *2 (S.D. Ala. June 4, 2010) (denying stay motion in putative class action where district court had previously denied 23 “substantively identical motions to stay” proceedings).
2

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 34 Filed: 06/07/17 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:385
I. PLAINTIFFS WILL NOT SUFFER HARDSHIP FROM A TEMPORARY STAY Plaintiffs do not dispute that this case is in the early stages of litigation and that any stay
would likely be of a brief duration—likely a matter of weeks, not months. Courts have readily found that plaintiffs suffer no prejudice in similar circumstances. See Defs.’ Mem. at 6.
Instead, Plaintiffs argue that FOIA is different, and that “the requested stay inherently prejudices the rights that FOIA guarantees” by delaying the release of responsive, non-exempt records by Defendants. Pls.’ Opp’n at 6-8 (ECF No. 29). Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, there is no reason that stays pending JPML decisions should be treated differently in the context of a FOIA case. Defendants are aware of two instances in which the government sought centralization of FOIA actions by the JPML. See Transfer Mot. at 9-10. In both, transferor courts granted motions to stay the proceedings pending the JPML’s decision, and Defendants are not aware of any transferor court in these actions that denied a stay motion. See, e.g., Freedom Magazine v. IRS, No. 91-cv-6813 (S.D. Fla.) (ECF No. 10); Freedom Magazine v. IRS, No. 91cv-2921 (D. Md.) (ECF No. 6); Freedom Magazine v. IRS, No. 91-cv-12598 (D. Mass.) (ECF entry Feb. 7, 1992); Freedom Magazine v. IRS, No. 91-cv-704 (S.D. Ohio) (ECF No. 6); Bach v. IRS, No. 91-cv-20184 (N.D. Cal.) (ECF No. 13); Chandler v. IRS, No. 91-cv-20183 (N.D. Cal.) (ECF No. 15); Kimmich v. IRS, No. 91-cv-20182 (N.D. Cal.) (ECF No. 13); Licciardi v. IRS, No. 91-cv-148 (D.N.H.) (ECF No. 5).2 Plainly, then, stays pending JPML do not “inherently prejudice[]” the right to information under FOIA.
Moreover, notwithstanding their conclusory assertions of “delay,” Pls.’ Opp’n at 8,
2 On June 6, 2017, the Western District of Washington denied Defendants’ motion to stay in one of the related actions. See Order of June 6, 2017, ACLU of Washington v. DHS, No. 17-0562 (RSL) (ECF No. 20). This Court is not bound by that decision and should decline to follow it, as it ignores many of the key considerations justifying a stay here. Contrary to that court’s decision, no delay in the production of documents will result from granting a stay because Defendants’ processing of the ACLU affiliates’ FOIA requests is ongoing and will continue with or without a stay. See infra Pt. I.
3

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 34 Filed: 06/07/17 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:386
Plaintiffs fail to explain how a temporary stay would have any effect on the timing of the release of responsive records in this case. Currently, Defendants’ response to the complaint is due June 29, 2017. (ECF No. 20.) Briefing on Defendants’ motion to transfer has already been completed, and Defendants anticipate that their motion to transfer will be heard by the JPML on July 27, 2017 and decided shortly thereafter. As Defendants explained in their Motion, even if a stay is imposed, Defendants will continue to compile and review records during the pendency of the stay. Defs.’ Mem. at 7. Indeed, as Plaintiffs acknowledge, see Pls.’ Opp’n at 6, Defendants recently granted Plaintiffs’ request for expedited treatment and have placed the coordinated requests of all the ACLU affiliates in the expedited processing queue, ahead of all non-expedited requests and later expedited requests. Thus, Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ request will proceed on the same track with or without the stay.
Further, Plaintiffs do not identify anything that will occur in this Court before the JPML’s decision that would actually hasten the release of responsive documents. Though Defendants will process Plaintiffs’ request “as soon as practicable,” 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(e)(4), there is no reason to believe—particularly in light of the substantial volume of recent FOIA requests received by Defendants and the complexity of Plaintiffs’ request—that production of all responsive records will be complete by the time the JPML decides Defendants’ transfer motion.
Finally, Plaintiffs claim that the effect of granting Defendants’ motion to stay would be to “suspend” “the very judicial accountability” established in FOIA, and “reinstate” “the status quo ante, in which agencies enjoyed the unsupervised discretion to comply with records requests.” Pls.’ Opp’n at 8. Plaintiffs’ hyperbolic description of a temporary, weeks-long stay of proceedings while the JPML considers Defendants’ motion to transfer is telling. Because, as discussed above, there would be no actual prejudice to Plaintiffs from the stay, Plaintiffs invent
4

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 34 Filed: 06/07/17 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:387
an ulterior motive for the stay and speculate that that motive is to prejudice Plaintiffs and shield records from disclosure. But Defendants do not seek “to obtain a period of unfettered discretion,” id. at 9; they merely seek to avoid the burden of simultaneously litigating thirteen parallel cases in thirteen different courts while a motion to consolidate the cases is pending. II. SIMULTANEOUS AND DUPLICATIVE PROCEEDINGS IN THIRTEEN
PARALLEL ACTIONS WILL IMPOSE AN UNNECESSARY BURDEN As Defendants explained, proceeding in this case (and the other related cases) while their motion to transfer is pending forces Defendants to engage in simultaneous proceedings in thirteen separate cases before thirteen different courts. See Defs.’ Mem. at 6-7. Plaintiffs disregard this burden as not a “real hardship” and claim that Defendants are only seeking to avoid “having to defend this action on a normal schedule.” Pls.’ Opp’n at 10. But the burden on Defendants is plain. See Virginia ex rel. Integra Rec LLC v. Countrywide Sec. Corp., No. 3:14CV706, 2015 WL 222312, at *3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 14, 2015) (noting that defendant would suffer hardship “without a stay, including their ‘need to monitor and defend cases in multiple jurisdictions, on different schedules, when the cases may be consolidated to avoid that burden’” (quoting Wood v. Johnson & Johnson, No. WDQ-12-1572, 2012 WL 3240934, at *3 (D. Md. Aug. 3, 2012))). As a direct result of the ACLU’s coordinated strategy to gerrymander these FOIA requests into thirteen separate cases, see Transfer Mot. at 48, Defendants must simultaneously answer complaints, appear in status conferences, confer with opposing counsel, and submit joint status reports in the thirteen related actions. In this action in particular, Defendants would, at a minimum, be required to respond to the complaint and confer with Plaintiffs on a discovery plan, and likely participate in a scheduling conference. This work would be duplicated in the other related actions and in the transferee court, and “litigating essentially the same claims in courts all over the country is no doubt burdensome.” Bd. of
5

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 34 Filed: 06/07/17 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:388
Trustees of Teachers’ Retirement Sys. of Illinois v. Worldcom, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 2d 900, 905 (N.D. Ill. 2002).
Further, Plaintiffs’ claim that answering the Complaint would not be wasted effort here because Defendants would need to answer the complaint regardless of the stay, Pls.’ Opp’n at 11, ignores the effect that consolidation would have on this case. If the cases are consolidated, Defendants may not need to answer thirteen individual complaints at all, because the transferee court would likely require all of the ACLU affiliate plaintiffs to file a single amended consolidated complaint, which would require only one answer. See, e.g., Manual for Complex Litigation § 20.132, at 224 n.668 (4th ed. 2004). And if the cases are transferred to Defendants’ proposed forum, this action would be exempt under the local rules from any requirement to engage in a Rule 16 conference or confer on a joint discovery plan. See Transfer Mot. at 15. Thus, absent a stay, Defendants will be required to undertake time-consuming work—in as many as thirteen separate cases—that may otherwise prove unnecessary.
Moreover, Plaintiffs do not disclaim any intent to request either discovery or a production schedule while Defendants’ transfer motion is pending. See Pls.’ Opp’n at 10. Any decision that this Court may reach on these issues clearly may conflict with those of other courts and/or the transferee court. Defs.’ Mem. at 6. Any such inconsistency would be plainly prejudicial—it would likely place competing demands on the same agency personnel responsible for processing the responses to the requests in each of the related cases. Id.3 And, if Defendants’ motion to
3 Plaintiffs dispute this, suggesting that because the ACLU affiliates’ requests only seek records from local field offices, only personnel in those field offices would be impacted. Pls.’ Opp’n at 10. But that is not true. Because CBP headquarters is coordinating the processing of the ACLU affiliates’ requests and because the requests seek identical categories of records, the same agency personnel would be responsible for determining the appropriate scope of searching, assessing whether certain categories of records should be withheld or redacted pursuant to FOIA’s exemption, and preparing declarations regarding the reasonability of the search.
6

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 34 Filed: 06/07/17 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:389
transfer is granted, Defendants would be forced to re-litigate these exact same issues before the transferee court. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiffs ignore this fact.
Finally, Plaintiffs’ argue that the absence of “a single instance in which a stay was granted in a FOIA suit . . . reinforce[s] the inappropriateness of [a stay] here.” Pls.’ Opp’n at 10. But, as discussed above, transferor courts granted stays in the only two actions in which the JPML has considered centralizing a FOIA case. See supra Pt. I. Thus, there is nothing remotely “inappropriate[]” in finding that the burden on Defendants in time and expense from rearguing the same issues in different courts and the potential for inconsistent rulings justify a temporary stay pending a decision by the JPML on a motion to transfer. See id. (collecting cases); see also, e.g., Cooper v. Siddighi, No. EDCV 13-00345 JGB (SPx), 2013 WL 12140988, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2013); Oregon ex rel. Kroger v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 11-CV-86-AC, 2011 WL 1347069, at *6 (D. Or. Apr. 8, 2011); Palmer v. Am. Honda Motor Co., No. CV 07-1904-PHXDGC, 2008 WL 54914, at *1 (D. Ariz. Jan. 3, 2008). III. A STAY WOULD SERVE JUDICIAL ECONOMY BY AVOIDING
UNNECESSARY AND DUPLICATIVE PROCEEDINGS Plaintiffs contend that structuring the litigation into thirteen overlapping actions in thirteen courts serves the interests of judicial efficiency. Pls.’ Opp’n at 12-13. They argue that each of the related actions concern “highly differentiated, fact-specific, and local-context-driven” issues, and therefore “will not be efficiently [addressed] by a single tribunal.” Id. Plaintiffs’ argument speaks more to whether transfer is appropriate than to whether this Court should stay proceedings while the JPML considers the appropriateness of transfer. There can be no doubt, however, that, if the case is transferred, any time this Court has devoted to pretrial proceedings will have been for naught. Any proceedings regarding issues such as production schedules and the availability of possible discovery will be substantially similar in
7

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 34 Filed: 06/07/17 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:390
each of the related actions, and any ruling by this Court on those issues would ultimately be vitiated by the transferee court. See Defs.’ Mem. at 5. A stay would make it unnecessary for the Court to devote its time to resolving any disputes over such pretrial matters. Cf. Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (granting stay in interests of judicial economy because absent stay “this Court will have needlessly expended its energies familiarizing itself with the intricacies of a case that would be heard by another judge”).
Moreover, Plaintiffs’ claim that denying a stay would somehow hasten the release of responsive, non-exempt records, see Pls.’ Opp’n at 12-13, is unfounded. As discussed above, Plaintiffs have not identified any reason to believe that a brief, weeks-long stay, during which time Defendants would be continuing to process Plaintiffs’ request, would delay the ultimate release of responsive records. See supra Pt. I.
Finally, Plaintiffs suggest that informal coordination of the separate actions would achieve “appropriate judicial efficiencies,” citing an order denying a motion for designation of a coordinating judge in several related FOIA actions all brought in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Pls.’ Opp’n at 14. Again, this argument goes to the appropriateness of the transfer, and not the appropriateness of a stay. In any event, there is a stark difference between the efficacy of informal coordination between judges in a single courthouse and the efficacy of informal coordination between thirteen judges in thirteen different courts all across the country. Moreover, the ACLU affiliates in this case have shown little regard for informal coordination, see Transfer Reply at 7-8 & n.6 (ECF No. 32-1), and their approach to the litigation thus far contradicts their vague assertion that they are “committed to collaborating and cooperating with the Agencies and the Plaintiffs in the Local Lawsuits to avoid any inefficiencies.” Pls.’ Opp’n at 14.
8

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 34 Filed: 06/07/17 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:391

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons and those stated in Defendants’ opening Memorandum, this Court should grant Defendants’ request for a temporary stay of proceedings.

Dated: June 6, 2017  

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
JOEL R. LEVIN Acting United States Attorney
THOMAS P. WALSH Assistant United States Attorney
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Director, Federal Programs Branch
/s/ Chetan A. Patil MATTHEW J. BERNS CHETAN A. PATIL Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel.: (202) 305-4968 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: chetan.patil@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

9

 
 Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 35 Filed: 06/19/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:392

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

) )

No. 17 C 2768

) )

Judge Dow

)

)

)

)

NOTICE OF DECISION

Defendants the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border

Protection hereby provide notice that on June 19, 2017, the United States District Court for the

District of Maine granted Defendants’ motion for a temporary stay of proceedings in one of the

thirteen related actions that Defendants have asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

to centralize. See ACLU of Maine, et al. v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection, et al., No. 17-cv-

00132 (D. Me. June 19, 2017) (ECF No. 20). A similar motion for a temporary stay of

proceedings is now pending before this Court. A copy of the Order is attached.

Dated: June 19, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General

JOEL R. LEVIN Acting United States Attorney

THOMAS P. WALSH Assistant United States Attorney

ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO

 

Deputy Director, Federal Programs Branch

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 35 Filed: 06/19/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:393
/s/ Matthew J. Berns MATTHEW J. BERNS CHETAN A. PATIL Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel.: (202) 616-8016; Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: Matthew.J.Berns@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 35-1 Filed: 06/19/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:394

Berns, Matthew J. (CIV)
From: Sent: To: Subject:

cmecf@med.uscourts.gov Monday, June 19, 2017 9:42 AM cmecfnef@med.uscourts.gov Activity in Case 2:17-cv-00132-GZS AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MAINE et al v. US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION et al Order on Motion to Stay

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
U.S. District Court
District of Maine
Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 6/19/2017 at 9:42 AM EST and filed on 6/19/2017

Case Name:

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MAINE et al v. US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION et al

Case Number: 2:17-cv-00132-GZS

Filer:

Document Number:

20(No document attached)

Docket Text: ORDER granting [13] Motion to Stay. After consideration of the case-specific factors, see Good v. Altria Grp., Inc., 624 F. Supp. 2d 132, 134 (D. Me. 2009), and for the reasons articulated by the Defendants, the Courts GRANTS Defendants Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision on Motion to Transfer and ORDERS that this matter be STAYED for sixty (60) days, at which point counsel shall file a status report and the Court will evaluate whether any further stay is appropriate. SO ORDERED. By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

2:17-cv-00132-GZS Notice has been electronically mailed to: CHETAN A. PATIL chetan.patil@usdoj.gov JENNIFER A. ARCHER jarcher@krz.com, mhansen@krz.com MATT BERNS matthew.j.berns@usdoj.gov

1

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 35-1 Filed: 06/19/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:395 SHEILA W. SAWYER sheila.sawyer@usdoj.gov, caseview.ecf@usdoj.gov, kim.woodward@usdoj.gov, lavonne.clark@usdoj.gov, usame.ecf@usdoj.gov ZACHARY L. HEIDEN zheiden@aclumaine.org 2:17-cv-00132-GZS Notice has been delivered by other means to:
2

 
 Case: 1C:1a7s-ecvM-0D2L76N8o.D2o7c8u6meDnot c#u: m44enFtil8e8d: 0F8il/e0d2/0187/0P2a/g1e7 1Poaf g5eP1agoef I5D #:457

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUESTS REGARDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 13769

MDL No. 2786

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel:* Defendants, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP),1 move to centralize thirteen Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) actions in the District of District of Columbia. The actions, which are pending in thirteen districts, are listed on the attached Schedule A.
Plaintiffs, which are various affiliates of the American Civil Liberties Union, oppose centralization. If the Panel grants the Section 1407 motion over their objections, plaintiffs ask that the action in the Eastern District of Michigan be excluded, and that the litigation be centralized in the Eastern District of Virginia or, alternatively, in the District of Maine or the Western District of Washington.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we deny Defendants’ motion. The actions arguably share a limited number of factual issues arising out of FOIA requests made by plaintiffs for records concerning CBP’s interpretation and implementation – at local international airports and, in the Eastern District of Michigan case, U.S./Canada border crossings – of the January 27, 2017, Executive Order No. 13769, titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” as well as any judicial order or executive directive issued regarding the Executive Order. But these factual issues, which principally concern the adequacy of CBP’s searches for the requested records, as well as CBP’s coordination of the searches by its Washington, D.C., headquarters, appear relatively straightforward and unlikely to entail extensive pretrial proceedings. See Riccardi v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 32 F. Supp. 3d 59, 63 (D.D.C. 2014) (“In a FOIA case, where the adequacy of an agency’s search is questioned, the Court may grant summary judgment based on information provided in ‘[a] reasonably detailed affidavit, setting forth the search terms and the type of search performed, and averring that all files likely to contain responsive materials (if such records exist) were searched.’”) (quoting Valencia–Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321, 326 (D.C. Cir.1999)). Indeed, as Defendants acknowledge, these actions probably will not involve any discovery. See Mem. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. for Transfer, at 16 n.8 (ECF No. 1-1)
* Judge Marjorie O. Rendell took no part in the decision of this matter.
1 CBP is a component of DHS.

Case: 1C:1a7s-ecvM-0D2L76N8o.D2o7c8u6meDnot c#u: m44enFtil8e8d: 0F8il/e0d2/0187/0P2a/g1e7 2Poaf g5eP2agoef I5D #:458
-2-
(“In the unlikely event that discovery is authorized in these Related Actions, Defendants anticipate that CBP witnesses would be located in Washington, DC, while Plaintiffs would not have any witnesses of their own.”); see also, e.g., Justice v. I.R.S., 798 F. Supp. 2d 43, 47 (D.D.C. 2011) (noting that in FOIA actions, discovery is “disfavored”).2
Defendants also contend that common factual questions will inform any review of CBP’s determinations to withhold information from disclosure pursuant to FOIA’s statutory exemptions. This argument is unconvincing, because the application of those exemptions is a legal issue. See, e.g., Trentadue v. Integrity Comm., 501 F.3d 1215, 1226 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Whether a FOIA exemption justifies withholding a record is a question of law that we review de novo.”); see also Am. Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. Dep’t of the Army, 703 F.3d 724, 729 (4th Cir. 2013) (same).
Although defendants heavily rely on the Panel’s 1992 decision in MDL No. 910, In re: Freedom Magazine/Internal Revenue Service FOIA Litigation, and its 1991 decision in MDL No. 892, In re: Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization/Internal Revenue Service FOIA Litigation, those decisions are in at least some tension with more recent Panel precedent. E.g., In re: Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States,” 140 F. Supp. 3d 1340, 1341 (J.P.M.L. 2015) (denying federal government defendants’ motion for centralization of nine actions pending in seven districts involving challenges to EPA rule, where resolution of the actions would “involve only very limited pretrial proceedings,” and discovery, if any, would be “minimal”). Moreover, the decisions are distinguishable. In Freedom Magazine, the eight cases were filed by a single plaintiff, which specifically sought records located at the IRS’s Washington, D.C. headquarters. See Freedom Magazine Transfer Order at 2 (J.P.M.L. Feb. 12, 1992) (unpublished). And, in Church of Scientology, “every FOIA request in the litigation was made upon the IRS office in Jacksonville in [the Middle District of Florida, where the cases were centralized],” and related litigation was pending in that district. See Church of Scientology Transfer Order at 2 (J.P.M.L.. Sept. 4, 1991) (unpublished). Here, the actions are brought by separate plaintiffs (albeit all ACLU affiliates), and each FOIA request targets a different CBP field office.
Defendants also argue that centralization would reduce litigation costs. They represent, without contradiction, that it was unnecessary for the ACLU plaintiffs to submit a separate FOIA request for each CBP field office, and that the national ACLU, or the various affiliates acting together, simply could have sent CBP headquarters a single FOIA request asking the agency to search the same field offices for the same records covered by the multiple requests. But, the potential for litigation cost savings, without more, does not warrant centralization, particularly where, as here, there is little likelihood of complex pretrial proceedings.
2 In the unlikely event that these cases actually involve a significant amount of duplicative pretrial discovery, Defendants are free to file another motion for centralization.

Case: 1C:1a7s-ecvM-0D2L76N8o.D2o7c8u6meDnot c#u: m44enFtil8e8d: 0F8il/e0d2/0187/0P2a/g1e7 3Poaf g5eP3agoef I5D #:459
-3IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance Chair

Charles R. Breyer Ellen Segal Huvelle Catherine D. Perry

Lewis A. Kaplan R. David Proctor

Case: 1C:1a7s-ecvM-0D2L76N8o.D2o7c8u6meDnot c#u: m44enFtil8e8d: 0F8il/e0d2/0187/0P2a/g1e7 4Poaf g5eP4agoef I5D #:460

IN RE: AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUESTS REGARDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 13769

MDL No. 2786

SCHEDULE A

District of Arizona
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ARIZONA v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-01083
Central District of California
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-02778
Northern District of California
ACLU OF HAWAI'I, ET AL. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, C.A. No. 4:17-01970
Southern District of California
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-00733
Southern District of Florida
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF FLORIDA v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-21382
Northern District of Georgia
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF GEORGIA, INC., ET AL. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-01309
Northern District of Illinois
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS, ET AL. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-02768

Case: 1C:1a7s-ecvM-0D2L76N8o.D2o7c8u6meDnot c#u: m44enFtil8e8d: 0F8il/e0d2/0187/0P2a/g1e7 5Poaf g5eP5agoef I5D #:461
- A2 -
MDL No. 2786 Schedule A (Continued) District of Maine
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MAINE, ET AL. v. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00132 Eastern District of Michigan
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MICHIGAN v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-11149 District of Oregon
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF OREGON, INC., ET AL. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-00575 Southern District of Texas
ACLU FOUNDATION OF TEXAS, INC. v. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17-01128 Eastern District of Virginia
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF VIRGINIA, ET AL. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-00441 Western District of Washington
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON, ET AL. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00562

 
 Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 48 Filed: 08/21/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:471

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,
Defendants.

) Case No. 1:17-cv-002768 ) ) ) The Honorable Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

JOINT STATUS REPORT
As directed by the Court at the August 10, 2017 status hearing, the parties, through their
undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully submit this joint status report. Sections A-D are
unchanged from the joint status report previously filed, and the parties jointly propose that
Defendants will file their response to the Complaint by August 22, 2017. As further directed by
the Court, the parties provide separate statements with respect to the schedule for further
proceedings where their positions diverge below.
A. Attorneys of Record
For Plaintiffs:
 Natalie J. Spears, Dentons US LLP, Lead Attorney  Amy A. Miller, ACLU of Nebraska  Gregory R. Naron, Dentons US LLP  Kathleen V. Kinsella, Dentons US LLP  Patrick S. Kabat, Dentons US LLP  Rebecca Kim Glenberg, Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc.
For Defendants:
 Matthew J. Berns, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Lead Attorney  Chetan A. Patil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division  Elizabeth J. Shapiro, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 48 Filed: 08/21/17 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:472
 Thomas P. Walsh, Assistant United States Attorney B. Basis for Federal Jurisdiction Plaintiffs assert jurisdiction pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. C. Nature of the Claims Plaintiffs bring this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., to obtain disclosure of records and other relief pertaining to the FOIA request submitted by Plaintiffs on February 2, 2017 and attached to Plaintiffs’ Complaint as Exhibit A. D. Service of Parties Both Defendants have been properly served pursuant to Rule 4(i)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. E. Principal Legal Issues Plaintiffs: The principal legal issues are whether Defendants have wrongfully withheld responsive records from Plaintiffs, and whether Defendants have conducted an adequate search for responsive records under the facts and circumstances of Plaintiffs’ request. As recent developments reveal, Defendants’ duty to conduct an appropriate search will be a key threshold issue. As the Court is aware, Defendants sought to consolidate multiple actions in jurisdictions across the country involving non-overlapping FOIA requests that, like the request at issue in this lawsuit, sought records pertaining to purely local implementation and enforcement of travel bans and other government policies by purely local field offices and agency officers. As the Court is also aware, Plaintiffs opposed Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings in this case pending a consolidation decision by the MDL panel, expressing concern that the Defendants had unilaterally elected to process the disparate, non-overlapping requests as a single, consolidated request seeking centrally maintained records (rather than conducting the
2

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 48 Filed: 08/21/17 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:473
localized search required in the context of the FOIA request at issue in this lawsuit) and that a stay would delay this Court’s supervision of the proper search FOIA requires to obtain and produce those records. The Court granted a stay pending the MDL panel’s decision relying in part on Defendants’ representation that they would grant expedited processing to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request (part of the relief sought by this action) and diligently process the FOIA request while the MDL proceedings were pending.1However, Defendants elected to begin processing Plaintiff’s FOIA request under the unitary theory of the non-overlapping requests that the MDL panel has now rejected. Defendants produced two identical sets of centrally maintained records to all of the plaintiffs in the non-overlapping FOIA litigations (on July 17, 2017 and July 31, 2017) and has not produced a single record from a single local custodian at issue in this lawsuit. The records consist almost entirely of e-mails from Defendants’ national headquarters to highlevel agency staff email lists, and reflect Defendants’ continuing refusal to conduct a search under the facts and circumstances of the request in this action.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs view the search issue as the principal threshold issue, and strongly disagrees with Defendants’ misleading characterization, infra, of their search efforts. Defendants have had Plaintiffs’ FOIA request since early February, and rather than propose deadlines in this Joint Status Report, as the Court directed, Defendants once again ask to be excused from timely complianceand accountability, and instead process the FOIA request at issue as they choose, in a manner that disregards the simple obligation required by FOIA in this case to approach local custodians about locally responsive records and conduct a prompt search.
1 The Court noted that the processing of the FOIA request was the most important consideration in determining whether to grant the stay and was persuaded by Defendants’ representations that a stay “would have no effect on the timing of Defendants’ release of responsive records. . . . because Defendants’ processing of the ACLU affiliates’ FOIA requests is ongoing and will continue with or without a stay.” 6/28/17 Order (Dkt. 41) (citing Defendant’s Reply Mem. in Support of Mot. to Stay (Dkt. 34) pp. 1 & 3 n. 2). Additionally, the Court emphasized that Defendants represented that they “have granted Plaintiffs’ request for expedited treatment and placed the coordinated requests of the ACLU affiliates in the expedited processing queue, ahead of all non-expedited requests and later filed requests.” Id. at 3-4 (quoting Reply Mem. at 4).
3

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 48 Filed: 08/21/17 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:474
Plaintiffs further object to Defendants’ attempts to shadow-brief issues more appropriate for summary judgment in this Joint Status Report, rather than simply state their positions on deadlines, and submit that if Defendants had devoted the time spent to date on procedural briefing to simply processing the local FOIA request at issue, an initial search could have been completed by now and the Court would be in a position to address adequacy and other threshold issues. Accordingly, in light of Defendants’ lack of meaningful progress on a request that was submitted over six months ago, and Defendants’ continuing attempts to displace the simple search and review process required in this case with continuing claims about other litigations and non-overlapping requests, Plaintiffs will be constrained to seek this Court’s assistance in preventing further delays and proceeding expeditiously towards disposition on the merits of withholding responsive records. E.g. Seavey v. Dep’t of Justice, 2017 WL 3112816, at *2 (D.D.C. July 20, 2017) (noting that after a lawsuit has been filed, the court “has the authority to oversee and supervise the agency’s progress in responding to the request” and that the court “may use its equitable powers to require the agency to process documents according to a courtimposed timeline.”).
In this Joint Status Report, Plaintiffs simply seek deadlines at which this Court (not the Defendants alone) can determine what FOIA requires. Rather than addressing Defendants’ arguments about the dilatory and improper approach they have chosen to adopt here, Plaintiffs instead seek briefing deadlines at which these issues can properly be presented to the Court. Plaintiffs note that Defendants are free to seek by motion any stay they believe might be appropriate, in the exclusive manner FOIA contemplates, if they think they can meet the heavy burden for such extraordinary relief. E.g. Seavey, 2017 WL 3112816, at *4 (“Where a request imposes truly burdensome obligations on an agency, FOIA provides one safety valve—a stay for exceptional circumstances.”).
4

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 48 Filed: 08/21/17 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:475
Defendants: As discussed in greater detail herein, the agency has been working to process Plaintiffs’ FOIA request as soon as practicable, but it has not yet completed its search for, and processing of, records responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request. The amount of time that it is taking to process the requests reflects a number of factors, including the nature of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request, the agency’s limited FOIA-processing resources, and the competing demands of other pending FOIA requests that CBP is also working diligently to process as soon as practicable. Once the agency has completed its release of responsive records, Plaintiffs may choose to challenge the reasonableness of the agency’s search and the appropriateness of any withholdings under the FOIA’s statutory exemptions, but FOIA lawsuits that are filed before the agency completes its processing of the request at issue often are resolved without the need for summary judgment briefing on search adequacy or withholdings.
CBP has fully processed 241 pages of records and released the non-exempt information on July 14 and July 26, 2017. The releases include a 28-page spreadsheet with information responsive to Parts 2- 4 of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request. Although Plaintiffs complain that much of the remaining records are “e-mails from Defendants’ national headquarters to high-level agency staff email lists,” the releases include a large number of e-mails from CBP headquarters to the Directors of Field Operations, including the Director of Field Operations for the Chicago Field Office, which is the subject of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request. Because Part 5 of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request seeks “[r]ecords containing the ‘guidance’ that was ‘provided to DHS field personnel shortly’ after President Trump signed [Executive Order 13.769],” Defendants disagree with Plaintiffs’ suggestion that the releases made to date “reflect Defendants’ continuing refusal to conduct a search under the facts and circumstances of the request in this action.”
Moreover, CBP has collected and begun processing over 11,200 potentially responsive email messages to or from custodians in the Chicago Field Office and the multiple airports
5

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 48 Filed: 08/21/17 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:476
identified in Plaintiffs’ FOIA request (and, based in part on its review of these records, will be evaluating what additional searching may be required). In addition to reviewing these records for responsiveness, CBP will need to carefully review responsive records to excise information falling within any of the nine statutory exemptions from disclosure, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b), including classified information, id. § 552(b)(1), information “the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” id. § 552(b)(6), information compiled for law enforcement purposes, id. § 552(b)(7), and privileged information, id. § 552(b)(5), among other categories. If CBP locates records that involve another agency’s equities, it also needs to consult with that agency before releasing the records, and these consultations take time. See id. § 552(a)(6)(B)(iii)(III).
At the same time, CBP’s limited FOIA staff is also working diligently to respond to many other FOIA requests. Nationwide, CBP currently has only 25 full time FOIA processing staff and four supervising employees. Yet, CBP received 66,742 FOIA requests in Fiscal Year 2016 (October 1, 2015 – September 30, 2106), and as of July 31, 2017, is on pace to exceed that number by approximately 35 percent in this Fiscal Year. The CBP FOIA Office has received nearly 100 requests for information pertaining to Executive Order 13,769, and 21 of those requests are in litigation in district courts around the country (13 of them in actions brought by ACLU affiliates). In the aggregate, CBP already has identified over 100,000 potentially responsive emails from personnel within local offices of the Office of Field Operations and Office of Chief Counsel in response to requests like Plaintiffs’ that seek records from specific local offices. These 100,000 field office emails are in addition to over 25,000 emails that CBP has identified as potentially responsive to FOIA requests (like the national ACLU’s) that seek records from CBP headquarters.
6

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 48 Filed: 08/21/17 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:477
Because of the substantial and conflicting demands on CBP’s limited FOIA resources, a court order directing CBP to complete its processing of one request by a specific date, or to process a specific volume per month, necessarily reduces the resources that CBP can devote to other pending requests that are no less important, prejudicing other requesters, and interfering with the agency’s ability to administer its FOIA operations in a manner that is equitable and fair to all requesters. In this regard, Defendants note that an agency’s decision to grant expedited processing for a FOIA request has the effect of moving the request out of the ordinary queue in which requests are generally processed on a first-in, first-out basis. See 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(b), (e)(4). Thus, the agency’s decision to grant expedited processing to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request has already had the effect of prioritizing them over many other requests that were submitted earlier.
Plaintiffs devote much of their statement above to criticizing as “inappropriate[]” CBP’s decision to centrally coordinate its search for records responsive to all nineteen similarly worded FOIA requests received from the ACLU and its affiliates. But it is entirely appropriate for an agency to determine that multiple requests, submitted either by a single requester or by a group of requesters acting in concert, constitute a single request and to process the requests accordingly. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(iv); 6 C.F.R. §§ 5.5(d), 5.11(h). Here, CBP opted to process the ACLU and its affiliates’ FOIA requests in this manner because it reasonably determined that doing so would allow the agency to process the group of requests as soon as practicable and to ensure consistency in the agency’s processing of the requests. Moreover, the agency waived processing fees and granted expedited processing based on its conclusion that the nineteen requests constitute a single request.
Finally, contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention above, the JPML did not “reject[]” Defendants’ understanding of the nineteen FOIA requests submitted by the national ACLU and its affiliates or otherwise opine on the manner in which Defendants should search for responsive records.
7

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 48 Filed: 08/21/17 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:478
Rather, the JPML denied Defendants’ motion to transfer the litigation to the District of Columbia based principally on its conclusion that “these actions probably will not involve any discovery,” JPML Op. at 1 (ECF No. 44), while leaving open the possibility of centralization “[i]n the unlikely event that these cases actually involve a significant amount of duplicative pretrial discovery,” id. at 2 n.2. Indeed, the JPML accepted “that it was unnecessary for the ACLU plaintiffs to submit a separate FOIA request for each CBP field office, and that the national ACLU, or the various affiliates acting together, simply could have sent CBP headquarters a single FOIA request asking the agency to search the same field offices for the same records covered by the multiple requests.” Id. at 2.
F. Principal Factual Issues Plaintiffs: The principal factual issues are whether any information in records responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request falls within the limited set of statutory exceptions to public disclosure, and what measures Defendants have taken to locate custodians, files, records systems, and other means of obtaining responsive records. As noted in Plaintiff’s response to Part E, a key factual matter is the nature of Defendants’ search, which Defendants have chosen to conduct in inappropriately consolidated fashion. Defendants: Please see Defendants’ response to Part E.
G. Jury Trial None demanded.
H. Mandatory Initial Discovery Responses The Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Program is not applicable because it applies only to cases filed on or after June 1, 2017. This case was filed on April 12, 2017.
I. Implemented and Anticipated Discovery; Other Anticipated Filings As of the filing of this Report, no discovery has been taken.
8

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 48 Filed: 08/21/17 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:479
Plaintiffs’ Anticipated Discovery and Other Anticipated Filings:  Plaintiffs state that discovery is often unnecessary in FOIA cases, and may be unnecessary here. Plaintiffs also state, however, that it is premature to foreclose discovery. Contrary to Defendants’ statement below, courts have found discovery appropriate in FOIA cases, including on the issue of the adequacy of an agency’s search. See, e.g., Weisberg v. United States Dept. Of Justice, 627 F.2d 365, 371 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Accordingly, Plaintiffs may seek discovery regarding the adequacy of Defendants’ search, or if Defendants fail to proffer competent and timely evidence that Defendants have searched locally maintained records and queried local custodians in a manner reasonably calculated, under the facts and circumstances of the request, to return responsive records.  Plaintiffs also disagree with Defendants’ suggestion below that they would be entitled to discovery into communications among various ACLU entities, and reserve the right to object to such discovery.  Plaintiffs additionally state that they will seek production of a Vaughn index of withheld records that identifies records that have been withheld or redacted, and proffers sufficient factual information about the claimed basis for withholding to permit the denial of access to be challenged before the Court. Vaughn indexes are customary in FOIA lawsuits, and prompt production of a Vaughn index will demonstrate the scope of Defendants’ search and move that issue toward resolution.
Defendants’ Anticipated Discovery and Other Anticipated Filings:  Defendants state that discovery is generally unavailable to plaintiffs in FOIA actions. The adequacy of an agency’s search for records responsive to a FOIA
9

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 48 Filed: 08/21/17 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:480
request and the appropriateness an agency’s decision to withhold information are ordinarily determined on the basis of declarations supplied by the agency, which the court may direct the agency to supplement with additional information if the court finds that the agency’s initial submissions do not establish the agency’s compliance with the FOIA. Further, as discussed above, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied consolidation largely based on plaintiffs’ representation that they do not anticipate discovery.  Defendants additionally state that, if necessary, Defendants may seek discovery regarding Plaintiffs’ coordination with the national ACLU and other ACLU affiliates in filing their respective FOIA requests and lawsuits. Defendants may seek such discovery in order to establish grounds for nonparty preclusion in the event that Plaintiffs seek to re-litigate in this action issues that have been decided against one or more other ACLU affiliates.  Defendants further state that Plaintiffs have added to this Joint Status Report a demand for a “Vaughn index” that Plaintiffs did not include in the parties’ first Joint Status Report. Although an agency may use a document-by-document index to present information necessary to sustain its application of the FOIA’s statutory exemptions, such indices are not required to satisfy the widely accepted protocol described in Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973). For example, an affidavit adequately describing the withheld information suffices. The content from partially released records may also sufficiently demonstrate the nature of the information withheld, or when a large volume of records is at issue, an index of only a sample of the records is used in order to reduce the burden on the agency and the court. In any event, the preparation of any sort of “Vaughn” would be
10

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 48 Filed: 08/21/17 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:481
premature before the filing of an agency’s dispositive motion. See Stimac v. DOJ, 620 F. Supp. 212, 213 (D.D.C. 1985); see Miscavige v. IRS, 2 F.3d 366, 369 (11th Cir. 1993). Agreed-to Dates for Further Proceedings: The parties jointly propose that Defendants will file their response to the Complaint by August 22, 2017. Plaintiffs’ Suggested Dates for Further Proceedings: Plaintiffs intend to move for summary judgment on both issues of search and withholding by September 15, 2017, unless Defendants are willing to complete an adequate search and produce responsive records and a Vaughn index of withheld records and redactions by that date,2 at which time Plaintiffs would propose a briefing schedule for cross-motions for summary judgment as follows:  Deadline for production of records and/or the Vaughn indices: September 15, 2017.  Dispositive motion briefing schedule: Defendant’s summary judgment motion will be due on October 20, 2017. In accordance with the Court’s Standing Order on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff’s combined cross motion and response to the defendant’s motion will be due three weeks thereafter, on November 10, 2017. Defendant’s reply in support of its motion and response to plaintiff’s cross motion will be due three weeks thereafter, on December 1, 2017.
2 Plaintiffs disagree with Defendants’ characterization of the circumstances in which Vaughn indices are appropriate, and will if necessary seek such relief by motion. Plaintiffs also strongly object to Defendants’ continuing attempts to condition compliance with the legal rights at bar in this action, and the FOIA request before the Court, with their attempts to ask different litigants to permit staggered noncompliance with FOIA’s request processing requirements. Rather than brief those issues in this Joint Status Report, Plaintiffs seek an appropriate scheduling order so that the manner in which Defendants have chosen to process this FOIA request can be appropriately presented to the Court for determination as FOIA requires.
11

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 48 Filed: 08/21/17 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:482
Plaintiff’s reply in support of its cross motion shall be due two weeks thereafter, on December 15, 2017.  Discovery deadline: None at this time. Defendants’ Suggested Dates for Further Proceedings: Defendants respectfully submit that CBP cannot practicably complete its processing of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request in accordance with Plaintiffs’ preferred schedule for the reasons set forth in Part E above and for reasons that Defendants could explain in a supplemental filing should the Court determine that more information would be useful. Defendants respectfully propose that CBP be permitted to continue releasing non-exempt records responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request on a rolling basis while submitting quarterly or monthly status reports to advise the Court on CBP’s progress and to assure the Court that CBP is proceeding diligently under the circumstances.3 Defendants do not believe that the efficient resolution of this litigation would be advanced by Plaintiffs’ proposal that the parties engage in summary judgment briefing on search adequacy and withholdings before CBP has completed its processing of Plaintiffs’ request. Premature briefing of these issues would distract agency personnel who could otherwise devote their attention to processing records responsive to pending FOIA requests, including Plaintiffs’, and could only result in the parties having to brief summary judgment again once the agency completes its response. J. Trial Date and Length of Trial
3 In later status reports, CBP may be in a position to commit to processing a certain number of pages per quarter or month. CBP is unable to make such a commitment in this case at present due to the large number of FOIA cases that it now has in litigation and its uncertainty regarding the production schedules that might be adopted in other cases. It would be easier for CBP to commit to such a production schedule if the ACLU-affiliate plaintiffs in the thirteen pending cases that Defendants sought to consolidate were willing to agree to a global production schedule instead of separately proposing schedules that, in effect, result in plaintiffs competing with each other for CBP’s limited FOIA-processing resources.
12

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 48 Filed: 08/21/17 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:483
The parties are unable to ascertain this information at this stage, although they do not anticipate that this FOIA action will proceed to trial.
K. Magistrate Judge The parties do not consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge.
L. Settlement Discussions Plaintiffs are willing to entertain settlement proposals upon Defendants’ timely and adequate search for and production of responsive records. Plaintiffs object to Defendants’ suggestion that, by declining to (1) suspend their rights under FOIA to adequate and timely processing under improper conditions demanded by Defendants, (2) subordinate their rights under FOIA before this Court to rights asserted by other plaintiffs in other litigations, or (3) assume the burden FOIA correctly places on Defendants, not requestors, to conduct a sufficient investigation to develop an adequate search (for, as the custodians of public records that remain withheld from Plaintiffs, Defendants are the only parties with access to the information necessary to develop a full and adequate search), it is somehow Plaintiffs who are responsible for the delays to date. Defendants have indicated to Plaintiffs that Defendants welcome proposals to narrow and clarify the scope of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request, and particularly part 1 of 5 of the request, which likely would facilitate the agency’s completion of its search and processing of responsive records. Plaintiffs have not done so and have also declined Defendants’ invitation to propose search terms to apply to the email records CBP has collected to date to help locate responsive records. Defendants have also requested that Plaintiffs consult with the other ACLU affiliates whose FOIA requests are in litigation to coordinate the schedules in the thirteen pending lawsuits, so that Defendants are not faced with more than a dozen court orders imposing
13

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 48 Filed: 08/21/17 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:484

competing demands on CBP’s limited resources, which would inhibit Defendants’ ability to comply. Plaintiffs have indicated that they are not willing to do so.
M. Request of Settlement Conference The parties do not request a settlement conference.

DATED this 21st day of August, 2017.

Respectfully submitted,
_s/ Natalie J. Spears _ Natalie J. Spears Gregory R. Naron Patrick S. Kabat Kathleen V. Kinsella DENTONS US LLP 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 876-8000 natalie.spears@dentons.com gregory.naron@dentons.com patrick.kabat@dentons.com kathleen.kinsella@dentons.com
REBECCA K. GLENBERG Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc. 180 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 201-9740 rglenberg@aclu-il.org
FREDA J. LEVENSON ACLU of Ohio Foundation, Inc. 4506 Chester Avenue Cleveland, OH 44103 (216) 472-2205 flevenson@acluohio.org
AMY A. MILLER ACLU of Nebraska, Inc. 134 S. 13th St. #1010 Lincoln NE 68508 402-476-8091 ext. 106 amiller@aclunebraska.org
ANTHONY E. ROTHERT ACLU of Missouri Foundation 906 Olive Street, suite 1130
14

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 48 Filed: 08/21/17 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:485
St. Louis, Missouri 63101 arothert@aclu-mo.org WILLIAM E. SHARP ACLU of Kentucky 315 Guthrie Street, Suite 300 Louisville, KY 40202 (502) 581-9746 sharp@aclu-ky.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General JOEL R. LEVIN Acting United States Attorney THOMAS P. WALSH Assistant United States Attorney ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Director, Federal Programs Branch
/s/ DRAFT MATTHEW J. BERNS CHETAN A. PATIL Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel.: (202) 616-8016; Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: matthew.j.berns@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
15

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 48 Filed: 08/21/17 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:486
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 21, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing JOINT STATUS REPORT with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all attorneys of record.
/s/ Natalie J. Spears

 
 Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/22/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:499

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

) )

No. 17 C 2768

) )

Judge Dow

)

)

)

)

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and U.S. Customs and Border

Protection (“CBP”) (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby answer the numbered paragraphs of

Plaintiffs’ Complaint, ECF No. 1, in the above-captioned action.

PLAINTIFFS’ INTRODUCTION

1. Complaint: The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, and American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “ACLU”) bring this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., to obtain injunctive and other appropriate relief requiring Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to respond to a FOIA request sent by Plaintiffs on February 2, 2017 (“Request”), and to disclose the requested records promptly.

Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of Plaintiffs’

characterization of their Complaint, to which no response is required.

2. Complaint: The Request seeks records concerning CBP’s local implementation of President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” Exec. Order No. 13769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Feb. 1, 2017) (“Executive Order No. 1”), as well as any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding Executive Order No.1, including President Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive

1

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/22/17 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:500
Order, identically titled, Exec. Order No. 13780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 6, 2017) (“Executive Order No. 2”) (collectively, “Executive Orders”). A true and correct copy of the Request is attached as Exhibit A.
Response: The allegations contained in the first sentence of this paragraph
consist of Plaintiffs’ characterization of their FOIA request, which does not require a response
and to which Defendants respectfully refer the Court for a full and accurate statement of its
contents. Defendants admit the allegations contained in the second sentence of this paragraph.
3. Complaint: Specifically, the Request seeks records concerning CBP’s local implementation of the Executive Orders at sites within the purview of CBP’s Chicago Field Office. These include O’Hare International Airport (“O’Hare”), Indianapolis International Airport, Des Moines International Airport, Louisville International Airport, Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, Lambert International Airport, Eppley Airfield, Port Columbus International Airport, General Mitchell International Airport, Kansas City International Airport, and Hopkins International Airport (“Local International Airports”) and ports of entry in Chicago, Indianapolis, Des Moines, Louisville, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City, Omaha, Columbus, Cleveland, and Milwaukee (“Port of Entry Offices”).
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of Plaintiffs’
characterization of their FOIA request, which does not require a response. To the extent a
response is deemed required, Defendants aver that a true and correct copy of the request is
attached to Plaintiffs’ Complaint as Exhibit A, and respectfully refer the Court to the request for
a full and accurate statement of its contents.
4. Complaint: Among other things, the Executive Orders purport to halt refugee admissions and bar entrants from several predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of statements of
law or legal conclusions and do not set forth a claim for relief or aver facts in support of a claim
to which a response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants
respectfully refer to the Court to the Executive Orders for a full and accurate statement of their
contents.
5. Complaint: Defendants’ implementation of the Executive Orders has been the
2

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/22/17 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:501
subject of significant public concern, as reflected by mass protests around the country, substantial news coverage, and numerous lawsuits filed following the President’s signing of each Executive Order.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph do not set forth a claim
for relief or aver facts in support of a claim to which a response is required. 6. Complaint: Over the weekend of January 27–29, 2017, at least five lawsuits
resulted in emergency court orders enjoining implementation of various sections of Executive Order No. 1. On March 15, 2017, a district court enjoined implementation of Sections 2 and 6 of Executive Order No. 2.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph do not set forth a claim for relief or aver facts in support of a claim to which a response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants aver that the allegations in this paragraph purport to characterize judicial decisions and refer the Court to the contents of those decisions for a true and
accurate statement of their contents. 7. Complaint: News reports described Defendants’ implementation of the
Executive Orders as “chaotic” and “total[ly] lack[ing] . . . clarity and direction.” Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph do not set forth a claim
for relief or aver facts in support of a claim to which a response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants aver that the allegations in this paragraph purport to characterize news reports and refer the Court to the cited reports for a true and accurate statement of their contents.
8. Complaint: Official DHS statements reflected this confusion. For example, DHS stated on January 28 that Executive Order No. 1 would “bar green card holders.” The next day, however, DHS Secretary John Kelly deemed “the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest” and the government clarified that Executive Order No. 1 did not apply to green card holders.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph do not set forth a claim
for relief or aver facts in support of a claim to which a response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants aver that the allegations in this paragraph purport to
3

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/22/17 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:502
characterize official DHS statements and news reports and refer the Court to the cited materials
for a true and accurate statement of their contents.
9. Complaint: Reportedly spurred by this chaos, on January 29, Senators Tammy Duckworth and Dick Durbin called upon the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security to investigate Defendants’ implementation of Executive Order No. 1. The Senators specifically sought information regarding: any guidance Defendants provided to the White House in developing the order; any directions that were provided to Defendants in implementing it; whether CBP officers complied with the relevant court orders; and whether DHS and CBP officers kept a list of individuals detained at ports of entry under the order. In response, the Inspector General directed Defendants’ personnel to preserve all records “that might reasonably lead to the discovery of relevant information relating the implementation of” Executive Order No. 1.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph do not set forth a claim
for relief or aver facts in support of a claim to which a response is required. To the extent a
response is deemed required, Defendants aver that the allegations in this paragraph purport to
characterize news reports and refer the Court to the cited materials for a true and accurate
statement of their contents.
10. Complaint: On January 28, 2017, CBP detained an estimated 17 travelers who had arrived at O’Hare that day for hours as a result of Executive Order No. 1. Many of those travelers were and are lawful permanent residents of the United States.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph do not set forth a claim
for relief or aver facts in support of a claim to which a response is required.
11. Complaint: Throughout the afternoon and evening of January 28, hundreds of people gathered inside and outside of O’Hare’s Terminal 5 to protest the Executive Orders.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph do not set forth a claim
for relief or aver facts in support of a claim to which a response is required.
12. Complaint: Approximately 150 attorneys, including two attorneys from the ACLU of Illinois, went to O’Hare’s international terminal, Terminal 5, to offer assistance to detained persons.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph do not set forth a claim
for relief or aver facts in support of a claim to which a response is required.
4

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/22/17 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:503
13. Complaint: When ACLU lawyers and other lawyers approached CBP officials at the airport, the CBP officials told the lawyers that the Privacy Act prevented CBP from disclosing information about the detainees, even to lawyers who had been retained to represent particular individuals by their families.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph do not set forth a claim for relief or aver facts in support of a claim to which a response is required.
14. Complaint: In some instances, attorneys were able to confirm by telephone that specific persons were being held, but in no case was an attorney allowed to see or speak to a detained person.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph do not set forth a claim for relief or aver facts in support of a claim to which a response is required.
15. Complaint: Nor, as the day wore into the evening, were the attorneys able to obtain verifiable information first-hand about detained persons and clients. Instead, at approximately 10:00 p.m. on January 28, 2017, after the District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued the first injunction blocking parts of the Executive Order, attorneys were notified that all persons who had been detained under the Executive Order had been released.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph do not set forth a claim for relief or aver facts in support of a claim to which a response is required.
16. Complaint: Disclosure of the records Plaintiffs seek through this action would thus facilitate the public’s understanding of how Defendants implemented and enforced the Executive Orders in the Chicago Field Office, including in particular at O’Hare. Such information is critical to the public’s ability to hold the government accountable.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph do not set forth a claim for relief or aver facts in support of a claim to which a response is required.
17. Complaint: This action is necessary because Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiffs with a determination as to whether they will comply with the Request, although more than 20 business days have elapsed since Defendants received the Request.
Response: Defendants admit that more than 20 business days have elapsed since CBP received the FOIA request, but otherwise deny the allegations in this paragraph.
5

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/22/17 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:504
PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS AS TO JURISDICTION
18. Complaint: The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action and personal jurisdiction over the parties under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of legal
conclusions regarding jurisdiction, to which no response is required.
PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS AS TO VENUE
19. Complaint: Venue in Northern District of Illinois is proper under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and as the requested agency records are, upon information and belief, situated within this District at CBP facilities at or near Chicago and because Plaintiff ACLU of Illinois’s principal place of business is in the Northern District of Illinois. For the same reasons, venue also is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of legal
conclusions regarding venue, to which no response is required.
PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS AS TO PARTIES
20. Complaint: Plaintiffs are non-profit, 501(c)(4) membership organizations that educate the public about the civil liberties implications of pending and proposed state and federal legislation, provide analysis of pending and proposed legislation, directly lobby legislators, and mobilize their members to lobby their legislators.
Response: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the allegations in this paragraph.
21. Complaint: Defendant Department of Homeland Security is a department of the executive branch of the U.S. government and is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1).
Response: Defendants admit that DHS is a department of the Executive
Branch of the United States Government. The remainder of the allegations contained in this
paragraph consist of legal conclusions, to which no response is required.
22. Complaint: Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection is a component of DHS and is a federal agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1).
Response: Defendants admit that CBP is a component of DHS. The
6

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/22/17 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:505
remainder of the allegations contained in this paragraph consist of legal conclusions, to which no response is required.
23. Complaint: Plaintiffs are informed and therefore believe that Defendants have possession, custody, or control of the requested records.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of legal conclusions, to which no response is required.
PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGED FACTS 24. Complaint: On February 2, 2017, Plaintiffs sent the Request to CBP’s Chicago Field Office and CBP’s FOIA Officer at CBP Headquarters via certified, trackable mail, with tracking numbers of 70033110000409697170 and 70033110000409697217, respectively.
Response: Defendants admit that Plaintiffs sent a FOIA request dated February 2, 2017 to CBP’s Chicago Field Office and CBP’s FOIA Officer at CBP’s
Headquarters. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
25. Complaint: The Request sought copies of CBP’s local interpretation and enforcement of the Executive Order at: 1) certain airports specified in the Request, including O’Hare; and 2) certain Port of Entry offices specified in the Request, including Chicago, Indianapolis, Des Moines, Louisville, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City, Omaha, Columbus, Cleveland, and Milwaukee. The Request expressly did not seek information from CBP Headquarters.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of Plaintiffs’ characterization of their FOIA request, which does not require a response. To the extent a
response is deemed required, Defendants aver that a true and correct copy of the request received by Defendants is attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and respectfully refer the Court to the request for a full and accurate statement of its contents.
26. Complaint: Specifically, the Request sought the following: 1. “Records created on or after January 27, 2017 concerning CBP’s interpretation, enforcement, and implementation of the following at Local International Airports:
7

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/22/17 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:506
a. President Trump’s Executive Order, signed on January 27, 2017 and titled ‘Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States’;
b. Any guidance ‘provided to DHS field personnel shortly’ after President Trump signed the Executive Order, as referenced in CBP’s online FAQ;
c. Associate Director of Field Operations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Daniel M. Renaud’s email, sent at 11:12 A.M. on January 27, 2017, instructing DHS employees that they could not adjudicate any immigration claims from the seven targeted countries;
d. Judge Donnelly’s Decision and Order granting an Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal, issued in the Eastern District of New York on January 28, 2017, including records related to CBP’s efforts to comply with the court’s oral order requiring prompt production of a list of all class members detained by CBP;12
e. Judge Brinkema’s Temporary Restraining Order, issued in the Eastern District of Virginia on January 28, 2017;
f. Judge Zilly’s Order Granting Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal, issued in the Western District of Washington on January 28, 2017;
g. Judge Burroughs’ Temporary Restraining Order, issued in the District of Massachusetts on January 29, 2017;
h. Judge Gee’s Order granting an Amended Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order, issued in the Central District of California on January 29, 2017;
i. Assurances from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that all individuals detained at Philadelphia International Airport under the Executive Order would be admitted to the United States and released from custody on Sunday, January 29, 2017;
j. DHS’s ‘Response to Recent Litigation’ statement, issued on January 29, 2017;
k. DHS Secretary John Kelly’s ‘Statement on the Entry of Lawful Permanent Residents Into the United States,’ issued on January 29, 2017;
l. DHS’s ‘Statement on Compliance with Court Orders and the President’s Executive Order,’ issued on January 29, 2017; and
m. Any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding the Executive Order on or after January 27, 2017.
2. Records concerning the number of individuals who were detained or subjected to secondary screening, extend[ed] questioning, an enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver at Local International Airports pursuant to the Executive Order, including: a. The total number of individuals who remain detained or subject to secondary screening, extend[ed] questioning, an enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver at Local International Airports both as of the date of this request and as of the date on which this request is processed; and
8

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/22/17 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:507
b. The total number of individuals who have been detained or subjected to secondary screening, extend[ed] questioning, an enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver for any length of time at Local International Airports since January 27, 2017, including the number of individuals who have been i. released, ii. transferred into immigration detention, or iii. removed from the United States;
3. Records concerning the number of individuals who have been removed from Local International Airports from January 27, 2017 to date pursuant to the Executive Order;
4. Records concerning the number of individuals who arrived at Local International Airports from January 27, 2017 to date with valid visas or green cards who subsequently agreed voluntarily to return; and
5. Records containing the ‘guidance’ that was ‘provided to DHS field personnel shortly’ after President Trump signed the Executive Order.”
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of Plaintiffs’
characterization of their FOIA request, which does not require a response. To the extent a
response is deemed required, Defendants aver that a true and correct copy of the request received
by Defendants is attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and respectfully refer the Court
to the request for a full and accurate statement of its contents.
27. Complaint: The Request included an application for expedited processing, on the grounds that there is a “compelling need” for these records under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II) because the information requested is “urgen[tly]” needed by an organization primarily engaged in disseminating information “to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.”
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of Plaintiffs’
characterization of their FOIA request, which does not require a response. To the extent a
response is deemed required, Defendants aver that a true and correct copy of the request received
by Defendants is attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and respectfully refer the Court
to the request for a full and accurate statement of its contents.
28. Complaint: The Request provided adequate detail showing that the ACLU is primarily engaged in disseminating information within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v), given that a critical and substantial aspect of the ACLU’s mission is to obtain
9

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/22/17 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:508
information about government activity, analyze that information, and publish and disseminate that information widely to the press and public.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of Plaintiffs’ characterization of their FOIA request, which does not require a response. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants aver that a true and correct copy of the request received by Defendants is attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and respectfully refer the Court to the request for a full and accurate statement of its contents.
29. Complaint: The Request described examples of the ACLU’s informationdissemination function.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of Plaintiffs’ characterization of their FOIA request, which does not require a response. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants aver that a true and correct copy of the request received by Defendants is attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and respectfully refer the Court to the request for a full and accurate statement of its contents.
30. Complaint: The Request also included an application for a fee waiver or limitation under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) on the grounds that disclosure of the requested records is in the public interest and is “likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” In particular, the ACLU emphasized that the Request would significantly contribute to public understanding on a matter of profound public importance about which scant specific information had been made public, i.e., how local CBP Field Offices had enforced, and continue to enforce, the Executive Orders. The Request also made clear that the ACLU plans to disseminate the information disclosed as a result of the Request to the public at no cost.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of Plaintiffs’ characterization of their FOIA request, which does not require a response. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants aver that a true and correct copy of the request received by Defendants is attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and respectfully refer the Court to the request for a full and accurate statement of its contents.
10

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/22/17 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:509
31. Complaint: The Request also applied for a waiver of search fees under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II) on the grounds that Plaintiffs qualify as “representatives of the news media” and the records are not sought for commercial use, given the ACLU’s non-profit mission and substantial activities to publish information for dissemination to the public, as discussed in greater detail in ¶ 29 above.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of Plaintiffs’ characterization of their FOIA request, which does not require a response. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants aver that a true and correct copy of the request received by Defendants is attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and respectfully refer the Court to the request for a full and accurate statement of its contents.
32. Complaint: CBP’s Chicago Field Office received the Request on February 6, 2017, and CBP Headquarters received the Request on February 7, 2017.
Response: Admitted. 33. Complaint: Plaintiffs have not received any acknowledgment of receipt of the Request from CBP.
Response: Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 34. Complaint: As of April 12, 2017, more than 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) have elapsed since CBP received the Request.
Response: Admitted. 35. Complaint: As of the filing date of this Complaint, Defendants have not notified Plaintiffs of a determination as to whether Defendants will comply with the Request.
Response: Admitted. 36. Complaint: Because Defendants failed to comply with the 20-business-day time limit provision of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i), Plaintiffs are deemed to have exhausted their administrative remedies with respect to the Request under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of legal conclusions regarding exhaustion, to which no response is required.
11

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/22/17 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:510
COUNT I: PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS OF A VIOLATION OF FOIA FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A DETERMINATION WITHIN 20 BUSINESS DAYS
37. Complaint: Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 36 above, inclusive.
Response: This paragraph repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 36. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants refer the Court to their responses to paragraphs 1 through 36 of the Complaint.
38. Complaint: Defendants have a legal duty under FOIA to determine whether to comply with a request within 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after receiving the request, and also have a legal duty to immediately notify a requester of the agency’s determination and the reasons therefor.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants deny the allegations contained in this paragraph.
39. Complaint: Defendants’ failure to determine whether to comply with the Request within 20 business days after receiving it violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i), and applicable regulations promulgated thereunder.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants deny the allegations contained in this paragraph.
COUNT II: PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS OF A VIOLATION OF FOIA FOR FAILURE TO MAKE RECORDS AVAILABLE
40. Complaint: Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 36 above, inclusive.
Response: This paragraph repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 36. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants refer the Court to their responses to paragraphs 1 through 36 of the Complaint.
41. Complaint: Plaintiffs have a legal right under FOIA to obtain the specific agency records requested on February 2, 2017, and there exists no legal basis for Defendants’
12

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/22/17 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:511
failure to promptly make the requested records available to Plaintiffs, their members, and the public.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants deny the allegations contained in this paragraph.
42. Complaint: Defendants’ failure to promptly make available the records sought by the Request violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A), and applicable regulations promulgated thereunder.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants deny the allegations contained in this paragraph.
43. Complaint: On information and belief, Defendants currently have possession, custody or control of the requested records.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of legal conclusions, to which no response is required.
COUNT III: PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS OF A VIOLATION OF FOIA FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A DETERMINATION AS TO EXPEDITED PROCESSING
WITHIN 10 DAYS 44. Complaint: Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 36 above, inclusive.
Response: This paragraph repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 36. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants refer the Court to their responses to paragraphs 1 through 36 of the Complaint.
45. Complaint: Defendants have a legal duty under FOIA to determine whether to provide expedited processing, and to provide notice of that determination to Plaintiffs, within 10 days after the date of the Request.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of legal conclusions, to which no response is required.
13

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/22/17 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:512
46. Complaint: Defendants’ failure to determine whether to provide expedited processing and to provide notice of that determination to Plaintiffs within 10 days after the date of the Request violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(ii)(I), and applicable regulations promulgated thereunder.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants deny the allegations contained in this paragraph and aver that the agency has granted Plaintiffs’ request for expedited processing.
47. Complaint: Because Defendants have not provided a complete response to the Request, this Court has jurisdiction under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iv), to review Defendants’ failure to make a determination concerning Plaintiffs’ request for expedited processing.
Response: The allegations contained in this paragraph consist of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants deny the allegations contained in this paragraph and aver that the agency has granted Plaintiffs’ request for expedited processing.
The remaining paragraphs of the Complaint consist of Plaintiffs’ requested relief, to which no response is required.
Defendants hereby deny all allegations of the Complaint not otherwise specifically answered above.
FIRST DEFENSE This action is one of multiple related actions involving coordinated FOIA requests submitted to CBP by the American Civil Liberties Union and its affiliates. Depending on the course of the litigation, collateral estoppel may preclude re-litigation of one or more claims or issues in this action.
14

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 50 Filed: 08/22/17 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:513

Dated: August 22, 2017  

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
JOEL R. LEVIN Acting United States Attorney
THOMAS P. WALSH Assistant United States Attorney
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Director, Federal Programs Branch
/s/ Matthew J. Berns MATTHEW J. BERNS CHETAN A. PATIL Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel.: (202) 616-8016 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: matthew.j.berns@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

15

 
 Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 62 Filed: 10/11/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:549

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

) )

No. 17 C 2768

) )

Judge Dow

)

)

)

)

DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW REGARDING AGGREGATION
Pursuant to this Court’s Order of October 2, 2017, ECF No. 61, Defendants the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) hereby submit this Memorandum of Law regarding aggregation of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests at issue in this case.
On May 26, 2017, CBP sent Ms. Mitra Ebadolahi of the ACLU Border Litigation Project and Mr. Juan Caballero of the ACLU Michigan a letter via email responding to the 18 FOIA requests submitted on February 2, 2017 by various ACLU affiliates and the supplemental FOIA request submitted on February 10, 2017 by the ACLU of Michigan.1 Among other things, the letter informed Ms. Ebadolahi and Mr. Caballero that CBP was aggregating the 19 FOIA requests at issue pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(iv) and 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d).

1 The 18 requests submitted on February 2, 2017 asked that records be sent to Ms. Ebadolahi. The supplemental request on February 10, 2017 requested that records be sent to Mr. Caballero. Counsel for all of the ACLU affiliates involved in litigation against Defendants were sent the letter as well.
1

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 62 Filed: 10/11/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:550
Section 552(a)(6)(B)(iv) provides that:
Each agency may promulgate regulations, pursuant to notice and receipt of public comment, providing for the aggregation of certain requests by the same requestor, or by a group of requestors acting in concert, if the agency reasonably believes that such requests actually constitute a single request, which would otherwise satisfy the unusual circumstances specified in this subparagraph, and the requests involve clearly related matters. Multiple requests involving unrelated matters shall not be aggregated.
The applicable DHS regulation provides as follows:
Aggregating requests. For the purposes of satisfying unusual circumstances under the FOIA, components may aggregate requests in cases where it reasonably appears that multiple requests, submitted either by a requester or by a group of requesters acting in concert, constitute a single request that would otherwise involve unusual circumstances. Components will not aggregate multiple requests that involve unrelated matters.
6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d); see also, e.g., Simon v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 1:16-cv-00671
(APM), 2017 WL 1495915, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 26, 2017) (permitting agency to aggregate
multiple FOIA requests submitted by single requester and to conduct a single search for
records responsive to the aggregated requests); Henson v. Dep’t of Health & Human
Servs., No. 14-cv-908-DRH-DGW, 2017 WL 1090815, at *4 & n.5 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 23,
2017) (finding search was adequate where agency aggregation “did not modify scope of
Plaintiff’s FOIA requests, but instead sought to reduce duplicate productions”).
The agency’s decision to aggregate the FOIA requests was based in part on its
conclusion that the various ACLU affiliates acted in concert in submitting the 19 FOIA
requests, which the ACLU itself described as a “coordinated FOIA filing.” See ACLU,
Press Release, ACLU Files Demands for Documents on Implementation of Trump’s
Muslim Ban (Feb. 2, 2017), https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-filesdemands-documents-
implementation-trumps-muslim-ban. Moreover, all of the requests seek the same or
substantially the same categories of information regarding CBP’s interpretation and
2

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 62 Filed: 10/11/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:551

implementation of Executive Order 13,769. In addition, the aggregation of the requests

enhances the efficiency and consistency of the agency’s processing, in particular by

allowing the agency to avoid duplicative processing of records that are responsive to

more than one of the 19 requests, such as, for example, emails received by field office

personnel in more than one field office.

Dated: October 5, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General

JOEL R. LEVIN Acting United States Attorney

THOMAS P. WALSH Assistant United States Attorney

ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO

 

Deputy Director, Federal Programs Branch

/s/ Chetan A. Patil CHETAN A. PATIL Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel.: (202) 305-4968; Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: chetan.patil@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

3

 
 Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 69 Filed: 11/06/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:584

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

) )

No. 17 C 2768

) )

Judge Dow

)

)

)

)

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET PRODUCTION SCHEDULE

INTRODUCTION

CBP is working diligently to process Plaintiffs’ request—along with the 18 other ACLU

affiliate requests—as soon as practicable. CBP has made four releases of responsive, non-

exempt records, which include hundreds of pages of field office records, and has taken

substantial steps to ramp up its processing of these requests, including migrating records to a

new, more efficient document processing platform; applying a core list of search terms; and

staffing up its review team. The review process for these requests, however, is time- and

resource-intensive, particularly given the broad scope of the request, the large volume of records

collected, and the complex review necessary for these records, many of which implicate

privileged information, personally identifiable information, and sensitive law enforcement

information exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. Additionally, although CBP has been and

continues to seek additional resources for FOIA review, its resources are finite and have been

stretched thin by an escalating number of requests, including many that, like Plaintiffs’, concern

Executive Order 13,769, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United

1

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 69 Filed: 11/06/17 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:585
States,” 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Jan. 27, 2017). Accordingly, the agency currently estimates that it can process on average 3,575 pages per month, across all of the 18 ACLU affiliate field office requests, of which Plaintiffs’ is one. Each month, the processed pages would likely include records from each field office, so some fraction (which would vary each month) would contain records collected from custodians in the Chicago Field Office and corresponding local airports.
Given this context, a burdensome production schedule requiring CBP to satisfy a processing threshold for Chicago Field Office-specific records would disrupt its efforts and prejudice numerous other FOIA requesters. Such an order would not hasten the completion of the agency’s processing of all of the ACLU affiliates’ requests, and would likely slow the release of responsive, non-exempt records, as it would prevent CBP from structuring its review process in the most efficient and expeditious way. Moreover, such an order would have the effect of moving Plaintiffs’ request ahead of earlier-filed expedited requests (and, for that matter, the other ACLU affiliates’ requests), from which resources would need to be diverted. That result would be inconsistent with the agency’s FOIA obligations and unfair to the FOIA requesters ahead of Plaintiffs in the processing queue—including other requesters who seek records related to the Executive Order—whose requests are no less important or time-sensitive than Plaintiffs’.
Instead, in light of CBP’s expectation that it can process on average 3,575 pages per month across all the ACLU affiliate requests, the Court should permit CBP to process records at such a rate, and to order the parties to submit quarterly status reports, which will enable the Court to ensure that CBP continues to make progress in diligently processing these requests.
BACKGROUND A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework The FOIA requires federal agencies to make requested records “promptly available” to any person upon receiving a properly-filed request which “reasonably describes” the records
2

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 69 Filed: 11/06/17 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:586
sought. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A); see also id. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i). If an agency grants a request expedited processing, the FOIA provides that it must process the request “as soon as practicable.” Id. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii). A request which has received expedited processing is placed on a separate track and is processed prior to earlier-filed non-expedited requests in the processing queue, but after other earlier-filed expedited requests. See 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(b).
Processing a FOIA request can be time-consuming. An agency must search for and collect potentially responsive records, and the time required for such a search necessarily depends on the scope and nature of the request and the agency’s records systems. Once an agency has located potentially responsive records, it must process them for potential release. This requires careful review to assess responsiveness and to identify and withhold information falling within any of the nine statutory exemptions from disclosure. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). In addition, where records might implicate another agency’s equities, that agency must be consulted before such records are released; these consultations take time and are not wholly within the control of the agency to which the FOIA request was directed. See id. § 552(a)(6)(B)(iii)(III).
As a default rule, agencies must “determine” within 20 business days of receiving a proper FOIA request “whether to comply with such request.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). However, the 20-business day deadline does not require that an agency complete its processing of a FOIA request within that timeframe. See, e.g., CREW v. FEC, 711 F.3d 180, 185 (D.C. Cir. 2013).1 The FOIA “does not assign any particular time frame to release . . . the records sought.”
1 As other courts have recognized, FOIA decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia are entitled to particular deference because of the special expertise and experience of those courts in applying the statute. See, e.g., Our Children’s Earth Found. v. EPA, No. 08-cv-1461, 2008 WL 3181583, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2008) (decisions “entitled to appropriate deference”); Matlack, Inc. v. EPA, 868 F. Supp. 627, 630 (D. Del. 1994) (describing the D.C. Circuit as “on the leading edge of interpreting” the FOIA statute); cf. Estate of Abduljaami v. DOS, No. 14-cv-7902, 2016 WL 94140, at *5 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2016).
3

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 69 Filed: 11/06/17 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:587
Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, 910 F. Supp. 2d 270, 275 (D.D.C. 2012).2 If the agency fails to comply with the 20-business day requirement, the only effect is that the requester “shall be deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies,” enabling the requester to file suit. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i); see also Daily Caller v. DOS, 152 F. Supp. 3d 1, 10 (D.D.C. 2015).
Where an agency needs more time to process a request, in light of the nature of the request, resource considerations, consultations with other agencies, etc., “the court (if suit has been filed) will supervise the agency’s ongoing progress, ensuring that the agency continues to exercise due diligence in processing the request.” CREW, 711 F.3d at 189; see also Protect Democracy Project, Inc. v. DOD, No. 17-cv-00842 (CRC), 2017 WL 2992076, at *5 (D.D.C. July 13, 2017). Moreover, in order to satisfy competing demands of multiple requesters, agencies typically process requests within a particular processing queue on a first-in, first-out basis. See, e.g., Daily Caller, 152 F. Supp. 3d at 8; Schweihs v. FBI, 933 F. Supp. 719, 723-24 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (finding that plaintiff failed to identify “exceptional circumstances” necessary to “overrule defendants’ first in/first out method of handling FOIA requests”).
B. Plaintiffs’ FOIA Request Plaintiffs submitted their FOIA request to CBP on February 2, 2017. See Compl. Ex. A (ECF No. 1-1). Generally speaking, the request asks CBP to search its Chicago Field Office and the offices for numerous airports and ports of entry within the Chicago Field Office’s jurisdiction for various categories of records regarding the implementation and enforcement of Executive Order 13,769. Several of these categories are strikingly broad. For example, Plaintiffs seek all
2 Although Landmark Legal and other cases cited herein concern denials of motions for preliminary injunctions, these cases are informative to Plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs’ demand for a schedule by which CBP must complete processing of Plaintiffs’ request is analogous to a demand for a mandatory injunction seeking the full relief requested in the Complaint. See Graham v. Med. Mut. Of Ohio, 130 F.3d 293, 295 (7th Cir. 1997) (defining mandatory injunction as “an injunction requiring an affirmative act by the defendant”); see also Daily Caller v. DOS, 152 F. Supp. 3d 1, 6-7 (D.D.C. 2015) (describing motion for immediate processing as seeking “the full relief [the plaintiff] seeks in filing its underlying Complaint”).
4

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 69 Filed: 11/06/17 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:588
records “concerning CBP’s interpretation, enforcement, and implementation” of the Executive Order; all records concerning “[a]ny other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding” the Executive Order; and all records concerning “[a]ny guidance provided to DHS field personnel shortly after” the issuance of the Executive Order. See Compl. Ex. A at 5-6.
On the same day, various other ACLU affiliates submitted 16 parallel requests seeking the same or substantially similar categories of records from other specified field offices, airports, and ports of entry, and on February 10, 2017, the ACLU of Michigan submitted a supplemental request seeking similar information from certain land borders. See Defs.’ Notice of Mot. to Transfer Ex. 2, at 2-7 (ECF 19-3). In addition, the national ACLU organizations and their District of Columbia affiliate also submitted a FOIA request on February 2 seeking the same or similar categories of records, this time from CBP’s headquarters. See id. Fifteen of these requests are now in litigation in 13 cases filed in 13 district courts throughout the country. See id. Ex.3 (ECF 19-4).
Because the various ACLU affiliates all seek substantially the same categories of records—indeed, in many instances, overlapping records—and were submitted in a “coordinated FOIA filing,”3 CBP aggregated the requests pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(iv) and 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d). See Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Set Produc. Schedule (“Pls.’ Mem.”) (ECF No. 55), Ex. 1 at 3 (ECF No. 55-1). Accordingly, CBP coordinated a single search for records responsive to all of the requests, which included a search of the email records for custodians in the various field offices identified in the requests. In addition, due to the aggregation of the requests, CBP granted all of the ACLU affiliates’ requests for expedited processing—placing their FOIA
3 See Press Release, ACLU, ACLU Files Demands for Documents on Implementation of Trump’s Muslim Ban (Feb. 2, 2017), https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-files-demands-documents-implementation-trumpsmuslim-ban.
5

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 69 Filed: 11/06/17 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:589
requests in the expedited processing queue ahead of all non-expedited requests and later-filed expedited requests—and for fee waivers. See id. at 3-4.4
CBP’s search for records from field office custodians collected approximately 103,000 records from 85 custodians. The agency also collected approximately 25,000 email records from custodians within CBP Headquarters, which are potentially responsive to the national ACLU organizations’ request and contain records potentially responsive to the ACLU affiliates’ requests. With respect to Plaintiffs’ request in particular, the agency gathered approximately 11,200 potentially responsive record from 12 custodians.5 The 11,200 email messages consist of all email messages to or from those custodians between January 27 and February 4, 2017. Plaintiffs have indicated that the records of four of these custodians—the Director of Field Operations, the Assistant Director of Field Operations, and the Port Directors for O’Hare International Airport and Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport—should be prioritized.
In addition, CBP received lists of proposed search terms from six sets of ACLU plaintiffs, including Plaintiffs, which it then analyzed to derive a core list of search terms reasonably calculated to identify responsive records. Application of those search terms identified approximately 30,000 records totaling approximately 90,000 pages, including approximately 2,530 documents totaling approximately 7,300 pages held by the 12 identified custodians in the Chicago Field Office and local airports. As to the four prioritized custodians, the search terms identified approximately 1,820 documents totaling approximately 5,200 pages.
4 Per their representation at the October 24, 2017 status conference, Defendants understand that Plaintiffs no longer challenge the decision to conduct a coordinated search for records. See Ex. 1 at 11:13-16. 5 These custodians are the Director of Field Operations for the Chicago Field Office, the Assistant Director of Field Operations for the Chicago Field Office, and the Port Directors for O’Hare International Airport, Indianapolis International Airport, Des Moines International Airport, Louisville International Airport, Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, Lambert International Airport, Eppley Airfield, Port Columbus International Airport, General Mitchell International Airport, Kansas City International Airport, and Hopkins International Airport.
6

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 69 Filed: 11/06/17 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:590
To date, the agency has made four releases of responsive records to Plaintiffs and the other ACLU affiliates, on July 14, July 26, September 21, and October 27, 2017. These releases total approximately 833 pages, and have substantially completed the agency’s response to Parts 2-4 of all of the ACLU affiliates’ requests.
While CBP’s collection and processing efforts were ongoing, it moved to consolidate the 13 parallel ACLU affiliate cases into a single multi-district litigation. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied CBP’s motion on the grounds that the related actions were “unlikely to entail extensive pretrial proceedings” and “[i]ndeed . . . probably will not involve any discovery.” Order at 1 (ECF No. 44). The Panel neither mentioned nor “rejected,” Pls.’ Mem. at 3, the agency’s decision to coordinate a single search for records potentially responsive to the ACLU affiliates’ requests, nor would such a decision fall within the Panel’s jurisdiction.
ARGUMENT I. THE COURT SHOULD PERMIT THE AGENCY TO CONTINUE TO PROCESS
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE. CBP is working expeditiously to both process the substantial volume of records that are potentially responsive to the ACLU affiliates’ requests and to identify and implement ways to accelerate this process. In doing so, it is necessarily constrained by the complexities of the FOIA review process, the agency’s limited resources, and an escalating number of FOIA requests and court-imposed production requirements. In light of these burdens, Plaintiffs’ “effort to accelerate review of [their] request[] necessarily will displace in processing priority those of third parties who submitted equally urgent requests before the plaintiff[s],” Daily Caller, 152 F. Supp. 3d at 15, and will monopolize resources needed to process other ACLU affiliates’ requests. Given CBP’s estimate that it can process on average 3,575 pages per month, the Court should instead permit CBP to continue processing Plaintiffs’ request along with the other ACLU affiliates
7

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 69 Filed: 11/06/17 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:591
requests at such rate; to release responsive, non-exempt records on a rolling basis until processing of the records identified by the core list of search terms is complete; and to provide quarterly status reports on its progress to the Court.
A. CBP’s Estimated Average Monthly Processing Rate of 3,575 Pages Across All ACLU Field Office Requests Reflects the Agency’s Best Efforts to Process the Requests as Soon as Practicable Under the Circumstances.
For an expedited request like Plaintiffs’, the agency must process the request “as soon as practicable.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii). What is practicable—and hence what is required by the statute—will vary depending on the size, scope, detail, and complexity of the records sought by the request; exemption issues; other agencies or components which must be consulted or to which documents might have to be referred for additional review; and the resources available to process the request. Here, based on those considerations, the agency currently estimates that it will be capable of processing, on average, approximately 3,575 pages per month across all of the ACLU field office requests, and will release the responsive, non-exempt records on a rolling basis. As set forth in the declaration of Patrick A. Howard, attached as Exhibit 2, a processing rate exceeding 3,575 pages per month is impracticable under the current circumstances.
First, CBP’s review process for requests like Plaintiffs’ is complex and takes time to conduct properly in accordance with CBP’s legal obligations. Ex. 2 ¶¶ 25-33. The records potentially responsive to the ACLU affiliates’ field office requests include substantial amounts of information exempt from disclosure under one or more of the FOIA’s nine statutory exemptions, including information that is privileged, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5); implicates personal privacy, id. § 552(b)(6); and was compiled for law enforcement purposes, id. § 552(b)(7). Ex. 2 ¶ 26. The records also contain information in which other agencies and DHS components have equities, requiring inter- and intra-agency consultation to ensure appropriate exemptions are asserted. Id.
Given the complexity of the issues raised by review of these records, CBP employs a 8

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 69 Filed: 11/06/17 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:592
multi-level review process. Id. ¶ 28. Each record is reviewed by a first-level reviewer for responsiveness and for initial, proposed redactions. Id. ¶ 29. None of these first-level reviewers are attorneys, and many have been detailed to this project and thus have little prior experience with the FOIA. Id. ¶¶ 8, 43-44. A second-level reviewer reviews the proposed responsiveness decision and redactions for consistency and accuracy. Id. ¶ 29. Each record is then subject to legal review by attorneys in CBP’s Office of Chief Counsel. Id. ¶ 30. These attorneys also identify records that implicate the equities of other agencies or DHS components. Id. None of these attorneys are solely responsible for FOIA matters and must balance their FOIA processing obligations with their non-FOIA responsibilities. Id. ¶ 31.6 Only once all of these stages of review are completed can responsive, non-exempt records be released to the requester (and made available to the public, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(d)(i)). Ex. 2 ¶ 33.
As a result, this FOIA review process is substantially different than document review for civil discovery, and review rates for FOIA processing are not comparable to those achievable in civil discovery. Significantly, “the stakes of disclosure are different in the two regimes, justifying and arguably necessitating separate reviews with distinct considerations in mind during each.” See Stonehill v. IRS, 558 F.3d 534, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Because the agency must make records available to the public as a whole and because “there is no opportunity to obtain a protective order . . . the stakes of disclosure for the agency are greater in the FOIA context.” Id. at 539-40. Thus, review and processing of a record in consideration of the FOIA’s nine statutory exemptions is substantially more involved, and therefore, substantially more timeconsuming, than simply reviewing a document for relevance and a few applicable privileges.
6 Notably, CBP is employing reviewers and attorneys located in field offices, as well as at Headquarters. Id. ¶ 28. Thus, any suggestion that the decision to conduct a coordinated, single search for responsive records has limited the agency’s application of its FOIA resources, see Pls.’ Mem. at 6, is meritless.
9

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 69 Filed: 11/06/17 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:593
Second, while CBP is dedicating significant resources to the review of Plaintiffs’ and the other ACLU affiliates’ requests, the agency’s FOIA resources are stretched thin overall. CBP, which is a component of DHS and not a cabinet-level department, has only 25 full-time FOIA staff and four supervisory employees. Ex. 2 ¶ 8. Despite these limited resources, CBP has been inundated by an escalating number of FOIA requests this fiscal year. As compared to Fiscal Year 2016, the number of FOIA requests CBP received in Fiscal Year 2017 increased by approximately 33% percent (and approximately 70% as compared to Fiscal Year 2015). Id. ¶ 16. In particular, CBP has received over 100 FOIA requests in Fiscal Year 2017 related to Executive Order 13,769 and/or Executive Order 13,780, also entitled “Protective the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” Id. ¶ 18. Over 90 of these requests are still open and being processed, and at least 21 of these are in litigation in district courts across the country. Id. At the same time, the agency has received approximately 90 requests related to the President’s proposed Border Wall, 52 of which are still open and four of which are currently in litigation. Id. ¶ 21. And these requests are in addition to the thousands of simple FOIA requests the agency has received from individuals this year. Id. ¶¶ 13, 16. Therefore, any processing rate the agency can achieve in this case (and the other ACLU affiliate cases) must be balanced against the agency’s obligations to process the myriad other requests it has received.
Finally, Plaintiffs’ request—like those of the other ACLU affiliates—seeks all records (which is broadly defined) “concerning” the “interpretation, enforcement, and implementation” of the Executive Order and “[a]ny other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding the Executive Order.” Compl. Ex. A at 5-6. Accordingly, these requests are problematically broad, see, e.g., Dale v. IRS, 238 F. Supp. 2d 99, 104 (D.D.C. 2002) (“[C]ourts have found that FOIA requests for all documents concerning a requester are too broad.”); Massachusetts v. HHS, 727 F. Supp. 35, 36 n.2 (D. Mass. 1989) (“A request for all documents ‘relating to’ a subject is usually
10

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 69 Filed: 11/06/17 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:594
subject to criticism as overbroad . . . .”), and have imposed substantial burdens on CBP given the volume of potentially responsive records. The agency has tried, without success, to negotiate the scope of these requests with the ACLU affiliates. Notwithstanding CBP’s belief that it has valid grounds for denying Plaintiffs’ request in part on the basis of this overbreadth, the agency is processing the request in good faith as it interprets it.
Notably, the agency’s estimated processing rate reflects its best guess of its processing capabilities at this time, based on its current level of resources, levels of staffing, FOIA experience of its reviewers, and competing FOIA and litigation obligations. Ex. 2 ¶ 36. The agency anticipates this rate will increase as the review process ramps up due to any number of factors, including reviewers’ increased experience with the FOIA and the particular records at issue; changes in the agency’s competing FOIA obligations; discussions with Plaintiffs and other ACLU affiliates’ to narrow the scope of their requests; and faster-than-expected processing gains from streamlining review of similar records. Id. ¶ 41. However, at this time, given the current circumstances, the agency estimates that it can process 3,575 pages on average per month.
B. The Court Should Not Enter a Production Schedule in Light of Defendants’ Estimated Processing Rate of 3,575 Pages per Month.
Although they do not propose a processing schedule themselves, Plaintiffs ask the Court to “set a schedule” for the processing of responsive, non-exempt records specific to the Chicago Field Office and corresponding local airports. See Pls.’ Mem. at 1; id. at 6.7 Though counsel for the ACLU affiliates represented to the JPML that formal coordination through the MDL process was unnecessary because the ACLU affiliates would informally coordinate, see Pls.’ Notice of
7 Should Plaintiffs propose a particular schedule, or any other relief, in the first instance in a forthcoming Reply, Defendants object to their doing so, as it provides Defendants with no meaningful opportunity to respond. See, e.g., Griffin v. City of Chicago, 406 F. Supp. 2d 938, 942 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (“It is well settled that ‘[r]aising an issue for the first time in reply is improper, as it deprives the opposing party of a meaningful chance to respond.’” (quoting Peterson v. Knight Architects, Eng’rs, Planners, Inc., No. 97 C 1439, 1999 WL 1313696, at *13 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 4, 1999)).
11

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 69 Filed: 11/06/17 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:595
Opp’n & Joinder, at 17-18 (ECF No. 30-1), Plaintiffs now suggest that the Court should ignore the demands placed on CBP by the other ACLU affiliate cases and set a processing schedule requiring the agency to prioritize the 5,200 pages of potentially responsive records for the four prioritized custodians (or potentially the 7,300 pages of potentially responsive records for all 12 custodians). But an order requiring the agency to satisfy specific, substantial processing thresholds for particular field office records would only serve to delay the ultimate release of records to all of the ALCU affiliates and would prejudice other requesters, including the other ACLU affiliates and numerous FOIA requesters whose requests pre-date Plaintiffs’. Instead, Defendants respectfully request that the Court (1) permit CBP to continue to process Plaintiffs’ request along with the other ACLU affiliates’ request (which the CBP currently estimates it can accomplish at an average monthly rate of 3,575 pages) and release the responsive, non-exempt records on a rolling basis, and (2) order the parties to submit quarterly joint status reports so that the Court may supervise the agency’s progress and adjust accordingly to any changes to the agency’s estimated processing rate.
Plaintiffs’ demand for a processing schedule tied to Chicago-specific records would likely delay the agency’s completion of the processing of all the ACLU affiliates’ field office requests. As explained above, the ACLU affiliates’ requests seek identical categories of records from field offices, and, accordingly, there is substantial overlap in the types of potentially responsive records the agency must review. See Ex. 2 ¶ 35. The agency believes that it can most efficiently and expeditiously process these records if it is not required to parse them by case or custodian to satisfy processing thresholds for records specific to a particular field office. Id. ¶¶ 37-40. Deferring to the agency’s assessment as to how best it can process the records would allow the agency to achieve a faster processing rate, in particular through the application of search tools and the streamlined review of records raising similar issues related to responsiveness
12

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 69 Filed: 11/06/17 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:596
and exemptions. Id. ¶¶ 39-40. Not only would this expedite the ultimate release of responsive records to all ACLU affiliates, it would better ensure consistent and accurate treatment of exempt information, much of which could implicate sensitive law enforcement information and/or privacy rights of individual travelers. Id. ¶ 37; see also Daily Caller, 152 F. Supp. 3d at 14 (compelling production on truncated timeline “raises a significant risk of inadvertent disclosure of records properly subject to exemption under FOIA”). By contrast, requiring the agency to process records so as to meet field office-specific processing thresholds may slow the release of records, as the agency will need to shift resources to identify and focus on specific field office records, rather than conducting the review as efficiently as possible.
Moreover, given the finite nature of CBP’s FOIA capabilities, Plaintiffs’ demand effectively asks the Court to order the agency to vault Plaintiffs’ request over earlier-filed expedited requests and to dedicate an inequitably large fraction of its FOIA resources to their request. Plaintiffs’ request was already granted expedited treatment, which moved it ahead of all non-expedited FOIA requests. Ex. 2 ¶ 51. Ordering CBP to give additional preference to Plaintiffs’ request would necessarily come at the expense of the other requests in the expedited queue—including multiple other requests concerning the Executive Order—from which agency resources would be diverted and which are no less important or time-sensitive than Plaintiffs’. See, e.g., Daily Caller, 152 F. Supp. 3d at 15 (“[T]he plaintiff’s effort to accelerate review of its requests necessarily will displace in processing priority those of third parties who submitted equally urgent requests before the plaintiff.”); EPIC v. DOJ, 15 F. Supp. 3d 32, 47 (D.D.C. 2014) (given finite agency resources, “allowing EPIC to jump to the head of the line would upset the agency’s processes and be detrimental to the other expedited requesters”); cf. Caifano v. Wampler, 588 F. Supp. 1392, 1394 (N.D. Ill. 1984) (holding that ordering agency to prioritize plaintiff’s request would “‘vault’ plaintiff’s request over the requests of other individuals who
13

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 69 Filed: 11/06/17 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:597
were ahead of him in the FOIA line but who did not seek judicial relief,” which “would unfairly prejudice those other individuals”); Schweihs, 933 F. Supp. at 723.
Indeed, Plaintiffs’ demand could exhaust the agency’s processing capabilities for the ACLU affiliate requests. In recent days, the agency has received production orders in two of the parallel actions, which combined require the agency to process approximately 8,560 pages in the next three months. See Order, ACLU of Washington v. DHS, No. C17-00562-MJP (W.D. Wash. Oct. 20, 2017) (ECF No. 36) (ordering processing of 1,000 pages in each of next two months, and remaining approximately 4,100 pages in third month); Order, ACLU of Michigan v. DHS, No. 5:17-cv-11149 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 26, 2017) (ECF No. 42) (ordering processing of 820 pages per month and productions on rolling basis until complete). These orders monopolize approximately 80% of the agency’s total estimated FOIA processing capability for the ACLU affiliates’ requests during those months. Another similar burdensome order here would effectively force the other ACLU affiliates to wait in the back of the line and/or do the same to other FOIA requesters ahead of Plaintiffs in the expedited processing queue.
C. CBP Has Released Records Responsive to Plaintiffs’ Request. Finally, Plaintiffs again suggest that CBP has not produced any records responsive to their request, see, e.g., Pls.’ Mem. at 3 (“Defendants have not produced a single record from a single local custodian at issue in this lawsuit.”); see also id. at 4, which is not correct. CBP’s July 14, 2017 release included a spreadsheet containing non-exempt information regarding all travelers subject to secondary inspection pursuant to the Executive Order, and identifying the processing location for each such traveler, including, in relevant part, travelers encountered at O’Hare, Chicago Midway, and Minneapolis-Saint Paul airports. Plaintiffs have never explained how this information is not directly responsive to Parts 2-4 of their request, which seek aggregate data about the number of individuals who were subject to the Executive Order at local airports.
14

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 69 Filed: 11/06/17 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:598
In addition, CBP has released numerous records responsive to Parts 1(b) and 5 of Plaintiffs’ request, which seek “[r]ecords containing the ‘guidance’ that was ‘provided to DHS field personnel shortly’ after” the issuance of the Executive Order, see Compl. Ex. A at 5, 7, including communications between personnel in CBP Headquarters and personnel in the Chicago Field Office. Plaintiffs appear to suggest that these emails are somehow not “local” documents, Pls.’ Mem. at 3, presumably because CBP collected and released the particular version found in the files of the Headquarters custodian as opposed to the identical version found in the files of the field office custodian. But Plaintiffs’ distinction between “locally-held” records and Headquarters “held” records, see id. at 3-4, is a distinction without a difference as to electronic documents. An email between personnel in CBP Headquarters and personnel in the Chicago Field Office is, by its nature, both a Headquarters and local record. FOIA does not require the agency to release multiple or duplicate versions of the same record, just because Plaintiffs want the version the agency collected from someone in Chicago rather than someone in Washington. See, e.g., Defs. of Wildlife v. Dep’t of Interior, 314 F. Supp. 2d 1, 10 (D.D.C. 2004) (“[I]t would be illogical and wasteful to require an agency to produce multiple copies of the exact same document.”); see also Jett v. FBI, 139 F. Supp. 3d 352, 365 (D.D.C. 2015).8
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this Court should enter an order permitting CBP to continue processing Plaintiffs’ request and directing the parties to submit quarterly joint status reports.
8 Plaintiffs’ logic would lead to absurd outcomes, given the overlap in records across the ACLU affiliate cases. The agency has reviewed numerous emails that were sent to personnel in multiple field offices. Per Plaintiffs’ theory, CBP would need to process and release an email collected from the files of a Chicago Field Office custodian in this case, an identical version of that email from the files of a Boston Field Office custodian in the case in the District of Maine, an identical version from the files of a Portland Field Office custodian in the case in the District of Oregon, and so on for every field office. That outcome would only delay the release of records and unnecessarily burden the agency, and is inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of the FOIA.
15

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 69 Filed: 11/06/17 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:599

Dated: November 6, 2017  

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
JOEL R. LEVIN Acting United States Attorney
THOMAS P. WALSH Assistant United States Attorney
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Director, Federal Programs Branch
/s/ Chetan A. Patil CHETAN A. PATIL Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel.: (202) 305-4968 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: chetan.patil@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

16

 
 Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 70 Filed: 11/13/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:639

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,
Defendants.

) Case No. 1:17-cv-002768 ) ) ) Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET PRODUCTION SCHEDULE
Defendants yet again offer layers of excuses that only serve to cloud the key issue at stake in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set Production Schedule: that Plaintiffs and the public after nine months of waiting still do not have responsive records relating to a societal issue of the utmost importance and urgency. Defendants received Plaintiffs’ FOIA Request on February 2, 2017. (ECF No. 1 at Exhibit A.) As the Court has recognized, the value to the public of those records is inseparable from their timely release and is jeopardized as more and more time passes. See Nov. 6, 2017 Hearing Tr. at 7:14-17, attached to Resp. Mem. as Exhibit 1 (ECF No. 69-1) (interest in “timeless is increased” when “live issues” of public importance, like those here, are at issue).
Despite the importance of timely response to this particular FOIA Request, Defendants were silent. It was not until Plaintiffs filed this action on April 12, 2017 that Defendants were forced to respond –– which they did over one month later, on May 26, 2017. See May 26, 2017 Letter, attached to Opening Mem. as Exhibit 1. That was nearly four months after Defendants received Plaintiffs’ FOIA Request for urgently important information.

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 70 Filed: 11/13/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:640
In their May 26 letter, Defendants granted Plaintiffs’ request to expedite.1 Id. Yet by September, Defendants still had not produced a single responsive record, necessitating Plaintiffs’ filing of this Motion to Set Production Schedule. Only after this Motion was on file, and the Court subsequently imposed weekly meet and confers and set a deadline of October 20, 2017 for the parties to update the Court on the progress of record production, (ECF No. 59), did Defendants even begin the process of setting up a platform through which records could be searched and reviewed. (Joint Status Report, ECF No. 65, at 5.)
An undeniable theme has emerged since Defendants received the FOIA Request in February: time and again, they fail to take any meaningful step towards responding to Plaintiffs’ FOIA Request until pushed to do so by the possibility of judicially-imposed consequences. In the court-ordered Joint Status Report, Defendants at last proposed a production schedule –– spanning an incredible 27 months, for the relatively modest 1,820 records they identified from four prioritized custodians. (Joint Status Report, ECF No. 65, at 8.) As this Court pointed out, that boils down to 3.4 documents per day. See Nov. 6, 2017 Hearing Tr. at 5:15, attached to Resp. Mem. as Exhibit 1 (ECF No. 69-1). Factoring in the nine months since Defendants received Plaintiffs’ FOIA request, Defendants propose three years to produce records that the public should have seen months ago. On its face, Defendants’ proposal is not reasonable.
Notably, Defendants in their response do not offer a new, reasonable production schedule for the 1,820 prioritized records in this case, even in the face of the Court’s admonishment. See
1 The May 26 letter also informed Plaintiffs of Defendants’ decision to consolidate Plaintiffs’ FOIA Request for processing with other non-overlapping FOIA Requests. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs no longer challenge the decision to conduct a coordinated search for records. Resp. Mem. at 6 n. 4. That does not accurately describe Plaintiffs’ position, nor what Plaintiffs represented at the hearing. Plaintiffs have consistently objected to Defendants’ decision to aggregate 18 FOIA requests, because that decision has only contributed to the prolonged and unacceptable delay here. Plaintiffs also agree with the Court that Defendants’ continued aggregation method is not supported by their claims of efficacy, since the prioritized records have already been collected and deduplicated. See Nov. 6, 2017 Hearing Tr. at 11:20-21, attached to Resp. Mem. as Exhibit 1 (ECF No. 69-1) (“[I]f you’ve done all those steps already, that’s great. That cannot explain 27 months forward, though.”).
2

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 70 Filed: 11/13/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:641
Nov. 6, 2017 Hearing Tr. at 4:14-18; 5:22-24, attached to Resp. Mem. as Exhibit 1 (ECF No. 691) (“[Mr. Patil:] So our position is that the agency should be allowed to continue to process these requests as a whole and will commit to processing on average per month [] 3575 pages per month. THE COURT: All right. That does not seem reasonable to me. . . . So we’re going to have to come up with another plan.”); id. at 7:8-13; 21-25 (“[E]ven if I were looking at this across the country based on the issues involved, I wouldn’t be comfortable with the timeframe that’s proposed. I think it is [] to me a question of whether it passes the straight-face test to say, 27 months on a FOIA return. I mean [] especially in an issue like this. . . . If the plaintiffs were here saying, we want all these documents top down to be complete now, I’d have a different view. But they’re focused on four custodians for now. So that I will tell you in your pleading, that’s what I would be focusing on.”).
It is therefore evident that this Court’s guidance is necessary to prevent further delays and to set a reasonable schedule for the production of records responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA Request. To date, two courts have recognized as much and granted the relief that Plaintiffs seek here. See October 20, 2017 Order, ACLU of Washington, et al., v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., et al., No. C17-00562-MJP (ECF No. 36); September 7, 2017 Order Regarding production and Setting of Dates, ACLU of Michigan v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 5:17-cv-11149 (ECF No. 35), attached to Opening Mem. as Exhibit 2. This Court should, respectfully, do the same.
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to issue an order setting a schedule for the production of records responsive to Plaintiff’s February 2, 2017 FOIA Request.
3

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 70 Filed: 11/13/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:642
DATED this 13th day of November, 2017. Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Natalie J. Spears Natalie J. Spears Gregory R. Naron Kathleen V. Kinsella DENTONS US LLP 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 876-8000 natalie.spears@dentons.com gregory.naron@dentons.com kathleen.kinsella@dentons.com
REBECCA K. GLENBERG Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc. 180 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 201-9740 rglenberg@aclu-il.org
FREDA J. LEVENSON ACLU of Ohio Foundation, Inc. 4506 Chester Avenue Cleveland, OH 44103 (216) 472-2205 flevenson@acluohio.org
AMY A. MILLER ACLU of Nebraska, Inc. 134 S. 13th St. #1010 Lincoln NE 68508 402-476-8091 ext. 106 amiller@aclunebraska.org
ANTHONY E. ROTHERT ACLU of Missouri Foundation 906 Olive Street, suite 1130 St. Louis, Missouri 63101 arothert@aclu-mo.org
WILLIAM E. SHARP ACLU of Kentucky 315 Guthrie Street, Suite 300 Louisville, KY 40202 (502) 581-9746 sharp@aclu-ky.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
4

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 70 Filed: 11/13/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:643
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 13th, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET PRODUCTION SCHEDULE with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all attorneys of record.
/s/ Natalie J. Spears

 
 Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 72 Filed: 11/20/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:645

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,
Defendants.

) Case No. 1:17-cv-002768 ) ) ) Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S REQUEST IN ITS MINUTE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 16, 2017
The Court has requested that Plaintiffs “accept[] the current set of search terms as constituting a ‘reasonable effort’ by Defendant, subject to extraordinary circumstances that would be needed to justify future search requests.” (Nov. 16, 2017 Minute Order, ECF No. 71.) After consulting with our client, counsel for Plaintiffs thought it would be constructive to advise the Court of Plaintiffs’ position in advance of the motion hearing set for November 21, 2017.
Plaintiffs fully appreciate what the Court is requesting and the reasons why. Like the Court, Plaintiffs’ primary objective is prompt compliance with their request –‒ not extended litigation. However, Plaintiffs do not understand the Court to be asking that they waive their right to an adequate search –‒ a fundamental right under FOIA ‒‒ in order to require Defendants to comply with its statutory obligations. There is no basis in law for such a quid pro quo, and Plaintiffs are not aware of any other cases in which the plaintiff was asked to do so. Indeed, in a FOIA case, “the plaintiff is at a distinct disadvantage in attempting to test” the agency’s claims that it is conducting an adequate search, and the law puts the burden of establishing such squarely on the agency. Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 25 F. 3d 1241, 1250 (4th Cir. 1994) (quoting Exxon

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 72 Filed: 11/20/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:646
Corp. v. FTC, 663 F.2d 120, 126 (D.C. Cir. 1980)); Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321, 325–26 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (agency must “demonstrate beyond material doubt that its search was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents”).1 Plaintiffs thus understand the Court’s request to be limited to the threshold question of reasonableness of the core search terms – which the parties themselves understood were only the first step in Defendants’ search. (ECF No. 65, at 6 (The Defendants’ position is that “the agency will consider whether any additional searches are reasonably likely to identify additional responsive records and will engage in discussions with Plaintiffs to that end.”).)
Previously, in the spirit of cooperation and in an effort to finally receive some responsive records, Plaintiffs provided Defendants with a list of suggested preliminary search terms on September 29, 2017. (ECF No. 65, at 3.) Defendants took the list under advisement, but did not use and/or rejected a substantial number of Plaintiffs’ suggested terms. (Id.) Plaintiffs did not challenge Defendants’ search terms at that time, as others have done out of the gate, but instead agreed to work with Defendants. Defendants likewise noted their reciprocal intent to cooperate if further searches were required. (See infra ECF No. 65, at 6.) Given the imbalance of information, Plaintiffs respectfully submit that they are not in a position to fully and meaningfully assess whether additional search terms would be required unless and until they are able to see and assess responsive documents.
Nevertheless, in the interest of time and at this Court’s request, Plaintiffs agree that Defendants’ search terms are reasonable as to an initial search of the email accounts of the four
1 This typically takes place at the summary judgment stage via detailed, good-faith affidavits. Rubman v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 800 F.3d 381, 387 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Valencia-Lucena, 180 F.3d at 325–26 (“At the summary judgment stage, where the agency has the burden to show that it acted in accordance with the statute, the court may rely on a reasonably detailed affidavit, setting forth the search terms and the type of search performed, and averring that all files likely to contain responsive materials (if such records exist) were searched.”) (citations omitted).
2

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 72 Filed: 11/20/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:647

prioritized custodians and that Plaintiffs will not seek additional search terms absent exceptional circumstances. Plaintiffs want to be clear, however, that this does not negate Defendants’ obligation to search for paper records and other databases (such as Form 6501 and the TECS database2). (There may be additional paper documents, but Defendants’ counsel has advised that the agency has not yet ascertained whether there are any paper documents to be searched.) Nor does it preclude Plaintiffs from requiring Defendants to search the other eight (8) custodians identified by the government, as well as other custodians that the produced records might reveal would be reasonable and necessary to search in order to satisfy Defendants’ adequate search obligations under FOIA.

DATED this 20th day of November 2017.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Natalie J. Spears Natalie J. Spears Gregory R. Naron Kathleen V. Kinsella DENTONS US LLP 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 876-8000 natalie.spears@dentons.com gregory.naron@dentons.com kathleen.kinsella@dentons.com
REBECCA K. GLENBERG Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc. 180 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 201-9740 rglenberg@aclu-il.org
FREDA J. LEVENSON ACLU of Ohio Foundation, Inc. 4506 Chester Avenue Cleveland, OH 44103

2 Plaintiffs understand that a Form 6501 is completed when an electronic device is seized. The TECS database is supposed to record interactions with travelers sent to secondary inspection.

3

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 72 Filed: 11/20/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:648
(216) 472-2205 flevenson@acluohio.org AMY A. MILLER ACLU of Nebraska, Inc. 134 S. 13th St. #1010 Lincoln NE 68508 402-476-8091 ext. 106 amiller@aclunebraska.org ANTHONY E. ROTHERT ACLU of Missouri Foundation 906 Olive Street, suite 1130 St. Louis, Missouri 63101 arothert@aclu-mo.org WILLIAM E. SHARP ACLU of Kentucky 315 Guthrie Street, Suite 300 Louisville, KY 40202 (502) 581-9746 sharp@aclu-ky.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs
4

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 72 Filed: 11/20/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:649
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 20, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S REQUEST IN ITS MINUTE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 16, 2017 with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all attorneys of record.
/s/ Natalie J. Spears

 
 Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 76 Filed: 01/16/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:696

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

) )

No. 17 C 2768

) )

Judge Dow

)

)

)

)

DEFENDANTS’ JANUARY STATUS REPORT Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) respectfully submit this Status Report pursuant to the Court’s Order of November 21, 2017. Defendants report as follows: 1. Between December 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017, CBP assigned the equivalent of 30.5 full-time first and second level reviewers to the review of records potentially responsive to 22 FOIA requests related to Executive Orders 13,769 and 13,780, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” of which 19 were submitted by various ACLU affiliates, including Plaintiffs. Decl. of Patrick Howard ¶ 6. For purposes of calculating this number, the agency counts any individual reviewer assigned to the review project on a half-time basis as the equivalent of 0.5 full-time reviewers. Id. 2. In addition to the time spent by first and second level reviewers, between November 21, 2017 and December 31, 2017, CBP Office of Chief Counsel attorneys spent

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 76 Filed: 01/16/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:697

approximately 568 hours on the review of records potentially responsive to various FOIA requests related to Executive Orders 13,769 and 13,780. Id. ¶ 7.
3. Between November 21, 2017 and December 31, 2017, CBP finalized the processing of 2,338 pages of records related to the four priority custodians in this case. Id. ¶ 8.

Dated: January 16, 2018  

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
JOEL R. LEVIN Acting United States Attorney
THOMAS P. WALSH Assistant United States Attorney
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Director, Federal Programs Branch
/s/ Chetan A. Patil CHETAN A. PATIL Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel.: (202) 305-4968 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: chetan.patil@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

 
 Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 77 Filed: 02/15/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:701

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

) )

No. 17 C 2768

) )

Judge Dow

)

)

)

)

DEFENDANTS’ FEBRUARY STATUS REPORT Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) respectfully submit this Status Report pursuant to the Court’s Order of November 21, 2017. Defendants report as follows: 1. Between January 1, 2018 and January 31, 2018, CBP assigned the equivalent of 30.5 full-time first and second level reviewers to the review of records potentially responsive to 22 FOIA requests related to Executive Orders 13,769 and 13,780, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” of which 19 were submitted by various ACLU affiliates, including Plaintiffs. Decl. of Patrick Howard ¶ 6. For purposes of calculating this number, the agency counts any individual reviewer assigned to the review project on a halftime basis as the equivalent of 0.5 full-time reviewers. Id. 2. In addition to the time spent by first and second level reviewers, between January 1, 2018 and January 31, 2018, CBP Office of Chief Counsel attorneys spent approximately

1

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 77 Filed: 02/15/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:702

363.40 hours on the review of records potentially responsive to various FOIA requests related to Executive Orders 13,769 and 13,780. Id. ¶ 7.
3. Between January 1, 2018 and January 31, 2018, CBP finalized the processing of 1,480 pages of records related to the four priority custodians in this case. Id. ¶ 8.

Dated: February 15, 2018  

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
JOEL R. LEVIN Acting United States Attorney
THOMAS P. WALSH Assistant United States Attorney
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Director, Federal Programs Branch
/s/ Chetan A. Patil CHETAN A. PATIL Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel.: (202) 305-4968 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: chetan.patil@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

2

 
 THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

January 27, 2017

EXECUTIVE ORDER

PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration an\i Nationa·lity Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attac.ks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visaissuance process to ensure that those approved for admission

EO FOIA CBP 0000000002

2
do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies .over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred {including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.
Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, ·shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.
{b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection {a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of state and the Director of National Intelligence.
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in
EO FOJA CBP 0000000003

3
subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or
criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, a·u.s.c.
1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred
to in section 217(a) (12) of the INA, 8 u.s.c. 1187(a) (12), would
be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.
(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.
(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.
(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration
EO FOIA CBP 0000000004

4
benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.
(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to .make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this.order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the u.s. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in
EO FOIA CBP 0000000005

5
conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additiona.l procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 u.s.c.
1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.
(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of
EO FOIA CBP 0000000006

6
State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they det.ermine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution withiri 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.
(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and loc~l jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.
sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall,. in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 u.s.c. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.
Sec. 2· Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit
Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entryexit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000007

7
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 36S days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 18.0 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.
Sec. ~- Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.
(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by sUbstantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.
Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 22l(c) and 281 of the
INA, 8 u.s.c. 120l(c) and 13S1, and other treatment. If a
country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.
Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with
EO FOIA CBP 0000000008

8
applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:
(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorismrelated organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;
(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.
(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.
Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; 'or
EO FOIA CBP 0000000009

9
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
·THE WHITE HOUSE I January 27, 2017.
# # #
EO FOIA CBP 0000000010

:-:c:;::;;;:::;:: Mt\Y ALSO C(;"'!":"/',:t: ,!i,;;::;~r~:~r :';L::r~; :::-tL~!::E~t,;:'/E "J:8:i8R ~T! !ER :"\~!"~!(:;A81:2: Pn.:·..:t:..EGCO MA:~-~1.'\:...
l .)00 Ft._·!m,.vlt·.1m;. :\\.\'tl1ll.' ~\\ \\~'slnn,:mn. PC 20::~-J
U.S. Customs and Border Protection

1'vlcmorandum For: Diret:wr;;. FidJ Op~ratilllt~

From:

Todd :\. Honinan Executin: Director Admissibility and Pass~ngcr l'rtlgr;uno Office of Field Op<:mtions

Subje~:t:

Guidance on Ex~cutil'c Onlcr ··Protecting the :-xaticln !rum Fordgn Terrorist Entry inH> th~ I init~d State,;··

Effective immediately. and pursuant w Exccutin: Order entitled. "l'roleclil>j! llrt• .\'atirmfi·om Foreij!n Terrari.w Emry inlolhc• Cuiled S/1/lc.(" {January 27. ::!0! 7l. <~II entry into the United States lbr aliens who arc natiunals lrom lnm. lmq. Libya. S,Hnulia. Sudan. Syria and Yemen is
hereby suspended in accordanc<.: with Section 212( I) of the INA. This includ~s all non-
immigront classilications. with the exception oflhnse foreign nationnlstra\·eling on diplomatic visas. Ni\TO visas. CJ Yisas f(,r lr<iYd to the Cnitcd :\ations. Gl. G2. G-3. and G-l \·isas. This also includes all immigmnt classes of admission. returning resident :t!icns refugees and nsylccs.

The Department to State has provided CBI' with a letter provisionally revoking all immigrall! and non-immigrant \"isas for nationals of lmn. !run. l.ib~;t. Somalia. Sudan. and Yemen. Revocations may not yet he nnnotatcd in the system.

!he d..:nial locations.

Should aliens. subject to the Exccuth'c Order. arril cat the p<>rt <lf entry. CBI' nl'tkcrs arc instructed to ta.kc the following i!Ctions:
..tppficams bearillg .\'on-lnmtigrcml l'isas and Firs/ Time cll'l'"il'ill!! IIIIIHi<'I'OIII<
(I ~occssing will be
-system. according to
{21 Subjects will be allowed. to withdrmc th~ir application for admiS>ion on Form l-275. without a swortJ statemt!llt. All other proct.-dun:s pertaining to thl.!' processing of Fonn f.
175 wilihdrawal cases :~pply.
(3) Should the alien decline to withdraw thctr application for udmission, the alien will be
placed in Expedited Removal in acc,wdancc with standard opcrming pwc,cdurcs. (4) Aliens claiming !eat or rctum \\ill be rcfcrrcJ to an asylum olliccr. and prc,ccsscd lor
Expedited Rcmo,·al/Credibh: Fear (ERFJ. :\liens processed under ERF procedures will

PROPERTY OF U.S CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTiON
EO FOIA CBP 0000000011

-

FOR OFFICIAL US I: mJLY, lA!JI.' l:~lFORCEMI:NT SENSITIVE RECORDS MAY AlSO CONTAIN ATTORNEY CliENT OEbiBER/>.TiliE
A~lDIOR OTHER APPliCABLE PRI'IILI:GEO Mo.TEI<:IAL
be tefened to ERO for deteatioa. Field Offiecs lhould clearly jndjcete to both CIS lllld .ERO flllt alieu an: subject to Execuliw Order during the referral pocess.

us ~ bylus. u~CJtifdnrr, tmdsubj«bb rehlnlbrg to the with .4-tlwDtced

PDTOlc:

(I) 'AJieu fiom the above poup who

as a result ofthe

Executive Order, should be u:feued

held at the port of

eatry llldil such time as an exempliaa

obtaiDed. This

exempdoD fillls to the Sec:aetaay ofStale lllld Secte1aty ofHomeland Secwity. Further

P"""" will be fol1hcomiD& on protessing these exemptil)tll.

IDdividua1s who fall wi1biD any orthe above may not be paroled, which includes port parole and
de&:uecl iJispectio11. To the extent tbat these is an emergellt medical issue related to an alim who falls wi1bin the Executiw Order, CBP officers must eccompany the alien for any medical care.

.Rmlmbtg alWtl bii/Jgihk who withdraw their appliCIIllon/or admwion: (I) Alieu ll'rivillg via air or sea: Commercial carriers an: required to remove foreisn aliCDS
fouDd iDeJiaible for eatry under1his Old« pumlllllt to 241(c)(l) of1he INA.
(2) AHeu ll'rivillg via land will be n:turnecl per Clllftlllt established procedures with the
COlllipous coautry.

PROPERTY OF US CUSTOM$ AND BORDER PROTECTION EO FOIACBP 0000000012

FQt't OfPQ lib I 1£1; ONto¥.' !,A"' €>!PQR{t;M[NT tP'M>fW'C REGGRP£ t'f'V "bSQt;QfJ+"'1H XfTSt'tH:tlr GUEtfT, P@ IBG&!'TI' 1h
tt,H!?/-G'P G+tltl!t 4Pflt:!G.l49b( PRJ.\I;;tlbW t4c\::.FE!l:'0L
United States Oepartmcnt ofState
f"Jepuly rt\'.\'iSfilnl }leCl't!IiH1? tdr Vi.i'ti Ser-eicex
January 27,2017
Upon request ofthe U.S. Department of Homeland Security and pursuant to sections 212(t) and 221 (i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and 22 CFR
41.122 and 42.82, and in implementation ofsection 3(c) ofthe Executive Order on
Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals, I hereby provisionally revoke all valid nonimmigrant and immigrant visas of nationals of l.raq, Iran, Libya, Somalia. Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, subject to the exceptions discussed below.
The revocation does not apply to visas in the following nonimmigrant classifications: A- I, A-2, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO, C-2. or certain diplomatic visas.
The revocation also does not apply to any visa exempted on the basis of a dete1mination made by the Secretaries of State and Homeland Secunty pursuant to section 3{g) of the Executive Order on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest.
This document is not intended to, and does not, create any tight or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Edward J. Ramotowski Deputy Assistant Secretary Bureau of Consular Affairs Department of State

PROPERTY OF U,S, OJSTOMS ANO BORDER PROT£CTJON

EO FOIA CBP 0000000017

from: Sent: To:
Subject: Attachments:
Final attached

Hamilton, Gene Friday, January 27, 2017 6:32 PM Higgins, Jennifer; MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Metzler, Alan; Scialabba, Lori L; Ragsdale, Daniel H; Nielsen, Kirstjen RE: Two Questions 2017protect!ngtheNati onfromTenroristEntryintotheUnitedStates.eo.rel.docx

From: Higgins, Jennifer Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 5:25:45 PM To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Hamilton, Gene; Metzler, Alan; Scialabba, Lori L; Ragsdale, Daniel H Subject: RE: Two Questions
+Lori and Dan. Gene, they really need the signed version to assist in execution. Thanks for anything you can do!

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Metzler, Alan (b) (6)

; Higgins, Jennifer

Do we have official confirmation that is has been signed? Any way I can get the latest version electronically?
· Kevin K. McAleenan
Acting Commissioner U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b)(6), (b)(?)(C)
JYe are the guardians ofout Nation's borders.
Jf'e are America 's.fronlline. Vigilance • Service • Integrity

r \
1 PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000546

FOR Oi*IC::I'\l Y!i£ ONl¥/ lAW ENJ:GRG!i:l'JlEN+ g[N£1+1\'E R~Rt;JS ~4'¥ A!JiGI OON:tr.!!l ;\ilt!RNE'! CUEN+, 9EUSERATl'lE
t>.ND/QR OTI!Iiill AP'PbiC.'.llUi PRIVfb!iQGiill MAUJ!b",t

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 6:41PM

tb) t6!. (b) (7)(C)

PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECfiON
EO FOIA CBP 0000000001

From: To:
Cc: Subject: Date:

Warning Order. New Executive Order Ftiday, January 27, 2017 6:50:26 PM

DFOs,

President Trump just signed an Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorists Entry into the United States.

Headquariers is currently working on instructions for tlre field related to this Presidential Executive Order. Please standby for guidance on inmrediate implementation.

Thank you,

EO FOIA CBP 0000000154

From: To:
Cc: Subject: Date:

BORDER SEQJRITY ASSf DIRECTORS· TRADE OPERATIONS ASSf EXECUTIVE DIRECfORS HO
RE: Warning Order: New Executive Order Friday, January 27, 2017 7:22:56 PM

We will be having a DFO call within a couple ofhours please stand by for further information

Thank you,

From:-
Sent: ~2017 6:50:24 PM To: DIRECTORS FIELD OPS; BORDER SECURITY ASSf DIRECTORS; TRADE OPERATIONS ASSf DIRECTORS; MISSION SUPPORT ASSf DIRECTORS; EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ Cc: OFO-FIELD LIAISON Subject: Warning Order: New Executive Order
DFOs,
President Trump just signed an Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Tetmrists Entry into the United States.
Headquarters is cuiTently working on instructions for the field related to this Presidential Executive Order. Please standby for guidance on innnediate implementation.
Thank you,

EO FOIA CBP 0000000130

From: To: Subject Date: Importance:

Action: Technology~;e~!!
Friday, January 27, 2017 8:35:51 PM
High

- Multiple Sites

DFOS- See the Situation Room information below: On the conference all please be prepared to repmi out if the intermittent slowdowns are having an impact at your locations.

On January 27, 2017, CBP duty officers assigned to the National Data Center in Newington,

Virginia reported intennittent

are

Thank you,
Operations US Customs and Border Protection
This deebTite1lt anti anf oHaehment(ti) 117BJ etJii!ain 1esflrieletl, aen-sifi1 e, andlar lffl 1 en}~t eem ent serl5i#-,.e infornh"lfian hel-Bnging te the US. 0B'I'€!1'1Tmet11. !Us nat}6r rdett9C, 7'6'\'ieu~ T"Ctrerl:Bmissian, dissemiREitieH, BP use bj· RRJ'Bne ether then t:'le ifqteHdetl reeipiBHt.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000058

llf'i" Subject ~ Location:
Start: End:
Recurrence:
Meeting Status:
Organizer: Required Attendees:

Single Focus Conference Call EAC Conference Room
Fri 1/27/2017 9:00PM Fri 1/27/201710:00 PM
(none)
Accepted
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) DIRECTORS FIElD OPS; EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ;
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

Good Evening Directors, There will be a DFO/XD Conference ~Call this evening at 21 00 hours to discuss the guidance and implementation of the Presidential Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorists Entry into The United States.
Call in information is as follows:
("' Phone numbers: (b) (7)(E) or (b) (7)(E)
· PIN: IIBfAISI
Please note this call is for Principles.
Thank you,
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

(b}(6), (b)(7)(C)
Branch Chief U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Field Operations Field Liaison Division Desk: (b)(6). (b)(7)(C) Mobile: Fax:

1
EO FOIA CBP 0000000562

HOFFMAN, TODD A
(':~:
To:
Cc: Subject:
Call on Executive Order (b) (7)(E) (b) (7)(E)

(b) (6}, (b) (7)(C)

, airlines.org >

Friday, January 27, 2017 9:41PM

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

(b){l'·) (b)(7)(C
- WAGNER. JOHN P; HOFFMAN, TODD A
CONFERENCE CAll WITH CBP lOPM Time tonight

. ... ·-.": ":~··. : ~

rt via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

1

EO FOIA CBP 0000000563

:rom: Sent: To:
Subject:

MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Friday, January 27, 201711:21 PM Nielsen, Kirsljen; Fulghum, Chip; Metzler, Alan; Higgins, Jennifer. Hamilton, Gene; Maher, Joseph IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE- EO on Vetting

Team,
1wanted to outline CBP's initial operational plan, options, and issues. Apologies for the long email, but want to make sure that all have clarity on how we plan to implement the EO tonight and tomorrow, and some of the potential concerns we see:
Immediate Actions:
(b) (7)(E)

--Operational guidance is being sent out to all Directors of Field Operations and Ports of Entry, and to notify Port Directors of procedures for land border encounters.
, . ,-DHS and CBP have successfully coordinated with State and received a letter of provisional cancellation of visas issued ~·, to travelers from the seven affected countries.
Current Status:
·-Approximately 115 Nonimmigrant and immigrant visa holders are in the air traveling on passports from the seven affected countries are currently en route. Another 61 are lawful permanent residents (LPRs) returning home. The most significantly affected nationality is Iran (63 NIV/IV; 41LPR).
-No additional refugee arrivals from the seven affected countries are expected before Monday.
-Operational reporting will commence NLT 0900 tomorrow to the NOC and DHS front office, to include numbers of travelers encountered, disposition, and any other issues.
Issues/Concerns

,(~"
"\

1
PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000578

,.\ ~f!"ft ....f. lob\~ e@._ e, C.. l.: b\Vi Ef!PBRSEM:!~T ! ....!JS!TFe!
1+.,=eR*t..¥54f)R xess ....a: a:x::e At ,c.,....... ,-.................. , z....CJ......_, c.,:: e.. J ,,,.s.o: \ e, ....... ,: .: : 21& .a.. c. :c. v :zzc....s ;.,,; .: z. ...:.e
( ) ( ). (b) t7)(E)
I
\
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
Other issues:
--Appropriate Expedited Removal/Credible fear processes will be applied. --Other cases of national interest, will be assessed for case by case waiver adjudication under per the Executive Order.

~
\

2 PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000579

Sent: To:
Cc:
Subject:

Fulghum, Chip Friday, January 27, 201711:29 PM MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Maher, Joseph; Nielsen, Kirstjen; Hamilton, Gene Metzler, Alan; Higgins, Jennifer Re: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

I've signed. I've had printer issues at home so doc isn't perfect but you are cleared to go.
Chip
From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 11:25 PM To: Maher, Joseph; Nielsen, Kirstjen; Hamilton, Gene cc: Metzler, Alan; Higgins, Jennifer; Fulghum, Chip Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION
D •
{b) (5)

r (b) (5)
' Thank you,
KM
From: Maher, Joseph Sent: Friday, Janlllarv To: Nie>lsen. "'"51Jen KEVIN K

;arr1iltcm, Gene (b) (6)
(b) (6)

MCALEENAN, Fulghum, Chip

!b) {5!
Joe
Joseph B. Maher Acting General Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(b) !6). (b) (7)(C)
~ This communication, along with any attachments, is covered byfederal and state law governing electronic
I" ' communications and may contain confidential and legally privileged if!formation. Ifthe reader ofthis
'' .J message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use or
I
PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000580

FOR 9FF!CL2,~, ~JGE ON:...V! L¥/Y ENFOR€EMEN7 SEtJS!T!VE

·lff•frfM ~~{\j~@Fg'~j':~~\1lfili£.!11:1/ftt~ ~l'iifd~fY7iWAI~ltlm.;ijj~.f!liil!;f,!f:fl!'&'§f,&'ftfr.l'!,l?1i;·i!b'il;

f!il#rS~m~ flj.'e-:"ERIAL

r·rhe sender and delete this message. Thankyou.

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen Sent: Friday, Jan1U8I"V To: Maher, Joseph KEVIN K(b) (6). (b) (7)(C)
Cc: Metzler, Alan (b) (6) (b)(6)
Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

Hamilton, Gene (b) (6) Higgins, Jennifer (b) (6)

Thanks Joe Spoke to Gene- will standby in case, when and until Sl engagement is needed. Thanks

From: Maher, Joseph Sent: Friday, Jar1ua1rv To:N KEVIN
Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION
(b) (5)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

MCALEENAN, Fulghum, Chip
MCALEENAN, Fulghum, Chip

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen Sent: Friday, To: Hamilton, Maher, Joseph
Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

MCALEENAN, KEVIN K(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
(b)(6)

Fulghum, Chip

lease draft an email update for the Secretary. I would rather not call him this late- but will have his mil aide direct him to the email. I believe this will be news to him Thanks Best, K

(b) 16)
2 PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000581

Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION fooping in Joe, also.

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K
Sent: Friday, Ja . ....,_,......,

To: Hamilton, •• (b) (6)

!mlm.l'lll·lil(b) (6)

..(b) (6)

J • •• • •

(b) - (6)- - - -(b) (6)

Fulghum, Chip

Adding CoS,
Gene, Understood. We want to faithfully and quickly execute the EO, but want everyone to know that this guidance changes our status.

visas.

The 175 travelers a day average was for non-immigrant visa holders and non-LPR immigrant

It will be more like 600-800 a day including LPRs. We have 300 in the air inbound right now. And of course, they are reverted in a way to board the aircraft and re-enter the country.

r··we will keep working up operational impact, but wanted to flag this as our understanding has changed.
"' KM

From: Hamilton, Gene Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 8:22:17 PM To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Cc: Metzler, Alan; Higgins, Jennifer; Fulghum, Chip Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION
They should generally be provided the case-by-case exemption under 3(g), provided that it is in the national interest to do so (i.e. provided that there is no security risk posed, meaning that there should be a revetting of sorts).

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Friday, To: Hamilton, Cc: Metzler

!b)(6)

Fulghum, Chip

Gene,

to apply to returning LPRs? ib) !5) me know. Thanks,
3
PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000582

FQ?,: Of:'IC!."',L :.;s;: f O~t~'-' t/' 'l~) ~~:EN' S:7~5:i"7'i'~
F4ECOROS fA'V ":..SO':O~T'\if<~ ~~:TORN::' -c~:~, 8£U!.HJt'\"'~t.'E
'\NO/Gr.:t ~rR :".P?:..:C'".e:..c PRtv::.rsc:;:~ :\~.,~:c:~~r_:_

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Saturday, January 28, To: Owen, Todd C (AC Cc: ALLES, RANDOLPH D; Subject: Delegation of Case-by-Case W;>iivFr Autlhority From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States
Acting Deputy Commissioner/EAC,

on Protection the Nation

Subject to my oversight. direction and guidance. f hereby delegate to the Deputy Commissioner. Executive Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Executive Assist~nt Commissioner, Executive Director Admissibilit_y and Passenger Programs, Executive Director Operations, Executive Director National Targeting Center, Executive Director. National Targeting Center-Passenger. Directors, Field Operation~, Port Director, John F. Kennedy Airport. and Port Director.los Angeles loternatior>al Airport, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. the authority, on a case·by·case basis, and when in the national interest. and only with respect to Lawful Permanent Residents of the United States, to issue a visa or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked under Section 3 of the President's Executive Order entitled, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States," (January 27, 2017). Prior to taking any such action, the Lawful Permanent Resident who is the subject of the action must be subjected to a timrough e•amination by an immigration officer. This authority may not be further delegated.
- KM
Kcvm K. McAlccnan
Acting. Commissioner U.S. Cu>toms und Border Protection

H't:' are tit(! Rtwrdian.'i t?l our Xmim1-\' hnf'Jers, We arc America \jruntliuc.

-
PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000013

FOR 9FF!C!AL USE OPTL\' / b't'H ENFORCEMENT :SENSFffVE RECO RBS MAY ALSO COWFAIN AffO Ftt!E\' Cl:H!?~T, DGUBERATI\'E
AN9/9R EfFl IER APPUEABLE PRP.'IL&Bbli8 MATERIAL

From: {b)(6), {b)(7)(C)

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 12:33 AM

To: DIRECTORS FIELD OPS

I \ Il

BORDER SECURITY ASST DIRECTORS

(b)(7)(E)

RADE OPERATIONS ASST DIRECTORS

(b)(7)(E)
•
(b)(7){E)

MISSION SUPPORT ASST DIRECTORS EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ

Cc: OFO-FIELD LIAISON

(b)(7)(E)
•• •

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

Subject: RE: Warning Order: New Executive Order

DFOs-

APP and OPS are working attentively with our partners to finalize the guidance on policy and reporting. It should be coming shortly.

Thank you,

(b){6). (b){7)(C)
Acting Deputy Executive Director Operations US Customs and Border Protection
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

=r=.;i8 tffletJTRefit aR6 eMy et:taEI'lrNeAt(s-} fNEFl E&At&.'-R FeStricteEI, tBAti8t'B, gr;:,r#gr fgw er::fe"=b4ia:uua~
.r &er:t&#i·r.e '~:;f~r,.,stte~ Se/9R§;,~i ts tf.ie V ""''BP~r.7e~:tt 't ;s r>JI?t jsr ner'BiKfi; re·ciev·, '"9trg,:rc14i1f££;"R1
tfi~emi;la-rieJ,1 er er.;e By EMye,qe stlier tliaR t:Re JRteFJEieEi t=eS,lel'it.

From: (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 7:23 PM

To:

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b)(7)(E)

(b)(7)(E)

(b)(7)(E)

DIRECTORS FIELD OPS RITY ASST DIRECTORS TRADE OPERATIONS ASST DIRECTORS MISSION SUPPORT ASST DIRECTORS EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ

We will be having a DFO call within a couple of hours please stand by for further information

Thank you,

PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000560

From: To:
Cc:
Subject; Date: Attachments:

memo Saturday, January 28, 2017 12:57:33 AM Executive Order- Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.OOf image001.ioo

J. Ryan Hutton Deputy Executive Director ~and Passenger Programs
~c

\ftlaFRiRg': Thi: r:is::Hff!eR1 is 1 'NGbl'bhiF!EQ 1fFQR 9FRG'"b' lb[ mlh¥ ('d"FG'I?j.lt esR.fialRe iR~emn"sn t-Aat ffia)' Ee eJtEFAf!t
lfe?.-1 p!::!t!le ;:e!ease u;:;S"er tHe FresSsH'! sf f;:;~eFffiatisR "'e:l (I'' 'te.c. §92). I~;: ts Be G"Jr*sl!cd, sts _s, ?.aA:!l:.:;!, 1FaRGFMi:MeS, Sfsl:rk Jtee,
-A& Sis..-:::.:_e! -ef:A s-EeF2A:;:: .;'#!=; 9! IS pe'icy ;:e!::t:AgL fQ:...'G in-tsmffifsA aAS is Ae' 1e Be Fe!ea:ea ~c 'B:e pto~Sli::: e~ eRe; pel'ScR:-.:1 u!'ls El"s FJSi k;·re a ··alf9 "Reei E l:Rs""' ''li#:lebil pFier 3f!J3R"2l efan ae'Ra :_a-: Pl :G ~69'. ~~e ;:-~sA srf th:~ FSfr-Fl- :!:isd9 6:. ~TRicReS:
ts ~Ae .::tb, ei#i:::- l- ·v,.;!t£1- e-v'€rb:/ !'etTR. ffi.is t#c:u, wrt, ar::;d Ci'!j' a'iaehmc·:f{s) Re:cte, FRBY ee· S19 csFJffd.e;;fia'aRtt'erss·TsJ!A:e l '.b. G6"'2f"!FFI3R'f Wfer:mahr'!, 3"1.:' is R?: ffr r:·le~sa, It' tjzu·-, r:stra-IE'FR·E ::-:, -'.•::s~m:':::~::r: e.·:::: !:y -!'fF,'f- :~':::;:" :}"3~"1 ~KG !."':e;;r;jgof
r.aeipf.ei"'t#{e). Pf2cc::: :'<a 14:'~tre se-Efle,;- ift!=/s el'flaif !Tae kcFJ m:s:t"s:u#er:! ar:ui W:i.Rts:fiia~ely <f.es~:syat! e:<ig•ruafs amri c~:.ee efU:te er:lfj•Ra( "Ri' Gi&efe;~:.·rg e'ti:;is GtemrmeRf r:;:;t•&f be apptw,Tfiby b'. g_ Cu&f9m& ;;u:.r;;f li?er.t.fe· Pc::::e~•:.er=t

EO FOIA CBP 0000000235

From: To: Cc:
Subject: Date: Attachments:
Importance:

Terrorist Entry into the United States Saturday, January 28, 2017 1:06:40 AM Executive Order- Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.rxff FW Deleaation of Case-hv-case WaNer Authority per Executive Order on Protection the Nation From Foreian Terrorist Entry fnto the United States.msg High

Directors,
I apologize for the delay. Please be advised that you have unilateral authmity to approve exemptions to the Executive Order for LPRs, no State Depmiment approval required. The exemption process for other categories of aliens as outlined in the policy guidance currently requires the approval of the acting Connnissioner. Fmiher guidance for these exemptions is forthcoming.

Memorandum For: Directors, Field Operations

From:

Todd A. Hoffinan Executive Director Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office ofField Operations

Subject:

Guidance on Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Enhy into the United States"

Effective innnediately, and pursuant to Executive Order entitled, "Protecting the Nation ji-om Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" (January 27, 2017), all enhy into the United States for aliens who are nationals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen is hereby suspended in accordance with Section 212(f) of the INA. This includes all noninnnigJ.·ant classifications, with the exception of those foreign nationals u·aveling on diplomatic visas, NATO visas, C2 visas for travel to the United Nations, Gl, G2, G-3, aild G-4 visas. This also includes all innnigJ.·ant classes of admission, returning resident aliens refugees and asylees.

The Deparhnent to State has provided CBP with a letter provisionally revoking all innnigrant and non-innnigrant visas for nationals of Iran, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, andYemen. Revocations may not yet be annotated in the system.

Should aliens, subject to the Executive Order, arrive at the port of entry, CBP officers are instructed to take the following actions: Applicants bearing Non-Immigrant Visas and First Time Arriving Immigrants:
EO FOIA CBP 0000000080

(I) All case processing will be recorded ~system, according
(2) ~allowed to withdraw their application for admission on Fmm I-275, without a sworn statement. All other procedures pertaining to the processing of Form I-275 withdrawal cases apply.
(3) Should the alien decline to withdraw their application for admission, the alien will be placed in Expedited Removal in accordance with standard operating procedures.
(4) Aliens claiming fear ofreturn will be refe1Ted to an asylum officer, and processed for Expedited Removal/Credible Fear (ERF). Aliens processed under ERF procedures will be referred to ERO for detention. Field Offices should clearly indicate to both CIS and ERO that aliens are subject to Executive Order during the referral process.

Returning Residents, (1) Lawful Permanent Residents should be referred for~ and held at the pmt of enhy until an exemption to the Execu~ authority

to grant an exemption has been delegated to the Con:u:nissioner of CBP, and further

delegated to Directors

and SES Port Directors. Once an exemption

has been granted results

should be notated i n . with the

following language:

Executive Oraer and barred

from ent1y pursuant to 212(j) ofthe INA but has been granted an exemption per (insert

DFOISESPD).

Refugees, Asylees, Unaccompanied Children, and subjects returning to the US with Advanced

Parole:

(I) Aliens from the above group who are prevented from

as a result of the

Executive Order, should be referred for

and held at the port of

enhy until such time as an exemption to

can be obtained. This

exemption falls to the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security. Further

guidance will be forthcoming on processing these exemptions.

Individuals who fall within any of the above may not be paroled, which includes port parole and deferred inspection. To the extent that there is an emergent medical issue related to an alien who falls within the Executive Order, CBP officers must accompany the alien for any medical care.

Returning aliens ineligible who withdraw their applicationfor admission:

(1) Aliens an-iving via air or sea: Commercial carriers are required to remove foreign

aliens found ineligible for enhy under this order pursuant to 241 (c)(1) ofthe INA.

(2) Aliens arriving via land will be returned per current established procedures with the

= contiguous counhy.

Please ensure that this memorandum and attached muster are disseminated to all ports of enhy

within

have any questions or require additional information,

(A) Director, Enforcement Programs Division, a t -

EO FOIA CBP 0000000081

FA? OERC!O' 1 'SF srq" I I$\" P!EQSEE£ trtrr SftJS!TP T

·cn·r gcsqngc D" gv Q! cg CQP'T" '1N CTIQP 21Ct C'

OFt !A FRAT!''[

Ct!B/OROT!fEP 'pp:•cap'[PR!''~lEASEf "11-ERfA{

---Original Appointment-----

.. . From: (b) (6). (b) (7)(C)

.

~

• 11:03AM

• (b) (6). (b) (7)(C)

HOFFMAN, TODD A; HUTTON, JAMES

(b)(6). (b)(7)(C)

AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION;

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

Subject: Conference Call on New Executive Order on Visa Ban

When: Saturday, January 28, 2017 12:30 PM-1:00PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: (bJ (7)(E) or (b) (7)(E) with participant #IWil$11

TI1is call will infom1 everyone on the current policyofCBP in light of the Executive Order signed yesterday. Please feel free to forward if you want, there are I00 lines. If you have any
questions, please let me know.

(b) (6). (b) (7)(C)
Director Travel and Tourism Initiatives Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office of Field Operations
(b )(6), (b )(?)(C)

PROPERTY'. OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000577

From: To:
Cc: Subject: Date:

Terrorist Entry Into the United States Saturday, January 28, 2017 12:03:26 PM

Greetings Directors,

Due to the President ofthe United States Executive Order, ifyour field office detains a returning refugee, the Field Liaison Division will need bullets for each encounter as soon as possible. This information is tinre sensitive and will be fowarded to Cl, C2, EAC, DEAC, XD Ops, DXD Ops, XD Miller, XD Hoffinan and DXD Hutton. Thank you in advance.

Respectfully,
I!!!!!!!!!Wd Liaison Division
Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs & Border Protection
Pe:lills:vhran'ia A venue, NW

From:

On Behalf Of OFO-FIELD LIAISON

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 1:09AM

To: DIRECTORS FIELD

@cbp.dhs.gov>; TRADE OPERATIONS ASST DIRECTORS

dhs.goV>; MISSION SUPPORT ASST DIRECTORS

hs.goV>

(b) t6):-(6ft7)!CT-· ---

@CBP. DHS.GOV>; OFO-FIELD LIAI~>ON

~@cbp.dhs.goV>; !b) !6>. (b) (7)1Cl

EO FOIA CBP 0000000085

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C) (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C) @cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>

Subject: Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the Nation

from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

MEMORANDUM FOR: FROM:

Directors, Field Operations Director, Pre-Clearance

Office of Field Operations

SUBJECT:

Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

As we push forward in our efforts to protect our Nation, OFO Operations will require daily reporting on our activities as related to this Executive Order. Reporting will include encounters in the air, land and sea environments with anyone who arrives into the U.S. from the seven (7) countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) that meets the criteria outlined in the Executive Order and the instructions issued to the field by Admissibility and Passenger Programs.

Using the attached spreadsheet, data should be captured daily for the 24-hour time period

beginning at 0300 (EST)- and ending at 0259 hours (EST). By 0500 hours (EST) daily.

each F iOeffiice!isireiuiir!edd to submit their data from the previous 24-hours to OFO Field

Liaison

@cbp.dhs.gov). Reports must be submitting using the

attached MICroso Exce temp ate document. Field Liaison will consolidate these reports into

a final report senior CBP and DHS leadership.

~questions regarding to reporting, please contact the Field Liaison Division, at - - For questions pertaining to the implementation of the new policy, please iiliiiii~utton, Deputy Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs at

EO FOIA CBP 0000000086

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

-~~!:::

Conference Call on new Executive Order (b)(7)(E)

Start End:
Recurrence:
Meeting Status:
Organizer: Required Attendees:
Optional Attendees:

Sat 1/28/20171:00 PM Sat 1/28/2017 1:30PM
(none)
Meeting organizer
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C) (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

HOFFMAN, TODD A;

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
~s call will inform everyone on the current policy ofCBP in light of the Executive Order signed yesterday. ~ !liSe feel free to forward if you want, there are l 00 lines. If you have any questions, please let me know.
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Director Travel and Tourism Initiatives Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office of Field Operations
(b )(6), (b )(?)(C)

•
1
EO FOJA CBP 0000000587

rbject Start: End:
Recurrence:
Organizer:

Conference call on New Exective Order -
Sat 1/28/2017 12:30 PM Sat 1/28/2017 1:00 PM
(none) (b) (6). (b) (7)(C)

1 EO FOIA CBP 0000000588

From: To: Cc: Subject: Date:

RE: Waiver Saturday, January 28, 2017 1:13:07 PM

Waiver granled by Cl, 1312 hours.
Todd C. Owen Executive Assistant Commissioner Office ofField Operations U.S. Customs & Border Protection
From: HUTTON, JAMES R Sent: Satnrday, Jannary 28,2017 5:56:22 PM
-To: Owen, Todd C (AC
Cc: HOFFMAN, TODD
Subject: Waiver Re<'Jlle:st J'or2l

at.at JFKaboard Norwegian

Ho:unmu One

hours.

in ]pos~e;;sic>n of Iraqi passp~ and valid ZZ refugee Classification Foil #
to there- Subject was referred Passport Control Secondary for a 1 day Augmented- interview
The subject was born and raised i n - Iraq and has been living

The subject left Iraq aboat. _ ago due to deatl1 threats and an attempled kidnapping

Tire subject left Iraq and traveled

to- and then onvam:l

remained unemployed

While in Iraq he worl<ed
•

EO FOIA CBP 0000000233

The subject is intending to travel This is tbe subject's first trip to tbe United States Previous travel outside ofiraq Subject states tbat
checked. J. Ryan Hutton
-Deputy Executive Director
Admissibility aud Passenger PrograulS Washington. DC
[cid:irnage001.png@OIDOOE30.B35BEEBO]
v.z...,;,0 : 11Hs e e e - is Ul>!CL\££JH8).\'¥0R OH±Ch'.L USE ONLY (Uh'FOUO). It eeHlffias H>feFH>HiieH tHat ffiRj. Se ere£Bf3t &em f!H'Slie Rle85e tH*ie£ the Fieeeieffi: eflHfefffifttieaAet (5 U.S.C. 552). It is te Be eeatralle€1, stareS., he4leel, tmt smitteel, elistftl3ateel~ BHEi Eiis;t3ased efffi eeeeftlaHee w#liDHS peliey rela1iftg te FOUO ffi..fennetiea BH:el is Ret te Be FeleaseEl te the fl"S8lie BF etHer f!EPSeRB:el whe tie aet H:a'":e a val:iel uaeeel te lffie·.v" ·.-vitlieHt pfief &f)l*S¥al ef flf1 emB:eriz:eB DHS efHefal. }le J3BFEiea sfthis Fe~ eFt sheelel Be fua:tisfteti te fhe meeie, eftheY iH writtea er ver13al fel'fl% 'lliis ele e:WB:eftt~ 8BS rm; aft.ael.im:eat(~ herete, HHFY eaRt:eiH eeafieleat:ial aB:el/er
seasiftve e.s. Ge•rernmeat Hrfel:'fBt'ttfeB:;: 8ft8 is :B:at fer Feleese. Fet.:ie.t, Fe1HH:isf'Hissieft;: el:issmrinstiea BF ese Sy
BHJ'"Sft:E efliertlHm the iBteHeleel reeijlieBt(~. Please aetify tiie seaeler iftl:Hs emui:l Hes l3ee:Htmise.ireeteel BHel iamieSiately elestr&y ell efi.gHlals aael eBf.!ies eftlie eFigia.al. JlrfPJ el:iselesS:fe eftftis Sa eHB.'leBt m:ast l:le Bf!~Fe :e8 Sy U.S. GssfeffiS aM Benter Pf:eteetien:
EO FOIA CBP 0000000234

FOR OFFlGfAL UOE 8f4LY / LN/;' EtJIORCEMEf:fF OEflS!TlVE rt!COr:tEJ~ fv1j!s;Y At50 COf4Tfodt4 A 1 t 8RNEY-CUEf4T~ DELIBERATIVE AND/OR 011 IER APPUGA:BLE PRfVILEGED M. A:TER!AL
(b)(6). (b)(7)(C)

(\om:
Sent: To:
Cc:

((()())

Saturday, January 28, 2017 2:16PM

MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; HOFFMAN, TODD A; Owen, Todd C {AC OFO); WAGNER,

JOHN P;

{b)(6), {b)(7){C)

ALLES, RANDOLPH

Subject:

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Sent: Saturday, January

To:

TODD

Owen, Todd C (AC OFO); WAGNER, JOHN P; (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

JAMES R Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

(b)(6), (b)!?)(C)

From: HOFFMAN, TODD A
Sent: Saturday, January :
To: (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

I
(b)(6). (b)(7)(C)

Owen, Todd C (AC OFO); WAGNER, JOHN P; (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6). (b)(7)(C)

Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION
Deputy,

The second subject has been released. I believe we are providing assistance with his connecting flight. JFK is currently working on regaining custody.

Todd A. Hoffman Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs
r~ .·. , . •. Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs and Border Protection

1
PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000589

FOR OFFICIAL UGt OPJLY l b0(N EtlFSRCEMENT SENS!TP\IE
RE~\~H;J~JlfmWtf~1~<EVCO::IEilT.-CEE!BtAA=f!'~'JOOI'n:rmrn7:PM:lC7'iBt:rPRWIEECt:D'I'i!PI+ERI>',L
,.(ent: Satu
f o:
'<

HUTION, JAMES R

(b)(6). (b)(7)(C)

Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

EAC and Field Ops team,
Please confinn receipt and that we have not already released.
KM

(b)(6). (b)(7)(C) JdiHJdfV 28, 20171:26:11 PM
Todd C (AC OFO); WAGNER, JOHN P; (b)(6) (b)(7)(C) HOFFMAN, TODD A;
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

(b)(6). (b)(7)(C)

Deputy Associate Chief Counsel

Office of Chief Counsel

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (b)l6). (b)(7l(C) (office)

I

(cell)

From: (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 11:36 AM
2 PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000590

FOR OFFlCI/\L USE ONLY/ 6'\'A' ENFOROEMEtQT OE~431TIVE RECORDS 111AY ALSO GOP:ITA!P:i J\TTORf:fEY GLIE.JT, DELfBERATlVE l<UD/OR GTIIER APPLICABLE PRIVILEGES t!JAf1:CR:IAL

.-rom:
Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Saturday, January 28, 2017 2:21 PM
FW: Waiver Request for 212(1) in re imageOOlJpg

Second waiver request that (b)(5) assistance.

Thank you for your

From: OWen, Todd C (AC OFO) Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 1:04:15 PM To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Cc: ALLES, RANDOLPH D; (b){6). (b)(7)(C) Subject: FW: Waiver Request for 212(1) In re (b)(6), (b)(7)(C}
2nd waiver.
Todd C. Owen
ru.s.Executive Assistant Commissioner Office ofField Operations Customs & Border Protection

From: HUlTON, JAMES R

Sent: Saturday, January . 2017 5:56:22 PM

To:
Cc:

Owen, Todd HOFFMAN,

CTO(ADDC~:iijll!lll••

Subject: Waiver Request for 212(1)

OFO recommends
(b) (6), (b)

(5),

(b)

(7)(C)

-on

(b) (6). (b) (7)1C)

at JFK aboard Norwegian AirShuttle

#!IP'W"Pifl ~ostlbjectwas in possession of Iraqi passport

1and valid ZZ refugee Classification Foil# (b)(6). (b)(7)(CJ

r

Subject was referred to Passport Control Sccondal)1 for a I day Augmented
The subject was born and raised i" "3!!1!!110' Iraq and has been living

\

pppttpttllago The subjeCt left Iraq about

due to death threats and an attempted kidnapping

!
PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000595

F9R OFF:S!l:i: USE ONLY/ LYr\' :P«FOROEMEfFF 9E!J9FFIVE REGORD8 MJilcY ALSO CSft=f/ldN ;StfFFORJ4::Y CLiENT, DELIBERATI\IE AND/OR OT! fER ~~PL!CABLE PRl\/iLEOED M?<TERIAL
The subject left Iraq and traveled to (b)(6). (b)(7)(C) and then onward to

The subject has been living in tb)(6). (bi(7)(Cl The subject aUcndcd (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

and remained unemployed

While in Iraq he worked for

(b)(6). ib)i7l(C)

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

The subject is intending to travel to

(b)(6). (b)(7)(C)

This is the subject's first trip to the United States

Previous travel outside of Iraq is (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Subject states

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

(b)(7)(E)

checked.

(b)(7)(E)

1. Ryan Hutton Depuiy Executive Director Admissi~ and Passenger Programs
ftpilll~rrCN
Washington, DC
(b)(6), (b)(?)(C)

[cld: imageOO l.png@O IDOOE30.B3 5BEEBO]
Wtuning,. This tloettutent iJ U?JCL.\SSIFIEDYfOR OFFICIAL USE O?:[LY (Ui/f'OtJO).lt eentttitta htfa1matiet: tltat ma; ~e enemf!!t fFBM ~tt.Biie nliilii51! UfHii!r t-He ~FOfUi8H1: eflAfeRf16ltieR 1 ct (? l 1~LC fjl) It ic ta bw CQRtrolh-'il; CfC?FGd< ~aA&:ilGd; lr3AiiR1il>tcd,_ dfrttibutea, at~d dispord of in accgrd..nr? ·ujth pus po'icy J:Giatirs to FQ' 10 jpfumation and ir not *a be re1eased 10 the p··h'ic or ether f!iFSBRRelwlte ile net he; e a ··a:HB "1teeS. te l:ae·v" ··:ilhettt }:'rier R}!l!TS, s:[ afatt ftHi:l:ei i-eee! 9116 ef.Heial. ?le f'e!ttieu ofthts Fi!f3Bfl sheBlB Be f«FRisheB te iftfl!Tli8ia. iitlur iR vq:ith'!R er VE!F~al feR?~: This ~eeuFReRt, ani at\1' attaehlfl:effi~s) hereftEI, may eeMt:ain @8Hifefi!88'&l 8Rii'B1 Bi!J'!Sitive '_l J$. 'b9l'OAH?IOAt iRfarnntiBA; UMtf iE Riilt far FiJiii!lil; PilviP"'; ;;QfPflREPRiErri'MR; iliE68PRina.tfiH=i QF !:EO \7!' iiR!'9RQ QtRwr tRaR d;,a iRtaAdoQ Fosi~iaa+~s) Ph;a&til R9tif)' ~~a 5'iJtRar ;n~if; QRlail Rae i::loo;.'l tHi&SirQ;tad. aR~ it"RRlQQiaHtly Qietn~·s' all 9FigiRals &Ati se~hlC eftA a gl:igiAiW 1 "Rj' QiswiQEQFi sft}lic QQQWJR&Ht must Qa aptJf'il\'iil 9y u.~ Curtems aRS Qer~flr llfgtaathul.

,..,,
\

2 PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000596

(b)(6). (b)(7)(C)
Deputy Associate Chief Counsel Office of Chief Counsel U.S. Customs and Border Protection (b)(6), (b)(7)(C)(office)
(cell)

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Sent: Friday, January 2.7, 2017 11:35 PM

To: Owen, Todd C (AC OFO)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

(b)(6), (b)(7)1C)

WAGNER, JOHN P

HOFFMAN, TODD A .

(b)i6), (b)(7)(C)

Cc: ALLES, RANDOLPH D

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

Subject: FW: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION

(b )(5)

. rF";~~, i~~~i;~~.-chip

. .

... Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 11:29 PM To: MLALt:t"·""'

Maher, Joseph (b) (6)
ib)(6)

(b)(6). (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6)

I've signed. I've had printer issues at home so doc isn't perfect but you are cleared to go.
Chip
From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 11:25 PM To: Maher, Joseph; Nielsen, Kirstjen; Hamilton, Gene Cc: Metzler, Alan; Higgins, Jennifer; Fulghum, Chip Subject: RE: FINAL SIGNED EO FOR ACTION
D •
(b) (5)

Joe,
(bl (5)
r. · Thank you, KM

7
PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000603

From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments:

Owen Todd C (AC OFO)

HUTTON JAMES R

(b RE:

(6 EO

, {b 212(f)

{E7x(Cemption~~~·

Saturday, January 28, 2017

imaqeOOl.ioo

Approved per C1, 1722 hours.

{b {6), b 7){C)

Todd C. Owen Executive Assistant Commissioner Office ofField Operations U.S. Customs & Border Protection

From: HUTTON, JAMES R

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 5:03PM

To: Owen, Todd C(AC OFO)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>

Cc: {b) (6), (b) {7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; (b) (6), (bl (7)(C}

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C) @CBP.DHS.GOV>; HOFFMAN, TODD A (b) (6). (b) (7)(C) @CBP.DHS.GOV>;

(b) {6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.goV>; (b) (6l. (b) (7)(C)

{b) {6), (b) (7)(C) @cbp.dhs.gov>
Subject: EO 212{f) Exemption ""Liu"'"
Importance: High

Exemption to Executive Order Request
January 28,2017
Ii1ll:::. Exemption to Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" Request

Details·
•

EO FOIA CBP 0000000224

-
• Waiver request is for the accompanying minor child. Child i s - years old. o Child is a first-time immigrant, entering on an IR2 visa.
•
•
I

Drneljne·
• •
Contacts:

EO FOIA CBP 0000000225

Field Office contacted at 1244hours. J. Ryan Hutton
Deputy Executive Director ~and Passenger Programs
~c
l6/-aFRiR§: -:--!>lis aseuff!oH' i: ' 1NO OSS'F:CPYFO!=t OFFl£1 11 ' '•gr GN' Y C'!JFQ! 'Gj. ~ eeH<'t;F.::: •:-;e.. ~7::::: ~?-~ ···-r=:::: s:::: .. ;::~
-'--R'! ;n;B!i... s•_ass HAsls-Lfle FFeeS:affi :fiRfeHTl&!ieF. est~§ l'.b.C. B€2). It is te Ee :~r::PEJ!IeS, 5FaFE9, ~aRdt:d, '"::n-...~::3, d~!::...*e!Ef,
ace: ::J1srese5 ef iu .::.:::ceFSa:x-:. o/1¥, 81JS p~:;_y- .~!~!i,;_, te :-ous inferrnutia:: ~-J ~ .mt ::: t_ ;.:!~:..:;:.t :::: ~:-;.: ~l:!t:ie s. :ite. p..:!w••.•~l ·.t::: ::: ::s~ L· _ 3 ·af'S "F!ss;;!! k !<!'Is""' "i~J::teHt f.ll'is~ B;SfH'S's! or a:R a<*He¢. sag;!£ e#ieisJ. Ne ~sl'HsR s~·t-f:lis rersFt ::t:edS Sc 4<:fffl_;sl:leel te t:l:le media, sillier in s~er: c ··erta! 'ffifffL J:hia £2sc&rR2Flf, aRd a."i'J" a!faef:m&F!t{&J IT::Fet'e, ntay ecFlfa.R a;Wifie.Ht"a! aR<ih... sens1ive 1}.:::. ?:::·'Zm:--:::::::~ i":!::...z~;?n, a-;se' S o.s~ !ar Fe 1s:-;;os, "'fT'i:T, tc!.car.:;si'J<J'.-&s.·arr, :;#e;eq:;f;:;fi#s;:; e= tfS-:' 9;1 GR}'Hl? eff;;e~ t!=tar:; ~l;s ;Rt€Rf'ieff
reeftJieR!fsj. P.'eaee Fi&iily Y:c &efifie.-i:•.t;·e cmai,' <rca Beef! r:n.'sr!i·ec:es a."'& ;!'l'n"ff:::fa:c!yf#c&tFsy aN :::Fig'Fiafs GFii4 =fi:.-~5 Jt.'L cri,,.iFJa!.
J\.~"W cfi5E/sst·.-~ -~ !':::;c :!e:::·.-:::."l't .::::! b:: ::pf2"8' _d ~.: ~'.:€.'. "C'::s!:::'"::: ::::.: fle. "J::r PR3festis:-.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000226

From: To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date: Attachments:
Importance:

Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign
Saturday, January 28, 2017 6:59:40 PM 20170127 Executive Order Reportino.odf 20170127 Executive Order Reportino attachment Update.xfsx High

Directors,

Per the conference call this afternoon, Field Liaison would like to provide the following takeaway items:

• Any calls or requests from a member of Congress or their staff should be referred to

Office of

Affairs: (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp dhs goy and

•

There has been a slight change to the reporting requirements as well. Effective immediately, please use the updated spreadsheet attached. In addition to the running cumulative total, the EAC would like to see totals for the reporting timeframe.

-U.S. Customs and Border Protection

w.......g: T!Hs Elee....,..,t;. 'JNCLM:SlHI!l),I,!FQR Ol'F:ICfi\L USE ONLY (W,!FotJ01, It eoftlftiHs ~oa
that ffiftY l:le ene!BfJf H-em J3Ul:llie FeleRee liBeler the PFeedea1: eflffi'eHHBtiettAet ES U.S.C. SS2). It is te Be eaR'lffille4;
etaFeei:; Baaelle4; tronsmitteS; 8ieU=i\nlfe4; AHEi d!Sflese:Ei efiR aeeeFeloaee wifh:BHS 13eliey Feleting te FOUO
ee ae it~tiMl Mt:d: is net te releft5ed ~e ~e f'H8lie, 1lte meilia; er etfter f'etSenB:el I;He Bet lift. e ft I Mi:S ·'HeeEl te
ktlev.-'' ,,ifh:eHt p!"iM &f1t31'6 eel efftft M:H:h:efti!efl BilS effteiel. Stafe ftflti Ieee! IlemelrB~ seetif:it; e:Etteio:l5 fllft) sbftfe
EO FOIA CBP 0000000146

fflis BeetUl'l:ent ,,itfi &l:lfl:teFiz:eel seeari:f) ~eFSefl11el ctithelit ffir-tlieF Elfl~Fe'/al Hem DII£.

From:

On Behalf Of OFO-FIELD LIAISON

Sent: Saturday, January 28,2017 1:09AM

To: DIRECTORS FIELD OPS

@cbp.dhs.gov>; EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ

p.dhs.gov>; TRADE OPERATIONS ASST DIRECTORS

@cbp.dhs.gov>; MISSION SUPPORT ASST DIRECTORS

Cc: (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

p.dhs.gov> @CBP.DHS.GOV>; OFO-FIELD LIAISON
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

p.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C) (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>

Subject: Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the Nation

from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

MEMORANDUM FOR: Directors, Field Operations Director, Pre-Clearance

FROM:

irec~tor, Operations (Acting) Office of Field Operations

SUBJECT:

Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trwnp issued Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to conunit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

As we push forward in our efforts to protect our Nation, OFO Operations will require daily reporting on our activities as related to this Executive Order. Reporting will include encounters in the air, land and sea environments with anyone who arrives into the U.S. from the seven (7) countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) that meets the criteria outlined in the Executive Order and the instructions issued to the field by Admissibility and Passenger Programs.

Using the attached spreadsheet, data should be captured daily for the 24-hour time period beginning at 0300 (EST)- and ending at 0259 hours (EST). By 0500 hours (EST) daily, each Fie~submit their data from the previous 24-hours to OFO Field L i a i s o n - - @ c h p clbs gov). Reports must be submitting using the attached Microsoft Excel template document. Field Liaison will consolidate these reports into a final report senior CBP and DHS leadership.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000147

questions regarding to reporting, please contact the Field Liaison Division, at For questions pertaining to the implementation of the new policy, please
!futtOJrr, Deputy Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs at
EO FOIA CBP 0000000148

From: To: Subject: Date:
DFOs,

Owen Todd C <AC OFQ)
DIRECTQRS FIELD OP$ Congressional and media engagement Saturday, Janual)' 28, 2017 7:49:19 PM

As stated on the call earlier today, you and your staff are NOT to engage with the media or Congressional representatives at this time. Please make sure your subordinate Port Directors are following this direction. Please report any such requests to Acting A C - from Congressional Affairs.

Thank you.

Todd C. Owen Executive Assistant Commissioner Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs & Border Protection

EO FOIA CBP 0000000063

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Date:

CAIR/Attorney Saturday, January 28, 2017 8:03:12 PM

Directors,

Operations received reports of requests and/or attempts by private attorneys or attorneys with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to gain access to observe secondary inspections or represent aliens in secondary. Can you advise if this is occurring in your AOR? Negative responses requested.

Thank you,

I!I!I!Pef
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Office of Field Operations
Field Liaison Division
(b) (6). (b) (?)(C)

V/ftrHiHg: THis BeeliftleHt is UNCLA:SSIFIE9HfOR OFFICIA-L USE ONL-Y (UIIFOUO~. It eeHteiRs infePR1ffiieR that ffiflj Be eHem~t :ft:em pttBlie release aneler tfie Freeelem efiRfaFffiatiea Aet (§ U.S.C. §§2~. It is te he eentrelleel, s!oree, ROR<Ilee, lrOHSffiittee, eislrilnttee, OHe eisposee of iH eeeoreeHee with DI!S polis;· reletiHg to FOUO i:ftfeFm:etiea enel is Ret te he releeseel te tfte ~tffilie, the meelie, er etiier ~erseflfl:el whe Be a.et lieve e o'a:liel "a.eeB te lme ,, " ,, itheet prier appre, a:l efen Rl:l:Rier~eel9IIS ef:Heia:l. State enelleea:l IlemeleaEl seeeFity ef:Heiels fflB.) sHare this EleetHH:eHt '' itfl: Bl:lffl:erizeEl seeeFity persel1flel ,, itliel:lt fHffl:ter ft13PFB\'al freffl 9HS.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000062

~?rom:
Sent: To:
Cc Subject:

MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Saturday,

28, 2017 8:13 PM

VVVtl'l, TODD

MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Team, Ijust spoke with DHS and have some feedback from PC call.

• DHS would like us to (b) (5)

- t o do this? If so, please confirm when complete.

•

-UN is expressing concerns that we are denying G-4s. Can we look into this and

• State has signed a waiver for all 872 refugees in bound this week.

Can we

•
-KM

OHS and State counsel are discussing (b) (5) (b) (5)
Kevin K. McA!eenan
Acting Commissioner U.S. Customs and Border Protection

I expressed our preference forfQJtOiM

We are the guardians ofour .\!atirm ); borders.
rre are America ·.~ .kontline.
l'igillllln/ • Serri(.'e ... lnft:grity

I
PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION EO FOIA CBP oooooooo1a

DOS-CBP Agreed Guidance for Executive Order
1) Dual nationals with a valid immigrant or nonimmigrant visa in a passport issued by any country not restricted under the Executive Order will be permitted to apply for admission to the United States.
2) Posts are allowed to process visa applications and issue nonimmigrant and immigrant visas to otherwise eligible visa applicants who apply with a passport from an unrestricted country, even if they hold dual nationality from a restricted country.
3) Landed immigrants of Canada (not including refugees) who hold passports of a restricted country can apply for admission to the United States, ifthe individual presents that passport with a valid immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, proof oftheir landed immigrant status, and only if the travel both originates in Canada and is through a land border or a pre-clearance location.
4) Landed immigrants ofCanada (not including refugees) who hold passports of a restricted country can apply for an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa to the United States, ifthe individual presents that passport, and proof of landed immigrant status, to a consular officer. These applications shall be made at a U.S. consular section in Canada
5) The entry oflraqi nationals with a valid Special Immigrant Visa to the United States is deemed to be in the national interest can apply for admission .to the United States. Accordingly, absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, possession of a Special Immigrant Visa will be a dispositive factor in case-by-case determinations. Iraqi nationals can also apply to a consular officer for Special Immigrant Visas, and, if otherwise qualified, can be issued a Special Immigrant Visa.
()) As stated by Secretary Kelly, the entry of U.S. lawful permanent residents is deemed to be in the national interest. Accordingly, absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in ·case-by-case determinations.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000019

'
7) In adjudicating both admission to the United States and issuance ofvisas, both DHS and DOS will continue to apply all appropriate security vetting procedures.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000020

From: To:
Cc:

Subject: Date:

j i)i,StribUtioO:
Trump's Executive Order
Saturday, January 28, 2017 8:32:50 PM

Ports of Entry Resulting From President

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Field Operations
Bullets for the Executive Assistant Commissioner January 28, 2017

Limited Distribution

Nationwide: Protests at Various Ports of Entry Resulting From President Trump's Executive Order

SYNOPSIS: On January 28, 2017, various U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ports of entry (POEs) are reporting protests resulting from the Executive Order (EO) "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" issued by President Trump on January 27, 2017. This EO suspended all entry into the United Sates for aliens who are nationals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen as per Section 212(f) of the INA. This includes all non-immigrant classifications, with the exception of those people traveling on diplomatic visas, NATO visas, C2 visas going to the United Nations, Gl, G2, G3 and G4 visas. The order also includes all innnigrant classes of admission, returning resident aliens, refugees and asylees.

DETAILS:

New York Field Office: John F Kennedy International Airport (TFK)

UPDATE:
• As of 1900 hours, protestors have occupied the parking garage at Terrninal4 (all levels) with signs.
• Crowd estimate is approximately 2,500-3,000. Demonstration mainly contained to Terrninal4 at this time, sporadic protesters at all the other terminals. PAPD, National Guard, state police, and NYPD assets will be deployed to all terminals.
• The protesters are being contained, are peaceful, are keeping their distance and are being closely monitored.
• Air Train service is restricted, only ticketed passengers and persons with airport ID will be allowed to enter the air train to access the central terminal areas.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000107

• No impact to airport operations.
• According to the NY/NJ Port Authority Police Department (PAPD), a group of demonstrators (about 80) are currently protesting in a parking lot outside Terminal4 under the presence of media outlets.
• With assistance ofPAPD and Port Authority (PA) operations we have directed the protesters to remain in a specific lot where they are currently staged and monitored.
• The PAPD Police closed inner arrivals roadways to all traffic with exception police vehicles, and yellow cabs. Some arrivals doorways also have been restricted by PAPD at this time, and all arrivals foot traffic has been directed to specific exit doors.
• The remaining 4 CBP terminals at JFK have not been impacted. The PAPD are making sure media personnel are not congregating in the terminals.
• A conference call with PAPD was held at 1500 hours and the JFK Port Director briefed the other law enforcement agencies on how CBP is processing the passengers who are subject to this EO.
• Due to the demonstration scheduled to take place in the Terminal4 parking lot at 1830 hours, additional police personnel will be deployed to the area to ensure that the demonstration remains peaceful.
• Approximately 350-400 demonstrators are currently in the east side of the parking lot.
Newark-Liberty International Airport (EWR) • A group of protestors have congregated at the Terminal B International Arrivals Area ofNewark Liberty International Airport. • The crowd size is approximately 100 and the protest is peaceful. • Several media outlets have set up around the protest. The group is protesting the
EO FOIA CBP 0000000108

implementation of President Trump's Executive Order. • PAPD is securing the area for travelers and airport employees.
Baltimore Field Office: Washington-Dulles International Airport (lAD)
• Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe and Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring attend a "Protest Rally To Welcome Refugees" at lAD organized by a social group identifYing itself as "Standing Up For Racial Justice ofNortbern Virginia".
• Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe gave a speech to the media in opposition to President Donald Trump's Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" temporarily banning immigrants and non-immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries entry into the United States.
• Social justice group "Standing Up For Racial Justice ofNorthern Virginia" organized a welcome rally via social media to take place at Washington Dulles Airport. The Governor and state attorney general gave a press conference and left Washington Dulles after briefly speaking with rally attendees.
• Rally organizer, Cayce Utley, representing the group stated to media sources that the group was planning a show of solidarity to international arrivals, immigrants, refugees coming into this country, who might be afraid of the executive order, to let them know the group supports and welcomes them.
• Estimated by Airport authority that this event has drawn up to 300 participants. Protestors have been witnessed cheering when passengers exit the PIS, and occasionally chanting "love, not hate. That's what makes America great."
• In light of the rally/demonstration ongoing in the main terminal, CBP personnel have been mustered regarding situational awareness and to take appropriate safety precautions to include limiting traversing public areas of the terminal and use of cover shirts/jackets.
EO FOJA CBP 0000000109

• Personnel have also been advised that they are not to speak to the media or other individuals who may inquire regarding the executive order, but rather are to refer them to public affairs link on CBP.gov and/or notify a supervisor.
Philadelphia International Airport (PHI,)
• Information obtained from news outlets and Philadelphia Police Airport Group have identified that a protest is scheduled at the Philadelphia International Airport Arrivals Hallway at 1400 hrs.
• Philadelphia Police Airport Group stated that they will try to contain/reroute the protests to the Departure/Ticketing area (away from the FIS location).
• Philly.com (Will Bunch- columnist) is reporting that a protest is imminent (being organized) at Terminal "A".
o Expected tum-out is projected to be in the hundreds
o This is the main entrance and exit for the CBP staff to access the FIS for start/end of shifts
o Officers will be advised to utilize secondary entrances, wear cover shirts or report to work in plain clothes
o Officers are reminded that body armor is recommended and mustered multiple times not to engage the general public, media outlets, etc
o Officers have been mustered multiple times that if engaged, they are to state that they are not authorized to comment
o Additional staffing has been assigned for tomorrow
o Egress and Ingress points will be staffed by officers/supervisors
o Officers have been advise to remain vigilant and to challenge individuals who are accessmg our area
o PHI CBP Supervisors have been monitoring (not responding too) social media.
Baltimore International Airport (BWI)·
• The MDTA Police and MAA are not aware of any planned protests for today or tomorrow.
Boston Field Office: Boston-Logan International Airport (BOS)
• On January 28, 2017, Massachusetts District Attorney Maura Healey hosted a press conference outside the CBP Federal Inspection (FIS) area main arrivals door at BOS in response the Presidential Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign
EO FOIA CBP 0000000110

Terrorist Entry Into the United States and was covered by two (2) media outlets.
• Additionally approximately five (5) protesters have gathered. CBP along with the Massachusetts State Police and Massport are monitoring the developing situation.
Chicago Field Office: Cbicago-O'Hare International Airport (ORD)
• Activists and elected officials called for an "emergency protest" at O'Hare Airport's international terminal. (no further details)
Port ofMinneapolis/St Paul (MSP)
• On January 28,2017, at 1645 hours (CST), Minneapolis Airport Police Department called and relayed that a group of approximately 30-40 individuals have organized a demonstration/protest via Facebook, at the Minneapolis Airport, terminal one.
• The dispatcher stated that 30-40 protestors have organized via Facebook and are currently gathering at the Minneapolis International Airport, Terminal one and planned to walk through the terminal and meet at the CBP/FIS exit doors, and great people as they arrived. The Minneapolis Airport Police Department is monitoring the group by camera and also have officers present.
• All CBP staffed have been mustered and information disseminated.
• All officers were advised to travel in pairs and to wear a cover shirt when leaving the FIS area. The staff was also advised that any questions from the media should be directed to the Chief in Charge.
• The camera system within CBP does show that there are individuals gathering in the baggage claim area, near the FIS exit holding signs and cameras.
• Two CBPO's are assigned to EGRESS and any activity will be reported as soon as possible.
San Francisco Field Office San Francisco International Airport (SFO)
• CBP was informed by the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) that there are demonstrations anticipated at the San Francisco International Airport this afternoon. The demonstrations are in reaction to the recent presidential executive orders dealing with immigration.
• The San Francisco Airport reported a demonstration in front of the Departures level by a group called ''Not In Our Name." SFPD will monitor situation and not interfere unless the group breaks any laws, such as trying to enter the FIS. SFPD stated they will have officers posted around the FIS exit to monitor situation.
• The demonstration has had no significant impact on CBP operations.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000111

• The group outside the "A" exit to the arrivals lobby has been dispersed.

• Per SFPD approximately 300 protesters are massed on the curb outside the FIS arrivals
lobby. SFPD states they are hearing "chatter" from some in the crowd suggesting that "they rush the doors" to the FIS and "free those being illegally detained by CBP". SFPD states they are reaching out to San Mateo County Sheriffs Department for assistance in crowd control.

• CBP SFO is shutting down the "San Francisco Arrivals" set of exit doors, and rerouting passengers to utilize only the "Connecting Flights" set of exit doors as the sole means of exiting the FIS

• Armed CBP officers are stationed at both sets of exit doors to control entry

• CBP SFO is maintaining constant communication with SFPD to in order to monitor protest activity and assess risk.

• DFO

on scene at SFO to oversee overall operations and ensure smooth

and entcH'm processing of affected arriving aliens.

Houston Field Office: Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW)

• On Saturday, January 28, 2017, at approximately 1630 hours, approx. 50-60 protesters and news media gathered outside the DFW International Airport FIS exit.

• Onsite were what appeared to be representatives from 10 different news media outlets with filming equipment. The DFW Police Department is onsite as well.

• At this time protesters are still onsite; however, passengers exiting the FIS were not being interfered with.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000112

Submitted by: (b) (6), (b) (?)(C) I Field Liaison Division Date I Time: January 28, 2017 I 1900 hours
EO FOIA CBP 0000000113

From: To:
Cc:
Subject::
Date: Attachments: Importance:

UPDATE #2: Reporting Guidance Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United StatesSaturday, January 28, 2017 8:33:02 PM 20170127 Executive Order Reoortina attachment V2.xtsx High

Directors,

The Office of Field Operations, Operations Division has been requested to update the repmiing template to capture and clarify additional information needed by CBP leadership. As such, a new reporting template has been created.

Please ensure that your locations are using the attached template for repmiing beginning with the 0500 report on January 29,2017.

As a reminder: • Reporting is now due to Field Liaison at 0500 hours, 1500 hours and 2100 hours. o Field Liaison repmis are due to the DHS National Operations Center (NOC) within one hour of the established reporting times. o It is critical that reports are submitted to Field Liaison timely. • In addition to the running cumulative total each Field Office need to also report totals for the specified reporting timeframe.

Thank you for your patience and flexibility.

Thank you,

Operations

This docwnent and any attachment(s} may contain restricted, sensitive, and/or lmv enforcement-
sensitive information belonging to the US. Go1•emment. It is notfor release, review, retransmission,
dissemination, or w;e C,• anyone other than the intended recipient.

From:

On Behalf Of OFO-FIELD LIAISON

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 1:09 AM

To: DIRECfORS FIELD

lrrocoo.,ans.,ml>: TRADE OPERATIONS ASST DIRECfORS @cbp.dhs.goV>; MISSION SUPPORT ASST DIREGORS

EO FOIA CBP 0000000140

Cc: (b) (6). (b) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; OFO-FIELD LIAISON

(b) (6). (b) (?)(C)

@cbp.d ,,.~,,./.

p.dhs.gov>; (b) (6). (b) (?)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b) (?)(C)

(b) (6). (b) (?)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; (b) (6). (b) (?)(C)

(b) (6). (b) (?)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>

Subject: Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the Nation

from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

MEMORANDUM FOR: Directors, Field Operations Director, Pre-Clearance

FROM:

liw"'t<w, Operations (Acting) Office of Field Operations

SUBJECT:

Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States irmnigration laws for malevolent purposes.

As we push forward in our efforts to protect our Nation, OFO Operations will require daily reporting on our activities as related to this Executive Order. Reporting will include encounters in the air, land and sea environments with anyone who arrives into the U.S. from the seven (7) countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) that meets the criteria outlined in the Executive Order and the instructions issued to the field by Admissibility and Passenger Programs.

Using the attached spreadsheet, data should be captured daily for the 24-hour time period

beginning at 0300 (EST)- and ending at 0259 hours (EST). By 0500 hours (EST) daUy,

each

their data from the previous 24-hours to OFO Field

!!,JP.&I!J.!D~lli'.J. Reports must be submitting using the

tenupJate document. Field Liaison will consolidate these reports into

a final report senior CBP and DHS leadership.

~questions regarding to reporting, please contact the Field Liaison Division, at
iiiiiiifutton, - - For questions pertaining to the implementation ofthe new policy, please Deputy Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs at

EO FOIA CBP 0000000141

FOR: OFFICiAL l:JSE SfJLY / LFt';\' ENFORCEP..1ENT SENSlT!'IE REC6R:BS MAY ALS:O CONTAIN: At 1ORNEY-CUENT, DEUBER,&;Tl'o'E
APJD;'OR OT! J::R APPLICABLE PRIViLEBGEB MATERtAL

From: ALLES, RANDOLPH D

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 8:58:58 PM

To: Owen, Todd C (AC OFO); FRIEL, MICHAEL J; FALK, SCOlT K (OCC); KOLBE, KATHRYN; YOUNG,

EDWARD E; KOUMANS, MARK; LOWRY, KIM M; MILLER, TROY A; LANDFRIED, PHIL A; VillELLO,

RONALD D (USBP); SMITH, BRENDA BROCKMAN; PROVOST,

Cc: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K;

HOFFMAN, TODD A,

Subject: Vetting EO Implementation CAT Team

EACs/ACs,

I am directing the Agency to establish a Crisis Action Team (CAT) to monitorthe agency's implementation of the President's Executive Order (EO) [Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States], support Congressional/Media inquiries, and to serve as a conduit to the Department on the agency's implementation efforts.

The CAT team will consist of representatives ofthe following offices performing the following tasks:

OFO Operations-Provide connectivity to OFO field leadership to faithfully execute the agency's implementation actions. OFO operations will also coordinate the Agency's operational reporting on EO implementation.

OFO Advance Passenger Programs-Provide policy guidance on the implementation of the Executive Order.

OFO NTC-Provide targeting support to implement the EO.

OPA-Provide communication support to the agency and track media inquiries.

OCA-Provide Congressional engagement to support implementation of the EO. OCC-Provide a central point for tracking pending litigation and providing connectivity with OGC.

OIA-Monitor engagement with foreign partners.

The CAT will be led by XD Todd Hoffman. XD Hoffman will provide agency leadership status updates at 0900 and 1700 each day for the duration of the CAT.

Request your office have a representative in place by 11:00 a.m. on Sunday January 29, 2017.
The CAT will be collocated with the Southwest Border Surge CATon the 4th floor.
V/R MajGen R. D. "Tex" Alles, USMC (ret)
~ty Commissioner {A)
.,CRP u.s. Customs and
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington. OC 20029

PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000609

. FOR OFFICI.A b USE ONlY' lA>.I'.' E~JFORCEMENT SENSITIVE RECORDS MAY Ab50 GONT'II>J ATTORNEY CUEm DELIBERATIVE
ANOIQR OTHER M'PbiCO.IllE PRIVIlEGED MliTERilll

-._! From: Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Att.dlments:

HUTTON, JAMES R saturday, January 28, 2017 9:34 PM HOFFMAN. TODD A; DIRECTORS FIELD OPS; EXECUlNE DIRECTORS HQ; BORDER SECUIUlY ASST DIRECTORS Owen, Todd C (AC
Gui,dante on Executrve Entty into the United States
RE: EO 212(1) Exemption Req1uest

High
DFO's A!! a foUow up fi'om guidance sent last night. In addition to waivers for LPRs, the Secretary ofHomeland Security has delegated waiver authority to the Commissioner ofCBP for only the following categories of individuals subject to the EO:
• Returning Refugees (to include any I51 time refugees encountered); • Retuming Asylees; • Individuals in possession ofa valid 1·512 issued by CIS; • UAC

· - - • DEAC Wagner
• XD Hoffinan
• (b) (6). (b) (7)tC)
• DXDHutton • OFO Field Liaison ·I have also attached some samples that were submitted for approval today.
sample
SUbJect Une: EO UZ(f) Exemption for LAST NAME, (f/n) First name
Waiver Narrative

!<:Tr'"'c AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000021

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY I LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE RECORDS MAY ALSO CONTAIN AITORNEY-CLIENT. DELIBERATIVE
Specific bullets regarding the specific individual(s), for example:
2 PROPERTY OF U S CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000022

o::::ORS£ ~!J.V f\:.SO ':Ofl..,../'-.~~t _*';:<'!":~J:v GL;E;-r; ;;:::~:~t:R'\7!'/:

-. J. Rvan Hutton
v Deputy Executive Director

,"',:~C'-::R ~'t"'Ht:R ;''.;'P!_tC:\GL: nrz~'."LEGEO ~)...o;:FRJAt

Admissibility and Passenger Progmms

RRB-\\'ashington. DC

tl'l!FP.h!ig --"'-)j'Jt'-:v·n, -- ',·'··"'Ss-;;-~;

:<-

. "

!>: • :e~·::;;=: ::r :r!tt·-,;t-:' \:;:_!

3'3:' 1 ::-\- v ~; •

·c-::;:!c;t ~: ::-~~;::-_: M'c;"1':'::\~ .;;q n-: :~ ;:;:: ·c:-c::::;;,·,;'; ;•,._ ~--_.

;-, ~-~,.,-

,!!,,olho;'-wec J":'H.~· c-if,,:._nt N<~ :f'<~t·X· -i ';! ,;r '•:;:·~t! ~\~<L..;::; ~" 'u 1:>;·,,., ~. - ~ ~r- ""'· fr. >t ;;:'""I"!:- -':C"'1f:-:;0t>~\"/ ,"irLt/i:'" :;f:r·::fht:: · E C'::.;,c!I'P'_:-,· - ,_.,,,.,,-o-·T ·-· -:;t .". • t,, ---~---.- CJ-:•···r;

:tv1 i1'1~tV¥i<'\-J r~t;tr:t:!i&} i\oC:iSc., ,--;a!.fy t.'T£ S$\-"1dat d i'ltS (:f".;Y Tc;: ~:::.}(.r~ F<t;:tc,·,:._:;,-:.: d L 2': "'~. ,;,,;;,~;,. '

(fJf~jc,___-:c,;"'>"- ·'.! Jh$ ~?;::{:ltll'h"ll: r:tl;t;( ;')!;' ,)f}f1t:(.l;e{ftJJ• [) f.>,<o;1 '':; ",:~; ~~:'f-\.'1}' ;-!~;'>~'hi'

" ,'

'-~
.:.-;" -

... ._,." '
~--·-- f>\;i.' _,, ;~-

··"<"· ,;_,~_,er~':J::-/ ~-- ~-'' : ; ;- ..-;'t -:;:'-t
.'.-.! '.,,,;, (W".t :f':;>•:' t:; :t><· ·;' J •o,li /<':?

.-- .From: HOFFMAN, TODD A

sent: Saturday, January lS, 2017 1:07 AM

To: DIRECTORS FIELD OPS

@cbp.dhs.gov>; EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ

@cbp.dhs.gov>; BORDER SECURITY ASST DIRECTORS

(b) (7)(E)

@cbp.dhs.gov>

Cc: Owen. Todd C(AC OFOlA111pptijlji@CBP.OHS.GOV>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@CBP .DHS.GOV>;

HUTTON, JAMES R(b) (6), (b) (7)(C) @CSP.DHS.GOV>; (b) (6). (b) (7)(C)

I

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6). (b) (7)(C)

• cbp.dhs.gov>;

@CBP.DHS.GOV>

Subject: Guidance on Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States

Importance: High

Dir~clors.

l apol<lgize for the delay. !'lease be ;tdl·iscd that Y''U ha1·~ unilateral authority to appro1·c ex~mptions to the Executive Order for LI'Rs. no State Department apprtwulrcquircd. The exemption procc$S li.1r other categories of aliens as outlined in the pnlicy guidance cun·cntly requires the approval of the acting Commissioner. Further guidance for these exemptions is forthcoming.

- From:
v

Directors. Field Operations
Todd A. Hoffman Executive Dircct<>r Admissibi lily amll'asscnger l'wgrams
3 PROPERTY OF US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000023

r=rom:
Sent:
To:
Cc: Subject:
••(b) (5)

MCALEENAN, KEVIN K
Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:28 PM
OWEN, TODD~~
ALLES, RANDOLPH FW: Federal Court Stay

I
PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PFlOTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000024

From: To: Subject: Date: Importance:
DFOs,

Owen Todd C CAC OFQ) DIRF®RS FIE! D OPS
Federal Court Stay- Hold all departures. Need confirmation Saturday, January 28,2017 10:34:00 PM High

Based on this evening's federal court stay, we are to suspend all departures of those found inadmissible under the Executive Order, including those who wished to voluntarily depart. We should freeze all departures but continue to detain the individuals in the airports while we await further legal guidance. All pre-departure actions will remain underway.

Need confirmation from each DFO.

Todd C. Owen Executive Assistant Commissioner Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs & Border Protection

EO FOIA CBP 0000000073

From: Sent: To:
Cc: Subject:

MCALEENAN, K.EVIN K Sunday, Janumy 29, 2017 12:21 AM Owen, Todd C (AC HUTION, JAMES ALLES, RANDOLPH Outstanding Imrniaratic>n A•ctio11S

• • HOFFMAN, TODD k.

PRE·DECISIONAl//DEUBERA11VE- ATIORNEV-CLIEN1 PRIVILEGED INFORMATION Team,
· - Iam tracking the following urgent issues associated with Executive Order implementation: 0

0
0
•
•
•
•
Need overnight POC for actions and confirmation. Thank you.
Kevin K. McAleenan
Actlng Commissioner U.S. Customs and Border Protection (b) (6). ibi 17i(CI

EO FOIA CBP 0000000610

We are the gualJf.Iaf#.ofo'II'.Na{!oq!s f?or,d~.r. We·are.Aiiieric!i ·~.fi:Ontl!f!e. fi_gi_l~-~~ce • _S"e·t-Pic.·e· -• lifte·q,ri.tJ'
:i.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000611

Sent:
To: Cc Subject:

MCAlEENAN, KEVIN K
Sunday, January 29, 20171:33 AM
, . Maher, Joseph; Baroukh, Nader; Ha milton Gen·e··· Nielsen, Kirstjen; Cissna, Tiffany;111111111
PLEASE REVIEW: Language of the instruction

1
PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000612

~tYR-Qt:PJCIJ'.L UM QNL¥/ b,.VV ~NFG~CIS:MiE~l:t geMSIT"-'5. REGGROS MA¥ AUlG GQN"l;'.!N ATTOI'Ul£'1' CUGIT, DELII<ERAlWE ,<I.!'!!JiOR 0+1 !EH API>UCASLE PRI'.tlbl!GIS!:I W~t• b

from: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
-

Maher, Joseph Sunday, January 29, 2017 1:34AM MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Baroukh, Nader; Hamilton, Gene Nfetsen. Kirstjen: Cissna, Tiffany; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C) RE: PLEASE RE\~EW: Language of the instruction

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Sunday,January 29,20171:33 AM To:

, Baroukh, Nader (b) (6)

Cissna, Tiffany (b)(6)
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
SubJed: PLEASE REVIEW: Language of the instruction

; Hamilton, Gene

1
PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000613

From:
Sent: To:
Cc:
Subject:

MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Sunday, January 29, 20l7 1:39 AM Owen, Todd C (AC OFO); WAGNER,

HOFFMAN, TODD A;

HUTTON, JAMES R; DIRECTORS FIElD OPS

ALLES.

RANDOLPH D;
IMMEDIATE ACTION: Executive Order Implementation ano compliance with EDNY

Court Order

ALCON:

Please take immediate action on the instruction below with regard to travelers impacted by the order. APP will follow with further guidance:

To further the implementation of the Executive Order, consistent with the principle in Section S(e) recognizing

due consideration for travelers who were in transit and for whom denying admission would cause undue

hardship, ports of entry shall take the following actions for those limited number of travelers subject to the

Executive Order

in CBP

Ports of should assess those individuals by referring them for

c<msideration for a waiver

to

case

should be referred to up the chain to

next.steps. ln any event, no

·to the

Executive Order may be subject to Expedited Removal or another immediate form of removal. For any alien

currently in CBP custody who had previously been processed for Expedited Removal and not yet removed,

please re-process according to this guidance. For any questions regarding this guidance please contact

Admissibility and Passenger Programs, duty officer.

Kevin K. McAieenan
Acting_ Commissioner U.S. Custom$ and IJ.ot•dcr Protec!iot\

We are 1/w guardimtt •!!'our Nation's barde1~. ll'e areAnrerica:,ji'<mtline.

1
EO FOIA CBP 0000000614

From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attadtments:
Importance:

HUTTON. JAMES R

MCALEENAN. KEVIN K: Owen Todd C CAC OFO): WAGNER. JOHN P: !IQililltiJIJjJWJ HOFFMAN. TODD A:

DIRECTORS FIELD OPS

(b) (6). (b)

(b (6, b 7 (C

9U' lOCCl:!l$1911f 1

(QCC); ALLES RANDOLPH D·

· RE: IMMEDIATE ACTION; Executive Order Implementation and compfiance with EDNY Court Order
Sunday1 January 291 2017 2:00:25 Af-1 UPDATED Guidance on Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entrv into the United States.msq image004.png imageOOS.png High

DFO's Kindly request waivers pertaining to below follow per guidance in attached message. I will be reaching out to address any questions/concems you may have.
Thank you,

J. Ryan Hutton Depu1:y Executive Director
Passenger Programs

VV.aFRiR~r Ttois ase:~F!'leH~ ic 'tt'CL%1£!.-P:::!Jf.'FQR QFfl""'!M ''E;E G>Jb¥ (' '.~tfQ' '9). R ee;=rtaiAs in¢sF.RetieM L';a~ fllcy Be en!mf.t
w hoF.J rEEe release HAEier#ie r-ee9sFF. s~ !R""SA'!·r!.:eR r. 84' (8 1 '.KG. §:€"2)" lt i: te Ee :ar;~m"s8, steFe-4, F.aF!r4!::4, i;.J:aASFRittea, i:'liWE!:rtea, :c :::;;--d Jl5oj:!::::5 ""'~;;;;_::::c.:.: do:-:~- ·..~t!t :;: ~"~:'cy .~lat';;-:1 ts :--:;'Je in!-:Rm~L:i :a:..e :s ..:~ k:. !:.~ r-L::.as.:.j ~e:7.:. ,.l:lb:;_ s, ~H.~. ~'"'~:~e."'~! a-· '''?G Rat ~a''G s: -·s:':S ~ReeS te hF!OP'" ·itA: !t pHs~ a;;]3r-e 'a! sf a:: a:r'-st::i.::ci:'l !JIIb sf.HSsl t's psFli:R s•··~·s reps:t ::RaH~Ef B: 'N?..;sl=iee!
:e e:e Rrrei:lia, eiL'ler i:s dfitt::.B er -.cr-Eal ffifffi. nr"s :ise:t:m7:Ml, aw:! aRy at'acf1R'Isiil(a! JE ds, nray ea!ifa:R sat:fiiiMl"a:' aRdi'B, scMc"tive u__::_ ?-:·'?.7':--'Z::~ _·-:!:rm~t:::-:-:, -.""::!. :- :--::~ !:r_-r:-.____ :·::~·f::"', :::f.-:::~:::rrf!::;fen, ::::::~::--!.:;.,~-.::; c :e::: t~- a-:ye~::: :::~.'::::.-#; q ~!"-: ;_-:f:.-::!::c!
,·ee#bi!,'-5). P.'eae::: •>eW; t.';~ 5CJlde. :rt.1:s cnla.: .'1as l:Jee.J rnicffi:eelet! GJ'ttf,JHmcdiafeJ; tic stray all eng.i:a.'e a ;ef esfi:~s cfb"ic CJ:'f#i•lti!.
'i.''W sf'sralsr: "C' ~ "(: :f.-:::·,eAaRt FFJI:Is' i?e aptJ :Pas' e;- ?l. "'. C'l:ls's!'l'l& -A:JPar~:. 0 <atire#sn

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Sunday, January 29, 20171:39 AM To: Owen, Todd C {AC

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; HOFFMAN,

tbl 161. (b) (7l(C) @dhs.gov>

(bi 161. (bl (7l(Cl
•
tbl (6), (b) (7i(Cl

@cbp.dhs.gov> (OCC)
@cbp.dhs.goV>; ALLES,

EO FOIA CBP 0000000089

Subject: IMMEDIATE ACTION: Executive Order Implementation and compliance with EDNY Court Order ALCON: Please take immediate action on the instruction below with regard to travelers impacted by the order. APP will follow with further guidance:
To further the implementation of the Executive Order, consistent with the principle in Section 5(e) recognizing due consideration for travelers who were in transit and for whom denying admission would cause undue hardship, pmis of en1Iy shall take the following actions for those limited number of travelers subject to the Executive Order curr~ custody. Ports of en1Iy should assess those individuals by referring them for a - examination, and where no derogat01y information exists, consideration for a waiver pursuant to Section 3(g) or 5(e) as appropriate. If derogatory information is discovered during the examination, the case should be refened to up the chain to detennine appropriate next steps. In any event, no alien subject to the Executive Order may be subject to Expedited Removal or another immediate form of removal. For any alien currently in CBP custody who had previously been processed for Expedited Removal and not yet removed, please re-process according to this guidance. For any questions regarding this guidance please contact Admissibility and Passenger Programs, duty officer.
Kevin K. McAleenan
Acting Commissioner U.S. Customs and Border Protection
We are the guardians ofour Nation ~s borders. We are America'sfrontline. Vigil«nce • Sen•ice • Integrity
EO FOIA CBP 0000000090

Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 6:12AM

To: DIRECTORS FIELD OPS

cbp.dhs.gov>; BORDER SECURITY ASST DIRECTORS

(!!'LIJp.tms.guv>; EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ

@cbp.dhs.goV>; !b) !6). (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.goV>;

(bl (6). (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.goV>; (b) (6). (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6). (b) (7)(C) @cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6). (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.goV>

Subject: ACTION: DUE 0930 Hours (EST) 01292017: Specifics needed on anyone held at the ports

Good morning Directors,

We have been tasked with obtaining the names, status, disposition, and departure flight time
infonnation for those being held for tbe 212(f) Executive Order.

Example: FO/Location: Name: flight/time JFK JFK

Status
Kl B2

Disposition Departure

WD WD

TBD TBD

This is due to tbe EAC by 1000 hours (EST) this morning.

Can yon have your staff provide this information to OFO Field Liaison by 0930 hours for consolidation.

I've attached a spreadsheet to ease tbe process.

Ifyon have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Thank yon,
1!!11111
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Field Operations

EO FOIA CBP 0000000138

From: To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date: Importance:

held at the ports Sunday, January 29, 2017 7:45:06 AM High

Good morning,

The time frame needed has now changed.

We need this information ASAP.

It is going to be briefed at 0900 hours (EST) therefore we need the information NLT 0830 hours.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Thank you,
!!!!fill
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Field Operations

Warll:in~;: This eeellf!l:eftt is UNCb'.SS±FIBD//¥0R OFFlCH\L USE ONirY (UffFOUO). It eentaias ffifuflllfllieH that may ee eJ<emj3t H-em flHBlie release HHEier the FFeeelom ef IefeFmetieH i\et (5 U.S.C. 552). It is te ee eoHtFolleEI; storee, heaelea, tFeHsmittea, 6islfil3Hte6, !IHS 6iSj3ose6 efia eeeorei!IHee ·.vith DHS j30lieyreletiHg to I'OUO ffifuflllfllieR eRa is Ret to ee releaseEl te the f3't:li:JHe, tJie meeia; er ether peFSeBBel 7Nli:e ele aet liave a va±i9: "aeeel to kaev/, \\iihoat j3rier SflflFS'<'fll of eR allihoffiea DHS offieial. State !iRaleeal Homel!iRa seeariiy effieials may share this aoellffieHt v;iih IIHihorieea seeflrily J39fSORHel witheHt ii.Hilier BJ3]3FeVel ifomDHS.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000137

WarniHg: This eeet~Hient is UNCLASSIFIEDi/FOR OFFICL\L USE ONLY (Uh'FOUO). It eelltains infermatieR that HillY ae eJEe!Rflt fFeHI flttBlie release HR!ler the Freeeeffi ef IRfermatieR Aet (5 U.S.C. 552). It is te ae eelltrellee, steree, hooelee, tFOOsHiittee, eistriaHtee, Bl'le ElisJ:lesee ef iR aeeereooee 'Nita DHS J:leliey relati!!g te FOUO i!!fermatieR aR6 is Ret te ae releasee te the flHalie, the Hleffia, er ether J:lerseooel wlie ee Ret hli'te a valid "Reed te lffiew" witfteHt !lrier IIJ:lJ:lreval afaR atltherizee DHS efiieial. State ooe laeal HaHielaRe seearity effieials Hlay share this eaet!Hieftt with aHtherizee seearity J:lerseooel witfteHt further awreval -&eHI DIIS.
From: Owen, Todd C (AC OFO) Sen~ 28, 2017 10:57:40 PM
To: - H O F F M A N , TODD A; HUTTON, JAMES R; OFO-FIELD UAlSON Subject: Specifics needed on anyone held at the ports
XD Ops, XD APP, Field Liaison,
First thing in the morning, we will need each Field Office to provide a list of names of any individuals being held for the 212(f) executive order. Here is the format JFK provided, will need each Field Office to provide a similar listing by 1000.
Thank you.

Name:

Status
Kl
B2

Disposition Departure flight/time

WD

TBD

WD

TBD

Todd C. Owen Executive Assistant Commissioner Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs & Border Protection

EO FOIA CBP 0000000139

From: To:
Cc:

Subject Date:

RE: UPDATED Guidance on Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United
States
Sunday, January 29, 201711:49:14 AM

DFO's Kindly request that you all Enforcement Prog:ra:ms Division (group mailbox) to all waiver requests. This will helps us track the waivers and alleviate field reporting.
Thank very much for all of your flexibility. We are striving not to burden the Field.
J. Ryan Hutton Deputy Executive Director ~and Passenger Programs
~c

Vt«arr:~ing: T'":a &!e:::n;;'l::n~ i: 1...'N,_,Ln_g~:PCQ!SQR C'FRC'!"L '}€C 0"'!..v ~\::' 11fC''}0~- 't:e:--:::-i:--s dsf'ff!at:sR "!:Ia• FAa:, Beene p~
r:_ ~?l:r.:t p:U~ll:f- ~elsa~s 'IR8er iRe Vr;seas~ gffFJ'G'WU'is;; es; ~e t! g B5'"'l- It \s t~ ~g se~!:e:J, £t"'re:J, !:::;::;g!erJ, t~AS:+lilta:-", Qi£t'"i;IJt'J4',
*: an-: .:::-;:sses' s••:- c:-csffi:::-::e ·c;~!-. 0!1£ ;:sh; r<El~iR:§ fQ'_'G iR~l'F!'iatleR aRE is Ra:te Fa Rlessea ts l.Re fHla~ic e- stAerf!:::FSSRF!al
tv~: &s AS1 REP·e a "SFi:l "f!ee-4 t: h:;.9'·f "'itRe·!t pl'ie:-- apf>Fa" ~!daR a~sR s6 9! 10 eli¥i::ia!. ~1 s pe-":-1'1 :r t~::: ?ef~~ s!':'elsl be!'·. i:!:.:::l'
te the su:ts. ei~'1er 'n :r~::.n e-- _ffid ":moL T"!is :ffieru;en:, 3:Je' a..ya!!ccf<>Pile ;t{e; heretB, 11&/ es1t"a:.1 s.l#i":4wSa' aneMs; s_ne."C.e ~f.~. C'a··c."F!FRZR/ •;::;f.e:.r:;;;aP:A, ar;i ·s ns~ far .::zlea.;e; .:oa· ·e ;·, rc~FSFJ:.'T'I'-sisFJ, ri'e&ei'RiF>e:Ja.r: er U£3 B; 3'i)!SR2 -~!il:r~R-FJ 'ke ;Rts<Jefci . cc{fiwt;s;. Pl:::ae;:; ..~~:::,- ;:,~ s~o:;Ei;:; <..-f.!:lis ..;:L_;: li::;s fi~~··· ..}::.:J;.;:;....:~:t a..J ,-;.,,;~YL:;:;.:.~-e:~l.-7 ~:: cn~L:a:::.: ~..d -~,...,-____.:: ~-f'tf.::: ..;:.;"'i,!J.'. /L<ij" ;;fsel:::;;rc :::-7 ~!··:: :-f:--::::.__;:-o.-:t :"':.~::t :-:: -;::;:x"c:-' S~· U. ?_ C'~IS~Cr:J'/8 :::FJ r:f Be.:Ef.e:· Pr>atr:erf:i&o''t

From: HUTION, JAMES R

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 9:34PM

To: HOFFMAN, TODD A

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; DIRECfORS FIELD OPS

([!Jcop.<Jns. go;•>; EXECUTIVE DIRECfORS HQ

Cc: Owen, Todd C (AC OFO)

.DHS.GOV>; (bl (6). (b) (7)(C)

(b) (61. (b) (7)\C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; (b) (6). (b) (7)

(bl (61. (bl (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6). ib) (7)(C)

(bii6l. ibl (7)(Cl @CBP.DHS.GOV>; (b) 16). (b) 17)(Cl

ibl (61 !b) !7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.goV>; (b) (6}. (b) (7)(CI

[OCC)

EO FOIA CBP 0000000121

(b) (6), (b) (?)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>

Subject: UPDATED Guidance on Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry

into the United States

Importance: High

DFO's As a follow up from guidauce sent last night. In addition to waivers for LPRs, the Secretary of Homelaud Security has delegated waiver authority to the Commissioner of CBP for only the following categories of individuals subject to the EO:
• Returning Refugees (to include auy 1st time refugees encountered);
• Returning Asylees; • Individuals in possession of a valid I-512 issued by CIS;
• UAC
The reQJiest for said waiver wm need to follow the below format sent initially to the below
dis1m
• • •
• EACOwen • DEAC Wagner
• (b) (6), (b) (7)
• XD Hoffrnau
• (b) (6), (b) (?)(C)
• DXD Hutton • OFO Field Liaison I have also attached some samples that were submitted for approval today.
Sample

Subject Line: EO 212(f) Exemption for LAST NAME, (f/n) First name

EO FOIA CBP 0000000122

Specific bullets regarding the specific individual(s), for example:
EO FOIA CBP 0000000123

J. Ryan Hutton

Deputy Executive Director

·

Passenger Programs

\\'4lrning: TAil? ;le-:'Jmar:;t ic UN':! egg!?!l'iiQ.1_1f."GR GP:Fl'::'L"-' '•gr: GWLv ~~ VlfQ! lO}. !:4 ;;:;:lb:A::: 1~;;:;::::;6:;;-R tHat fl'I«J ae e;;emrt

!J_::_,.. _ l'Pal:r:l p·•b!i~ ;:s!e~ce t'l=l?e:-;f=!e f7:;:;;;.:;1om Gf lA$al'fl;l3;i:;n:ll'st (5

~?'~2!. l~ '£ t? b-:: S9RI;:;alf€8, ;:tet??, ~~flJ::d, tfaRSJORft'a-sf, @i:strl:;t !ts9,

aHi'f 5iS!L.SA sf; • aees.ElaR:::e a#-1'1 81 'G f:is!ie_, Fe!at:A§ L FOLiO iRLrrnffiieft a::S is :-•.:-.t teL Fel:eese6 te t':e pti6!ie e. ~tl.::: pc.s-. •:.-1

n""s oL Re; ~.a -;a a "a!:" "?.a:::d ~s 'l:Fii:l""' ·!*Rat:~~ if! A-- apf.iF? ·a! :#.a:-- at·~>os<_ee Q! "6 -gisia!. ~!e p:H!sR s~ ~J:i': !'epn=t :,;Ret:~!S Ee krFRlsReol

\ti the me Ella, ei+l~er i.J -..Rt::r ar-. :...rlsa~ "an .. 7"':'& i#::ca .lwt Gi'L' e JJ a#ae'w;_;;ys} Uticla, .Ba:r e::u:a··; CELL!J:fe 1f:a: c !df~.-c~iw'!i .-c

!!. f. ':::S"?."R"F/3:-: fR{::;;;;rosfeF., -."lEi -6 l?~ ff:r r:;!.ea::s, Hi 'i-T, FSW'!i'."!&.'F.~':::.I, E#t:s::::OR:r-;a-:~~FI SF !:!::'3 filj' 5l!'i'j9HS ;:.!Js- ff:laH 'f]c ier'eF!:#Sri

eef;ieFlf{sj. n'~aae ;;sfif; tiL e~Rde:; Ff 1.<;·5 ema.'!!L~ htefi miseCeefea' a.v!i.nmeefaie.ty 8'::..51>&)' a!.' afi~iaa.'ti a Jr:i cepL~ e.":,';_ ~;:fg,i.e:.

c_-::~· .J;_':,":!~::.:::: ::::!":.::: ~sF..:. .::-~ ."R..:-:· Be :J:Ff'-''€ ·:::'"'By !..'. ':. ":·:-:s.. s _.-:! .9:: :':: P-:::~_:f;-;:.L

From: HOFFMAN, TODD A
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 1:07AM To: DIRECTORS FIELD OPS ~@cbp.dhs.gov>; EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ
~!li!J;j!lliJllllP; BORDER SECURITY ASST DIRECTORS

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; WAGNER, JOHN P

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

"':":'~~'::":".--, HUlTON, JAMES R(b) (6). (b) (7J(C)

(b) (61, (b) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; (b) {6). (b) (7)(C)

{b) (6), (b) (7J(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (bl (6), (b) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>

Subject: Guidance on Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the

United States

Importance: High

Directors,
I apologize for the delay. Please be advised that you have unilateral authority to approve exemptions to the Executive Order for LPRs, no State Department approval required. The exemption process for other categories of aliens as outlined in the policy guidance currently requires the approval of the acting Commissioner. Further guidance for these exemptions is forthcoming.

Memorandum For: Directors, Field Operations

EO FOIA CBP 0000000124

From:

Todd A. Hoffman Executive Director Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office ofFie1d Operations

Subject:

Guidance on Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States"

Effective immediately, and pursuant to Executive Order entitled, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Tenm·ist Entry into the United States" (January 27, 20 17), all entry into the United States for aliens who are nationals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria andYemen is hereby suspended in accordance with Section 212(:1) ofthe INA. This includes all noniuunigrant classifications, with the exception of those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, NATO visas, C2 visas for travel to the United Nations, Gl, G2, G-3, and G-4 visas. This also includes all iuunigrant classes of admission, returning resident aliens refugees and asylees.

The Department to State has provided CBP with a letter provisionally revoking all iuunigrant and non-iuunigrant visas for nationals of Iran, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Revocations may not yet be annotated in the system.

Should aliens, subject to the Executive Order, arrive at the poli of entry, CBP officers are instmcted to take the following actions:

Applicants bearing Non-Immigrant Visas and

(1)

will be recorded in

system, according to Ciiiirent

(2)

to withdraw their application for admission on Form I-275,

witlwut a sworn statement. All other procedures pertaining to the processing of Form

I-275 withdrawal cases apply.

·

(3) Should the alien decline to withdraw their application for admission, the alien will be

placed in Expedited Removal in accordance with standard operating procedures.

(4) Aliens claiming fear of return will be refe1red to an asylum officer, and processed for

Expedited Removal/Credible Fear (ERF). Aliens processed under ERF procedures

will be referred to ERO for detention. Field Offices should clearly indicate to both CIS

and ERO that aliens are subject to Executive Order during the referral process.

Returning Residents, (1) Lawful Permanent Residents should be referred for~ and held
at the p01t of enhy until an exemption to the Execu~ authority

to grant an exemption has been delegated to the Commissioner of CBP, and further

fill delegated to Directors o f F i0i ieria'tieonls dand SES Port Directors. Once an exemption

has been granted results o •

should be notated in

with the

following language: lndivi ua. is su >ject to Presidential Executive Order and barred

from ent1y pursuant to 212(/) ofthe INA but has been granted an exemption per (insert

DFOISESPD).

EO FOIA CBP 0000000125

Rejifgees, Asylees, Unaccompanied Children, and subjects retuming to the US with Advanced

Parole:

(1) Aliens from the above group who are

as a result of the

Executive Order, should be refened

and held at the port of

entry until such time as an exemption to

can be obtained. This

exemption falls to the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security. Further

guidance will be forthcoming on processing these exemptions.

Individuals who fall within any of the above may not be paroled, which includes port parole and defened inspection. To the extent that there is an emergent medical issue related to an alien who falls within the Executive Order, CBP officers must accompany the alien for any medical care.

Returning aliens ineligible who withdrmv their application for admission: (1) Aliens arriving via air or sea: Commercial carriers are required to remove foreign aliens found ineligible for entry under this order pursuant to 241 (c)(1) of the INA. (2) Aliens arriving via land will be returned per current established procedures with the contiguous country.

Todd A. Hoffman Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office ofField Operations U.S. Customs and Border Protection

EO FOIA CBP 0000000126

From: To:
Cc:

Subject:
Date: Importance:

for the Executive Order- Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the
u.s.
Sunday, January 29, 2017 12:37:21 PM
High

Good aftemoon DFOs and ADFOs,
Please be advised a Crisis Action Team (CAT) has been established to address and report on the Executive Order Report- Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the U.S.
Please ensure to add the Enforcement Programs Division email on all correspondence/inquiries regarding the Executive Order.

contacted at:
Additional guidance will be forthcoming. Thank you,
1!!1!1111
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Field Operations

WHrlliftg: This aeellllietJ:t is UNCLASSIFJED//FOR OFFIG±AL USE m!LY (U.lff~. R eettffi.i.Hs ffi..ferftlfl+iea tftftt ma-y 'Be eJtempt ftem pti13Iie Felense titi&ef tfte Pf:eeelem sf WMmtttieH: i\et (5 U.S.C. 552). ±tis te l3e eefttreHeEl, stefeti; ftaacY:e6, f~raft!:IH+ifte6; aisfffiJHteS.~
EO FOIA CBP 0000000064

From: To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date: Attachments:

I"

B •I

I

I

UPDATE #3: Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

Sunday, January 29, 2017 1:27:54 PM

Copy of Executive Order Reporting xlsx

EO EO Indjvjduats Bejnq Held xlsx

Good afternoon DFOs and ADFOs,
Please see the newest version of the Executive Oder Reporting attached.
Please use this version of the reporting requirements for your Field Offices. Please do not use a different spreadsheet, just plug in your numbers under your Field Office tab. Do not change anything as there are formulas in the spreadsheet.
Please include the CATs email address when responding.

The next report is due by 1500 hours (EST).
Also required is an updated list of the EO Individuals Being Held at the same time you submit your numbers. I've attached the spreadsheet already created from what was submitted this morning. Please update but do not delete from it.
If you have any questions, please let myself know or Branch
Thank you,

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Field Operations Field Liaison Division

'Yat·HiBg: This aeeHffieffi is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICL'\L USE C»ILY (UNFOUO). It eeBtaiBs iBfeffilatiett that ffiay lle elteffipt freffi palllie release liftaer the Freeaeffi ef
EO FOIA CBP 0000000142

InfeffilftlieB Aet (5 U.S.C. 552). It is te be eell:tl'eHed, stared, handled, trensmifted, distriblited, aBEl dis]Jesed ef in aeeerdaBee with DHS Jleliey relatiag te FOUO ffiffiffilatieB end is Bet te be released te the ]lliblie, the media, er ether Jlerseooel whe de Bet hff'te a valid "Beed te lEBe'<t" withelit JlHBr RJl]lfB'tal ef aB alitherized DHS effieial. State aBEl leeal HemelaBd seeurity efFieials may share this de61H1'1eBt with oothemed seelffity JlefSellftel withelit further R]l]lf8¥al H-em DHS.

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 8:33 PM

To: OFO-FIELD LIAISON

@cbp.dhs.gov>; DIRECTORS FIELD OPS

@cbp.dhs.gov>; EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ

@cbp.dhs.gov>; BORDER SECURITY ASST DIRECTORS

cu~•.ull>.gL>V?;TRADE OPERATIONS ASST DIRECTORS

p.dhs.gov>; MISSION SUPPORT ASST DIRECTORS

@cbp.dhs.gov>

Cc: (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>

Subject: UPDATE #2: Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting

the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

Importance: High

Directors,

The Office of Field Operations, Operations Division has been requested to update the reporting template to capture and clarif'y additional information needed by CBP leadership. As such, a new reporting template has been created.

Please ensure that your locations are using the attached template for reporting beginning with the 0500 report on January 29, 2017.

As a reminder: • Reporting is now due to Field Liaison at 0500 hours, 1500 hours and 2100 hours. o Field Liaison reports are due to the DHS National Operations Center (NOC) within one hour of the established reporting times. o It is critical that reports are submitted to Field Liaison timely. • In addition to the running cumulative total each Field Office need to also report totals for the specified reporting tirneframe.

Thank you for your patience and flexibility.

Thank you,

EO FOIA CBP 0000000143

Fhis dtJetinumt ttl ttl dHJ ttHtuJnlitmt{s} may etlitffli:tt 1edhietetl, aetMitio e, muJl-Bt Jtt,l tmj'o1 eement sertsi#";"e infot'1'1ltr#an bdangilig ffi #w US. Ga1'C1'1l11JC1lt. lt is natf:Or 1cleaee, 1et fBi I~ 1eft tnlflmiseian,
e,· :J.i.s561HiH8:#8H, eY uee at1j"8He etha· EhaR the intended reeipient.
On Behalf Of OFO-FIELD LIAISON Sent: Saturday, January 28, 20171:09 AM
To: DIREGORS FIELD OPS
l!£klll!.J~J!.lli?: TRADE OPERATIONS ASST DIREGORS l!£kll!!.J~~>; MISSION SUPPORT ASST DIREGORS

Guida1nce for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States
:MEMORANDUM FOR: Directors, Field Operations Director, Pre-Clearance
FROM:

SUBJECT:

Repmiing Gnidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

On January 27, 2017, President Donald Tnnnp issued Executive Order: Protecting the Nation fi·om Foreign TeJTorist Enfly into the United States. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States innnigrationlaws for malevolent purposes.

As we push forward in our efforts to protect our Nation, OFO Operations will require daily reporting on our activities as related to this Executive Order. Reporting will include encounters in the air, land and sea environments with anyone who arrives into the U.S. from the seven (7) countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria andYemen) that meets the

EO FOIA CBP 0000000144

criteria outlined in the Executive Order and the instructions issued to the field by Admissibility and Passenger Programs. Using the attached spreadsheet, data should be captured daily for the 24-hour time period beginning at 0300 (EST)- and ending at 0259 hours (EST). By 0500 hours (EST) daily. each Fie~ submit their data from the previous 24-bours to OFO Field Liaison--@cbp.dhs.gov). Reports must be submitting using the attached Microsoft Excel template document. Field Liaison will consolidate these reports into a final report senior CBP and DHS leadership. ~questions regarding to reporting, please contact the Field Liaison Division, at - · For questions pertaining to the implementation of the new policy, please - - H u t t o n , Deputy Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs at
EO FOIA CBP 0000000145

from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

MEMORANDUM FOR: Directors, Field Operations Director, Pre-Clearance

FROM:

)ire<;tor, Operations (Acting) Office of Field Operations

SUBJECT:

Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

As we push forward in our efforts to protect our Nation, OFO Operations will require daily reporting on our activities as related to this Executive Order. Reporting will include encounters in the air, land and sea environments with anyone who arrives into the U.S. from the seven (7) countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) that meets the criteria outlined in the Executive Order and the instructions issued to the field by Admissibility and Passenger Programs.

Using the attached spreadsheet, data should be captured daily for the 24-hour time period beginning at 0300 (EST)- and ending at 0259 hours (EST). By 0500 hours (EST) daily. each Fie~submit their data from the previous 24-bours to OFO Field Liaison ~@cbp.dhs \l"Ov). Reports must be submitting using the attached Microsoft Excel template document. Field Liaison will consolidate these reports into a final report senior CBP and DHS leadership.

~ questions regarding to reporting, please contact the Field Liaison Division, at
- - · For questions pertaining to the implementation of the new policy, please iiiliii~utton, Deputy Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs at

EO FOIA CBP 0000000120

From: To:
Cc: Subject: Date:

OFO-AELD LIAISON· DIRECTORS AELD OPS· EXEClJTIVE TRADE OPERATIONS ASST DIRECTORS: MISSIOr-1
#3: Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States
Sunday, Janumy 29, 2017 2:06:21 PM

Directors,

Please have your EO individuals being held spreadsheet to Field Liaison and the CAT by 1420 hours today.

Thank you,

From:--

Sen~ 1:27:53PM

·

T o : - OFO-FIELD UAISON; DIRECTORS FIELD OPS; EXECUITVE DIRECTORS HQ;

BORDER SECURITY ASST DIRECTORS; TRADE OPERATIONS ASST DIRECTORS; MISSION SUPPORT

#3: Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States
Good afternoon DFOs and ADFOs,
Please see the newest version of the Executive Oder Reporting attached.
Please use this version of the repmiing requirements for yom Field Offices. Please do not use a different spreadsheet, just plug in yom numbers under your Field Office tab. Do not change anything as there are formulas in the spreadsheet
Please include the CATs email address when responding.
The next report is due by 1500 homs (EST).
Also required is an updated list of the EO Individuals Being Held at the same time you submit yom numbers. I've attached the spreadsheet already created from what was submitted this morning. Please update but do not delete from it
1fyou have any questions, please let myselfknow or Branch
EO FOIA CBP 0000000117

Thank you,
1!!!11!11111
U.S. CustolllS and Border Protection Office of Field Operations Field Liaison Division

W IIRJ:ittg: This Eleeltifteffi i:s ffi!CL\SSlFfED/+FOR OFFICL'\L USE ffilfrY (U+/FOUO). It eeH:taffi:s itrfentitMieft that may iJe e~temfJf ftem f!ti'Slie relefM3e ti:B:EleF t!te Freeeiem ef . ~!ioo Aet (3 U.S.C. 552). It is te ee eeat£el!eel, ste£eel; haaelleel; t£tlftsffiitteel; elistrillrneel, aael diSJleseel sf ia aeee£elaaee with DHS peliey reletiag te FOUO iafeflBft!iea aael is aet ts ee mleaseel ts the puelie, the meelia, sr ether perss1H!el v.'hs els ast ha¥e a vadiel "aeeel ts lmew" vi±tharn prier Sflfll·eval ef aa aateerizeel DHS effiei:sl. Stffie aaelle eal Hemelaael seClH-ity effieials may share this eleeumeat with autherizeel seClH-ity persSHfle! witheut further awrs¥111 H-smDHS.
From: Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 8:33PM To: OFO-FIELD LIAISON

Cc: (b) (6). (b) (7)(Cl

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (61. (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.goV>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (61. (b) (7)(Cl

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (bl (61, (b) (7)(C)

(b) 16L (b) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; (b) (6). (b) (7)1C)

lb) 161. (b) (7)(CJ

@cbp.dhs.goV>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(Cl

lb) 161. (bl (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>

Subject: UPDATE #2: Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting

the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

Importance: High

EO FOIA CBP 0000000118

Directors,
The Office of Field Operations, Operations Division has been requested to update the repmiing template to capture and clarifY additional information needed by CBP leadership. As such, a new reporting template has been created.
Please ensure that your locations are using the attached template for repmiing beginning with the 0500 report on January 29, 2017.
As a reminder: • Reporting is now due to Field Liaison at 0500 hours, 1500 hours and 2100 hours. o Field Liaison repmts are due to the DHS National Operations Center (NOC) within one hour ofthe establishedrepmiing times. o It is critical that reports are submitted to Field Liaison timely. • In addition to the rurming cumulative total each Field Office need to also report totals for the specified repmting timefi:ame.
Thank you for your patience and flexibility.
Thank you,

Operations

This deetmze~lt tJJlti ffll)' elfflelnnent(-5) maJ- eentain T'etiFr<icted~ 9€Htsiti"''e~ m'iS.'er ,lcr, r enf\3l'e&118'11t
sensitive infoi"HMtien he!-angirtg te the US. Geve't'IXHtet;t. 1t is net}~P 1eJeese. 1evietl~ 1efl¥I1rsmi5fiien,
dia5eminelifm, er use bJ· '"'}'""" e#uw Alum the RiiBRded reeipient.

From:

On Behalf Of OFO-FIELD LIAISON

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 1:09AM To: DIREUORS FIELD OPS ~@cbp.dhs.gov>; EXECUTIVE DIREUORS HQ

.~!4k!~ol\ill~->; BORDER SECURI1Y ASST DIREUORS

(b) (7)(E)

Cc: (b) (6). (b) (7)(C) . . .@cbp.dhs.gov>; •
(b) (6). ib) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; OFO-FIELD LIAISON
• •
@cbp.dhs.goV>;

(b) (6). ib) (7)(Cl

(b) t6), (b) t7)(Cl

(b) (6l, (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.goV>

Subject: Reporting Guidance for Actions Taken Related to Executive Order: Protecting the Nation

EO FOIA CBP 0000000119

From: To: C<:: Subject: Date: Importance:

HUlTON. JAMES R DIRECTORS FIELD OPS
HOFFMAN. 1000 A; ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS D M S I O N ; · · · · · · · · · · ·
C1 Request- URGENT
Sunday, January 29, 2017 4:22:44 PM High

DFO's Kindly request confirmation that you have no individuals subject to EO in custody within your AOR from yesterday. This does NOT include anyone for whom a waiver has been approved but awaiting pick up/transfer.

Please provide l'I!"LT 16:45 EST

J. Ryan Hutton Deputy Executive Director
Passenger Programs

Y'lan::JiR§i: This Sse ~T~eAt is' 'NGbllb~!rlP"'PV"R Gf.-!Cl"h ''~T Gt!b¥ (' l'TG1 !9). lt-:as•aiRS ir.f~~atic;; ·~e· '":'"3:'/:e ene .;;~

fFaFA pc!:'!'c Felea::-e 1:1mJer tHe FFEe9s!T! ef l;:;fsR'HEHisH r'l;:;:t (E 'L£ ....... B;ih"l~- It :s ~a Se ssm~s!leS, :h:-ca, ~:aru:t!se!, tFa--:sffii*::eA, :!'s~ri:r t:a',

S!R6 E!Fs;::.:s:e' a~:A awe.:!-FIE3 ·;,f§ 91 '£ r:::liE'; FeLt:Ag L f0~'8 iffi3R'f.ffif3A a!'ij is !'i-t ta- k Felea::ea te t?.e p!:!Sli: er e~flerperseA!is!

··¢t;; rJG RG%1-ra·r;g 3 v~F~ '11eg~ +'g' kJ:l"""' v'i#IG:o~: p;:i"~ appp;;··a! ;::f ;;;-: a·r!J:tg;:ag-" D~{;it ;;mr;;i:;1 N? p~gJ;;;:: ~r t~i£ ::sp~ ;:;t::l;;u14 !;;;. f••q:;ishaS

:r::: .• mr ts

-::!:::, sitl:Lr !?. -. l'it'an a~val'Ea' fm*i. R(s fiaa~mcHt, aa.t a:tae:':rt.aR:(5) k~r::ts, iii'Jf e&."'fa:R aeFJffricRtf.a' aRfifsraeRsil:'":fi

e; b'.&. G-"c."R.t:;;;;G::! :-::~:mz:.;::::, a~:!:::: ,":G!: ~~-~ 'SL1:::ss, .-::<:::..·, :::::-::-:::~. __::;:.:::::, =-~:::S.":':f.-;~:::.": ::-::-. ::.::: u!"ly-ec r:#r:.-1*; Fi 'Rz -;T~:;::;e!si

. ::cij;ia J~;:::;. Pi€aec :efY) b'i~ 5~il&c:·iff'l£ Cl'lla :• :'153 Bee.; Rliedi.eete:J W'lff;::u;cefate!j a'cetrey atf c.~.'naL: a.l& -etl·.:.s ef#::: e;.;,.inc!_
.".":)' ::.:::::::':::::u;;e :::: ~4.:_ rV:::: aa.JTt m'T! !:':: ::p;:.7 a-' e,- !.'. "'. GH-s'-.::::;c s ·:J fl':ic~o:· PFa??e#::.-.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000061

From: To:
Cc:
Subject: Date: Attachments: Importance:
occ

HUTTON JAMES R Owen Todd C{AC OFOJ:

Please see below a waiver request involving a.year old male, who is travelling with his LPR parents. JFK PD has already approved a waiver for his LPR parents.

Details:

• Subject is a - year old tra·ve!JtllQwith his parents who are both LPRs, he is a first time immigrant (FX2),

• Syrian passport
-- S y r i a .
• Subject plans to live with his parents
.
• Subject has been a-grade student at Saudi Arabia.

Ill
School i n - ,

•

• Foreign phone nrumbeJ • Email address
•

EO FOIA CBP 0000000205

• Passport reveals travel to • Last in Syria · • No evidence of travel to other countries of interest found.
J. Ryan Hutton Deputy Executive Director Admissibility and Passenger Programs
~c
Vt1arning: ":"::: Se::umeRt is' ttl,....b"fi?£tF!t;Q(TQR GFRCI"h! '£[ Gtl' Y pl'TG1 IG).lt :cR-t-iRs iRf:sr:re;:!:::-- ·~z· l':'!.::y::: w:::"'*f~
ffeFP. j?Ht"z ;a•:::::: --RSe- t'le Fi=€e9sFP. &f !r.:;"eFF.JoHisR "'&t {E 'J.~.G. ac2:). It :s t: Se esAtreHetf, sk;reB, fn::n;!'eS, tz:-::::--""::d, ~:s::--t:.Jted, aRe! Sis):lesee!' efiA aeee;:S"aAce ·;#!; Dll€ re';CJ FEJatJ-s te rg:!Q iASITF.ati'SR a!'iS is ri-t te S:: re[ease6 te l:Re fH:<Slie er etJ:terpel'5eAR.:I ·rfla r4s Rst "::·-:: .'~(~ ";::r:ed ""- ':FJ':".., ""i#:\ed pR-:-- ZPFR,.al eof afl a!:r!:Rsi'E:esl 9!-'§? affis'al. Ne paHlsR e; !his rspe:-: s!:>::a~= ~e ~...;. :s~-:.:e t: tf!e ffieffia, ei#:\er if! \\Rtte:R erve:ta! !SFm. H-r"s £i-:'Cimient, a REf aFij' a~ae}<fflert(s) l=!e:;_fe, fl'7aj·ea. be een:i5ertia! aFu:JJs;sem;!fp, e b'. ::'. Gs ·~;n::-cr~t .•.~-~~;--:, an:' ie r::r: ""-s- .«?teas:::, r::e 'i:-"':> PEtraRs:R<isa1GR, r.#-scr:Rh:u~:icr:; e· es: fi1y -R;'SRC sf9e.· ft.::::-- #:ic ."·:~::--S:S ¥aaj-iel9#fej. or:aaa RS'N}:~.I:tc SCRdc:r ':~.l'- -rr;;i.' .~25 ~::::r: .-':::.;J:;;ee;f.:;::~ :::-:-:"! fmFB::afot::fy i::C. j P av"gfrtsl- aFJI.:f C9f)!JF sf!Re er<fgi:na! ll.:ry· fti&"'{"':b'P? ?ftf:li~ 4e-:ctt"RI?R1 q;;p...< ~s appr:s"s'iililr V. !?:'. Cr;;;t.g~F &Rii !Jsr:Ger Pu?t;;;;.f'gr:z_
EO FOIA CBP 0000000206

From:
To: Cc: Subject:
Date: Attachments:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Field Operations
Bullets for the Executive Assistant Commissioner January 29, 2017
Limited Distribution
Nationwide: Protests at Various Ports of Entry Resulting From President Trump's Executive Order
January 29, 2017 Update 2: Houston Field Office: Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DEW)
• There are approximately 1000 protestors on site.
• The protests remain peaceful with protestors displaying signs and chanting.
• Protestors are not interfering with passengers departing the FIS.
• Numerous media outlets are still on site.
Los Angeles Field Office: Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)
• Protests continue at LAX with about 1000 protestors on site, down from 3300 protestors who were on site at 1500 hours (PST).
• There is a significant LAWA PD and LAPP presence on site with ongoing coordination between CBP LAX.
• CBP Tactical Enforcement Officers (TEO) remain in place within the FIS as force protection.
• Protests continue on both levels of the LAX Tom Bradley International Terminal (TBIT), and protestors have marched in the Central Terminal Area (CTA) automobile lanes.
• LAWA PD and CBP LAX staggered the release of arriving international passengers due to the protests and the resulting congestion in the TBIT arrival areas.
• CBP Global Entry and Public Information Offices located in the TBIT were closed as a
EO FOIA CBP 0000000091

security precaution.

• Multiple media outlets are on site.

• Representatives Maxine Waters and Ted Lieu were on site requesting CBP engagement and were provided with contact information for the Office of Congressional Affairs.

• DFO

on site with LAX management.

San Francisco Field Office: San Francisco International Airport (SFO)
• Approximately 800 protestors were in site at 1430 hours (PST). • Protestors have shut down Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screening for
Terminals A and G and passengers are not able to reach the international gates. • The Global Entry enrollment office was closed due to disturbances by protestors. • DF~ is on site with port management. • Passengers exiting the FIS have been routed through an alternate exit. Submitted by: (b) (6). (b) (7) Field Liaison Division Date I Time: January 29,2017 I 2110 hours January 29,2017 Update: Baltimore Field Office: Washington-Dulles International Airport (TAD)
• Protests are larger than yesterday numbering approximately 300 people.
• Protestors displayed signs and chanted.
• Protests are peaceful and protestors have not entered the FIS.
• Loudoun County Sheriff's Office (LCSO) and the Airports Authority Police are in the area and control has been maintained throughout the day.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000092

Philadelphia International Airport (PHD
• Protests began at 1433 hours (EST) outside of Terminal "A" East and West but have now begin to disperse.
• Protests were peaceful and protestors did not enter the PIS. • No impact to airport operations.
Houston Field Office: Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AJJS)
• Approximately 200 protestors gathered at 1445 hours (CST) and dispersed at 1715 hours.
• The protest was peaceful. • No impact to operations.
Houston-Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH)
• Protests began at approximately 1340 hours (CST) in Terminal E right outside of the PIS arrival area.
• Approximately 30-60 protestors chanted, clapped, and held signs while travelers exited the PIS.
• The Houston Police Department (HPD) was on site with 15-20 officers. • Protests were peaceful and protestors did not enter the PIS.
San Antonio International Airport (SAT)
• Protests began at approximately 1215 hours (CST) in the Terminal "A" baggage claim with three protestors and one counter protestor.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000093

• Local media and Univision Spanish Network fihned the event and then departed the area.
• All protestors departed the area at 1530 hours. • No impact to operations.
Miami Field Office: Miami International Airport (MIA)
• Protests began around 1400 hours (EST) on the second level of the airport. • The Miami Dade Police Department estimated the crowd to be 150 protestors. • No impact to operations. Orlando International Airport (MCO) • Protests have begun and include approximately 300 protestors. • The Orlando Police Department (OPD) is containing the protestors inside the food
court of the main terminal. • No impact to operations. Fort Lauderdale International Airport (FIJ.) • Protests have begun on a grassy area next to a parking garage across from Terminal4. • There are approximately 20-25 protestors who are holding signs. • The Broward County Sheriffs Office and Broward County Airport Division (BCAD)
security personnel are on site monitoring the protest.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000094

• Local media was on site.
• No impact to operations.
New Orleans Field Office: Louis Armstrong International Airport (KMSY)
• Protests began at approximately 1600 hours outside of the baggage claim area with 2530 protestors.
• The protest was peaceful as protestors held up a banner, sang, and chanted but did not enter the FIS.
• The Jefferson Parish Sherriffs Office is on site monitoring the protest.
• Local media is also onsite.
• No impact to operations.
Tucson Field Office Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport (PHX)
• Protests began at 1440 hours (MST) outside Terminal 4 Level 2.
• The number of protestors in undetermined as the protest is not near the FIS.
• Phoenix Police Department (PPD) is monitoring the protest.
• No impact to operations at this time.
Submitted by: - - I Field Liaison Division Date I Time: January 29, 2017 I 1900 hours
SYNOPSIS: On January 28, 2017, various U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ports of entry (POEs) are reporting protests resulting from the Executive Order (EO) "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" issued by President Trump on January 27, 2017. This EO suspended all entry into the United Sates for aliens who are nationals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen as per Section 212(f) of the INA. This includes all non-immigrant classifications, with the exception of those people traveling on diplomatic visas, NATO visas, C2 visas going to the United Nations, Gl, G2, G3 and G4 visas. The order also includes all immigrant classes of admission, returning resident aliens, refugees and asylees.
DETAILS:
New York Field Office:
EO FOIA CBP 0000000095

John F Kennedy International Airport (JFK) UPDATE#2:
• As of2135 hours, JFK Terminal4 is reporting that the crowds of protesters are decreasing at this time.
UPDATE#l:
• As of 1900 hours, protestors have occupied the parking garage at Terminal4 (all levels) with signs.
• Crowd estimate is approximately 2,500-3,000. Demonstration mainly contained to Terminal4 at this time, sporadic protesters at all the other terminals. PAPD, National Guard, state police, and NYPD assets will be deployed to all terminals.
• The protesters are being contained, are peaceful, are keeping their distance and are being closely monitored.
• Air Train service is restricted, only ticketed passengers and persons with airport ID will be allowed to enter the air train to access the central terminal areas.
• No impact to airport operations.
• According to the NY/NJ Port Authority Police Department (PAPD), a group of demonstrators (about 80) are currently protesting in a parking lot outside Terminal4 under the presence of media outlets.
• With assistance ofPAPD and Port Authority (PA) operations we have directed the protesters to remain in a specific lot where they are currently staged and monitored.
• The PAPD Police closed inner arrivals roadways to all traffic with exception police vehicles, and yellow cabs. Some arrivals doorways also have been restricted by PAPD at this time, and all arrivals foot traffic has been directed to specific exit doors.
• The remaining 4 CBP terminals at JFK have not been impacted. The PAPD are making sure media personnel are not congregating in the terminals.
• A conference call with PAPD was held at 1500 hours and the JFK Port Director briefed the other law enforcement agencies on how CBP is processing the passengers who are subject to this EO.
• Due to the demonstration scheduled to take place in the Terminal4 parking lot at 1830 hours, additional police personnel will be deployed to the area to ensure that the demonstration remains peaceful.
• Approximately 350-400 demonstrators are currently in the east side of the parking lot.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000096

Newark-Liberty International Airport (EWR) • A group of protestors have congregated at the Terminal B International Arrivals Area of Newark Liberty International Airport. • The crowd size is approximately 100 and the protest is peaceful. • Several media outlets have set up around the protest. The group is protesting the implementation of President Trump's Executive Order. • PAPD is securing the area for travelers and airport employees.
Baltimore Field Office: Wasbin~on-Dulles International Airport (TAD)
• Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe and Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring attend a "Protest Rally To Welcome Refugees" at lAD organized by a social group identifying itself as "Standing Up For Racial Justice ofNortbern Virginia".
• Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe gave a speech to the media in opposition to President Donald Trump's Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from
EO FOIA CBP 0000000097

Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" temporarily banning immigrants and non-immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries entry into the United States.
• Social justice group "Standing Up For Racial Justice of Northern Virginia" organized a welcome rally via social media to take place at Washington Dulles Airport. The Governor and state attorney general gave a press conference and left Washington Dulles after briefly speaking with rally attendees.
• Rally organizer, Cayce Utley, representing the group stated to media sources that the group was planning a show of solidarity to international arrivals, immigrants, refugees coming into this country, who might be afraid of the executive order, to let them know the group supports and welcomes them.
• Estimated by Airport authority that this event has drawn up to 300 participants. Protestors have been witnessed cheering when passengers exit the FIS, and occasionally chanting "love, not hate. That's what makes America great."
• In light of the rally/demonstration ongoing in the main terminal, CBP personnel have been mustered regarding situational awareness and to take appropriate safety precautions to include limiting traversing public areas of the terminal and use of cover shirts/jackets.
• Personnel have also been advised that they are not to speak to the media or other individuals who may inquire regarding the executive order, but rather are to refer them to public affairs link on CBP.gov and/or notifY a supervisor.
Pbj]adelphia International Airport (PHL)
• Information obtained from news outlets and Philadelphia Police Airport Group have identified that a protest is scheduled at the Philadelphia International Airport Arrivals Hallway at 1400 hrs.
• Philadelphia Police Airport Group stated that they will try to contain/reroute the protests to the Departure/Ticketing area (away from the FIS location).
• Philly.com (Will Bunch- columnist) is reporting that a protest is imminent (being organized) at Terminal "A".
o Expected tum-out is projected to be in the hundreds
o This is the main entrance and exit for the CBP staff to access the FIS for start/end of shifts
o Officers will be advised to utilize secondary entrances, wear cover shirts or report to work in plain clothes
o Officers are reminded that body armor is recommended and mustered multiple times not to engage the general public, media outlets, etc
EO FOIA CBP 0000000098

o Officers have been mustered multiple times that if engaged, they are to state that they are not authorized to comment
o Additional staffing has been assigned for tomorrow
o Egress and Ingress points will be staffed by officers/supervisors
o Officers have been advise to remain vigilant and to challenge individuals who are accessmg our area
o PHI CBP Supervisors have been monitoring (not responding too) social media.
Baltimore International Airport (BWI)·
UPDATE:
On January 28, 2017, Captain Alford of the MDTA Police confirmed that a protest is scheduled for tomorrow, Sunday January 29,2017 from 1700-2100. The protest will be held in the International Arrivals Hall at BWI.
CBP Management and MDTA Police Captain Alford coordinated a teleconference to discuss the protest particulars.
MDTA Police will have additional officers on hand at BWI.
Social Media Linlc GetGroundGame.com/airport protests. Reports protest will begin at 1700-2000 and advising protesters to drive or take train directly to Pier E (International Terminal) of BWI.
The number of protesters is not currently known. It is anticipated the protest will be peaceful.
It is unknown whether media will be present.
MDTA Police is arranging a teleconference tomorrow. Call information: Time: lOOOam. 1-877-620-6892 code: 8016962830. CBP Baltimore Management will be on the call.
CBP Baltimore will not be engaging the protesters and employees. There is no known threat to CBP Baltimore.
CBP employees will be re-mustered on the received EO guidance, officer/employee situational awareness (wearing a cover, escorting agriculture specialists, staying within the FIS, etc), and referring all media inquiries to appropriate contacts.
• The MDTA Police and MAA are not aware of any plarmed protests for today or tomorrow.
Boston Field Office:
EO FOJA CBP 0000000099

Boston-Logan International Airport (BOS) UPDATE: • The protest at Boston Logan Airport has grown to approxlinately I 00 people. The protest is being led by the Local ACLU and Boston City Councilor Tito Jackson. • At 2015 Senator Elizabeth Warren arrived and is speaking with protesters, it is anticipated that she will make a statement to the media on site. • The protesters are chanting "say it loud stay it clear everyone is welcome here"
• The protest is being held outside the CBP FIS main arrivals door.
• As of now there is no impact to CBP operations.
• CBP Boston has stationed additional staff on the secure side of the FIS exit door to prevent protesters from entering.
• Multiple media outlets are covering the protest.
• In addition to the protest there are multiple immigration attorneys handing out literature and posting signs.
• The Massachusetts State Police and Massport are on site and are monitoring the situation.
• On January 28, 2017, Massachusetts District Attorney Maura Healey hosted a press conference outside the CBP Federal Inspection (FIS) area main arrivals door at BOS in response the Presidential Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States and was covered by two (2) media outlets.
• Additionally approximately five (5) protesters have gathered. CBP along with the Massachusetts State Police and Massport are monitoring the developing situation.
Chicago Field Office: Chicago-O'Hare International Airport (OR D)
• Activists and elected officials called for an "emergency protest" at O'Hare Airport's international terminal. (no further details)
Port of Minneapolis/St Paul (MSP)
• On January 28, 2017, at 1645 hours (CST), Minneapolis Airport Police Department called and relayed that a group of approximately 30-40 individuals have organized a demonstration/protest via Facebook, at the Minneapolis Airport, terminal one.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000100

• The dispatcher stated that 30-40 protestors have organized via Facebook and are currently gathering at the Minneapolis International Airport, Terminal one and planned to walk through the terminal and meet at the CBP/FIS exit doors, and great people as they arrived. The Minneapolis Airport Police Department is monitoring the group by camera and also have officers present.
• All CBP staffed have been mustered and information disseminated.
• All officers were advised to travel in pairs and to wear a cover shirt when leaving the FIS area. The staff was also advised that any questions from the media should be directed to the Chief in Charge.
• The camera system within CBP does show that there are individuals gathering in the baggage claim area, near the FIS exit holding signs and cameras.
• Two CBPO's are assigned to EGRESS and any activity will be reported as soon as possible.
San Francisco Field Office San Francisco International Airport (SFO)
UPDATE:
• There are approximately 800 protestors outside the FIS exit arrival area at this time.
• The protestors have been banging on the FIS exit arrival area doors at times.
• The San Francisco Police Department has deployed their riot gear in preparation of the unruly protestors within the San Francisco International Terminal Area.
• The Global Entry office is currently closed due to the unruly protestors within the area of the Global Entry Office. We are currently contacting the people that have appointments so that they can reschedule.
• According to SFPD, California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom is present among the protesters; he has not reached out to CBP at this time.
• CBP was informed by the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) that there are demonstrations anticipated at the San Francisco International Airport this afternoon. The demonstrations are in reaction to the recent presidential executive orders dealing with immigration.
• The San Francisco Airport reported a demonstration in front of the Departures level by a group called "Not In Our Name." SFPD will monitor situation and not interfere unless the group breaks any laws, such as trying to enter the FIS. SFPD stated they will have officers posted around the FIS exit to monitor situation.
• The demonstration has had no significant impact on CBP operations.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000101

• The group outside the "A" exit to the arrivals lobby has been dispersed. • Per SFPD approximately 300 protesters are massed on the curb outside the FIS arrivals
lobby. SFPD states they are hearing "chatter" from some in the crowd suggesting that "they rush the doors" to the FIS and "free those being illegally detained by CBP". SFPD states they are reaching out to San Mateo County Sheriff's Department for assistance in crowd control. • CBP SFO is shutting down the "San Francisco Arrivals" set of exit doors, and rerouting passengers to utilize only the "Connecting Flights" set of exit doors as the sole means of exiting the FIS • Armed CBP officers are stationed at both sets of exit doors to control entry • CBP SFO is maintaining constant communication with SFPD to in order to monitor protest activity and assess risk. • DFO Humphrey was on scene at SFO to oversee overall operations and ensure smooth and efficient processing of affected arriving aliens. Houston Field Office: Dallas-Fort Worth Intematjonal Airport (DEW) • On Saturday, January 28,2017, at approximately 1630 hours, approx. 50-60 protesters and news media gathered outside the DFW International Airport FIS exit. • Onsite were what appeared to be representatives from 10 different news media outlets with filming equipment. The DFW Police Department is onsite as well. • At this time protesters are still onsite; however, passengers exiting the FIS were not being interfered with.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000102

Houston-Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH)
On January 28, 2017, at 1940 hours (CST), CBP JAH was advised ofpossib1e protests outside of the PIS arrivals area.
Approximately 60-70 protesters organized in the Terminal E arrival area and began protesting by chanting and clapping while traveler exited the PIS.
Houston Police Department was on site in case any issues arises.
Protesters were peaceful in their appearance, no issues reported. Local News media was present.
CBP personnel were advised to not go into the public area where protest was being held.
Additional staff was reallocated to Exit control to ensure no un-authorized access was gained by protesters.

San Diego Field Office: San Diego International Airport (SAN)

• On January 28, 2017, at apr•rmtimately 1630 hours, Assistant Port Director (APD)

infi~m1ed Supervisor

that he received information from HPD

a protest was taking place at San

Airport.

• The protesters are at the curbside arrivals- lower level- at Terminal2 (west) near Delta Airlines. Protesters location is currently away from San Diego CBP PIS.

• 1700 hrs: Protesters number at about 20 people.

• 1745 hrs: Protesters numbers have risen to about I 00 people.

• No media attention at this time.

• CBP San Diego requested Harbor Police and the Airport Authority to inform CBP if changes within the protest escalate.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000103

• For officer safety, all CBP staff have been briefed and instructed to take precautionary measures (ie: cover shirts) when leaving the premises of the FIS, and depart in pairs.
• Additional precautionary measure were the relocation of CBP marked units parked curbside Terminal2, to the interior parking lots away from public view.
• Protest has no impact/disruption on Port Operations. There are no arriving passengers in the FIS subject to the EO.
• FIS Supervisors have been monitoring the gathering of protesters, and will update as necessary.
Detroit Field Office: Detroit MetrmJo]jtan Airport (DIW)
On January 28, 2017, CBP DTW was informed by the WCAA Police of social media reports regarding a planned protest at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, MeNarnara Terminal scheduled to take place on January 29,2017 from 1600-1800 hours
Reports claim that 1000 people have signed up for the protest and several hundred more people may participate
WCAA Police is coordinating with the airport Public Relations and Maintenance Department to establish an authorized picketing area
In order to accommodate the number of protesters, the WCAA will allow three authorized picketing areas at the McNamara Terminal:
o Curbside at the departures level o Curbside at the arrivals level o Curbside at the international arrivals level WCAA is considering as overflow area inside the airport in the domestic baggage
EO FOIA CBP 0000000104

area, if necessary
CBP/DTW Port Director will meet with WCAA prior to the event to view areas designated for the protesters
CBP will establish a plain-clothes CBP officer as an observer in the International Arrivals Lobby outside of the FIS. The CBP officer will be equipped with a radio to maintain communications with the CBP Watch Commander/ Command Center
CBP will increase security near the exit of the FIS to maintain safety of staff and passengers
Los Angeles Field Office: Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)
• On January 28, 2017, attorneys, private citizens and members of the media began to arrive at the Public Information Office (PIO) at the Tom Bradley International Terminal (TBIT). The CBP Officer assigned to PIO advised the inquiring parties to contact the Office Public Affairs. Due to the size of the crowd, a Supervisory CBPO and additional CBPOs were deployed to PIO to assist. The SCBPO and additional CBPOs handed OPA contact information to the inquiring parties. The PIO, which normally is staffed from 0700-2300 hours, was closed at 1700 due to security concerns related to the protest.
• Between 1600 and 1700 hours, approximately 150 protestors arrived and began holding an organized vigil outside the TBIT departure level. There are six media vans and reporters are interviewing both passengers and protestors. There is no CBP presence in the area.
• The Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) Police Department has deployed an enhanced visible presence in the area.
• CBP has deployed a limited Tactical Enforcement Operation (TEO) contingent in the internal FIS egress area, out ofthe public view. A similar contingent will be deployed tomorrow.
• Attorneys advertising their services and holding signs are lingering in the PIO area.
• The LAX Port Director, LAWA PD Chief and the LAWA Executive Director are in close communication.
• Currently, two (2) additional protests are scheduled for January 29,2017. Attendance estimates per social media indicate that at 1100 hours, 185 protesters will be at TBIT (no specific location) and at 1300 hours, 1,500 protestors will be at TBIT in the
EO FOIA CBP 0000000105

arrivals level.

Las Vegas International Airport (LAS)

• CBP management at the LAS contacted the LAX Port Director and relayed information suggesting that there will be potential protests in Las Vegas in the days ahead. No further details at this time.

Submitted by: Date I Time: January

I Field Liaison Division 2315 hours

EO FOIA CBP 0000000106

From: To:
Cc:

HUTTON JAMES R HOFFMAN TODD A- DIRECTORS AELD OPS; EXEQJTIVE DIRECfORS HO; BORDER SECURITY ASST DIRECTORS

Subject Date: Attachments:

Importance:

High

DFO's As a follow up from guidance sent last night. In addition to waivers for LPRs, the Secretary of Homeland Security has delegated waiver authority to the Commissioner of CBP for only the following categories of individuals subject to the EO:
• Returning Refugees (to include any 1st time refugees encountered); • Returning Asylees; • Individuals in possession of a valid I-512 issued by CIS;
• UAC

Tile request for said waiver wmneed to follow the below fonnat sent initially to the below

di.stm
• • •

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C) (b) (6), (b) (7)(C) (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

il!lliiiit.ii'... • •

I I

• t

•• ••

• EACOwen

• DEAC Wagner

• (b) (6), (b) (7)

• XDHoffman

• (a)DXD• DXDHutton

• OFO Field Liaison I have also attached some samples that were submitted for approval today.

Sample

Subject line: EO 212(f) Exemption for LAST NAME, (f/n) First name

Waiver Narrative

EO FOIA CBP 0000000149

Specific bullets regarding the specific individual(s), for example:
EO FOJA CBP 0000000150

J. Ryan Hutton Deputy Executive Director = = . : n d Passenger Programs
~c

'f"fan~iR!§J: This Els::l:ll'A'i!R~ k 11t'Cb'if£!fl!;::Q'/FOR Gf,....l"'/'L' 1££: Of!b¥ (t'"P9' '9-j. ft ssntahs ::--T-::~::~':':"' 1i'r:t FR'lif lee E"EfA!?t

fFBA'i ?Hd:ll:- Fe!ee:::: n!Ser ;He FeoeulsFA ef !R'SR'fl'*i8F! r, &t ~§ 6U;.". §52;. ·~ 's ~-be -3Rtrel'esl, steFe6, ~.3-:~!:::!, ~-- RStTf!Liil, s!isk"Su'eof,

=" aR5
H-:-s

3is.;>esee!
ae ~g"- ...-

ef:A ": 3

aeeeHtaRee "a~:a "Re::d

:oitl'i Ls 'OF!

OJ Or

'G ·"

;>.Xe-3 relet:tt§ ·t:e FOU8 •i*J:rau~ ;;As:- 3fPFS"3' zf

ifiLm:atleJt e••S is .:ette !?e retcas:::S ta tL ;:t:B!i: sr st!tcr
a:-- .::::·~'-::::.:__ :: 9~ IS ::-~...:3'. ~~:: j?G~:::": ::t ~~:: '_pe:: :::::a!d

j":elsan;-;::1
~:!H'isl:!e~

ta : L Rt:::i:Ca, citAcr L uri!Ut ar . erlliall:ar:PL. T'l·s !#s:t ilC:"if_ aHa' a ;; a#aa't HCR~{s) he; Us, n:a; as ;fa ·"i :sr>Jf.fie:Rfafami't:'S&Ilfii1i o5

:_•. S".

G;c::::r::::::::f :.-::::. . ::~;:;-:,

-.=~:! :c no~ f.€r ~:'nc::, rs

'isr .',

r;et-::~=1')tl;C.:"::-·~.

"".':::-::--:-:;.-:::~!:::

:-r ::.~ ::~:

~..-T_-c

c:l:re_~ ~'1:;:- !!:::- fr::eentc:f

<''C$ieRtf,s,'. Please Ret#;· tqe ae;;,fis.~ if iSis eR'la3l i'fas f:3ce::> misdiFeete£! aFJ5 iffllz>ee.·are,~· deaf."&]' aft s.•istNa;5 :mii csp ·es ef Yle aFlfji::lat. .4.-:;- ~-;_:::3sc::r:: :-.Of!'.>~ "'s;.r:."':'"c::~ '"7'::~ -~= Oy":p.-:~-:t.~y U ~- C":;~s.--:-'5 a;;ff.Qs.....Js:- P-c 1cc!;s--::.

From: HOFFMAN, TODD A

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 20171:07 AM

To: DIREGORS FIELD OPS

@cbp.dhs.goV>; EXECUTIVE DIREQORS HQ

!!!>LUJJ.<Jns. gm•:>; BORDER SECURITY ASST DIREQORS

.DHS.GOV>; WAGNER, JOHN P

@CBP.DHS.GOV>;

(bl (6). (b) (71(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>;

(b) (6). (b) (7)(Cl

(b) (6). (b) (7l(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>

Subject: Guidance on Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the

United States

Importance: High

Directors,
I apologize for fue delay. Please be advised fuat you have unilateral aufuority to approve exemptions to fue Executive Order for LPRs, no State Department approval required. The exemption process for other categories of aliens as outlined in fue policy guidance currently requires the approval of fue acting Commissioner. Further guidance for these exemptions is forfucoming.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000151

Memorandum For: Directors, Field Operations

From:

Todd A. Hoffman Executive Director Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office ofField Operations

Subject:

Guidance on Executive Order "Protecting the Nation fi·om Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States"

Effective inunediately, and pmsuant to Executive Order entitled, "Protecting the Nation jimn Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" (January 27, 2017), all entry into the United States for aliens who are nationals fi·om Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria andYemen is hereby suspended in accordance with Section 212(f) of the INA. This includes all noninnnigrant classifications, with the exception of those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, NATO visas, C2 visas for travel to the United Nations, Gl, G2, G-3, and G-4 visas. This also includes all innnigrant classes ofadmission, retuming resident aliens refugees and asylees.

The Department to State has provided CBP with a letter provisionally revoking all innnigrant and non-innnigrant visas for nationals ofIran, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Revocations may not yet be annotated in the system.

Should aliens, subject to the Executive Order, arrive at the port of entry, CBP officers are instructed to take the following actions:

Applicants bearing Non-Immigrant Visas and

(1)

will be recorded in

system, according to crn::re11t poli,~y/])roceclm<a.

(2)

allowed to withdraw their

for admission on Form I-275,

without a swom statement. All other pn)ce,dures pertaining to the processing of Form

I-275 withdrawal cases apply.

(3) Should the alien decline to withdraw their application for admission, the alien will be

placed in Expedited Removal in accordance with standard operating procedmes.

(4) Aliens clainling fear of retmn will be refened to an asylum officer, and processed for

Expedited Removal/Credible Fear (ERF). Aliens processed under ERF procedures

will be refened to ERO for detention. Field Offices should clearly indicate to both CIS

and ERO that aliens are subject to Executive Order during the referral process.

Rei1Jming Residents, (J) Lawful Permanent Residents should be refened for~ and held
at the p01t of enhy until an exemption to the Execu~ authority
to grant an exemption has been delegated to the Commissioner of CBP, and further delegated to Directors ofField Operations and SES Port Directors. Once an exemption

EO FOIA CBP 0000000152

has been granted results o~ should be notated i n - with the . following language: Indivi~Presidential Executiv~er and barred from entTy pursuant to 212(j) ofthe INA but has been granted an exemption per (insert DFOISES PD).

Refugees, Asylees, Unaccompanied Children, and subjects returning to the US with Advanced

Parole:

(l) Aliens from the above group who are prevented from

as a result of the

Executive Order, should be referred for

and held at the port of

entry until such time as an exemption to

can be obtained. This

exemption falls to the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security. Further

guidance will be forthcoming on processing these exemptions.

Individuals who fall within any of the above may not be paroled, which includes port parole and defened inspection. To the extent that there is an emergent medical issue related to an alien who falls within the Executive Order, CBP officers must accompany the alien for any medical care.

Returning aliens ineligible who withdraw their application for admission: (1) Aliens amving via air or sea: Commercial carriers are required to remove foreign aliens found ineligible for entry under this order pursuant to 241 (c)(1) of the INA. (2) Aliens aniving via land will be retumed per cunent established procedures with the contiguous country.

Please ensure that this memorandum and attached muster are disseminated to all ports of enny

\vithin

any questions or require additional information,

(A) Director, Enforcement Programs Division,

Todd A. Hoffman Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office ofField Operations U.S. Customs and Border Protection

EO FOIA CBP 0000000153

From: To:
Cc:
Subject: Date:

HOFFMAN TODD A DIRECTORS FIELD OPS

Owen Todd C (AC OFQ); WAGNER JOHN P; • • • • • • • •

EO CAT Monday, January 30, 2017 5:27:10 AM

Directors,

Good morning, can you please let me know if you have any reportable issues related to the EO. There were no waivers pending Cl approval as of0300 hours. We're working on getting you broader waiver authority. Please be advised that we have stood up a 24x7 CAT staffed by members of APP, OCC, OPA, INA, NTC, and Ops. Please feel free to use the CAT as a
JTI>Q1"1table issues directly to them via Thank you for your engagement and diligence

Todd A. Hoffman Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs and Border Protection

EO FOIA CBP 0000000069

From: To: Cc:
Subject: Date:

MondayT January 301 2017 8:09:19 AM

Chicago has no issues to repmi.

***Sent by Mobile Device***

From: HOFFMAN, TODD A

Sent:

2017 6:27:09 PM

To:

Cc:

Owen, Todd C (AC OFO); WAGNER, JOHN P;

Directors,
Good morning, can you please let me know if you have any reportable issues related to the EO. There were no waivers pending Cl approval as of 0300 hours. We're working on getting you broader waiver authority. Please be advised that we have stood up a 24x7 CAT staffed by members of APP, OCC, OPA, INA, NTC, and Ops. Please feel fi:ee to use the CAT as a
~~table issues directly to them via Thank you for your engagement and diligence
Todd A Hoffinan Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs and Border Protection

EO FOIA CBP 0000000131

From: To:
Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments:
Importance:

Monday, January 30, 2017 9:04:55 AM PAROLEE 30JAN-2FEB EL SALVADOR HONDURAS.XLS Form I-512L CAM Parole Authorization Letter_pdf imaqe003.joo High

DFO/PDs
Starting on January 31st, the Ports ofMiami, Houston and LA will encouoter Central American Minors that have been authorized parole into the United States for a period oftwo (2) years. I have attached a list of the individuals scheduled to arrive to include a exemplar of the document they will present on primary. Just to alleviate any potential confusion, while these are adjudicated by CIS Refugee Office, these are not refugees, nor subject to the EO.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should the need arise.

J. Ryan Hutton Deputy Executive Director ~and Passenger Programs
~c

'ftJ.arRiRg: c TFis eaeUfl'lSFl~ l: ! ~~!£! "SS1PSQ.'_IFOR OfFl.....!f'L l_lfbC Q}!!_v !:'F:"l_1~~- 1<- ::~..·-;FI::: '7::mra::-:;R •~:;-· A'\3'{ Ee 8J'3H1f-'

=-=-· f.FaR flYElia Fs:eaae HR<Ier~e rms:sm :::: ~~----Z~;sr .11.s: (!: '-'.S.':. !:'5:2!- ': :.:: •c ::: _s-:~ ~le-S:, s:;-::e-:, kFlS'ls!!:, 4aAsm;;te9, rfWBWee!,

a:u:l 6fst-~'iLd ::.!" :••

ti:ar:ec -..it!. Dl !G :;a:ie) r_!aHA§ !e fOb'G iF:'e:FR:aijaft a1.S :s l.et ta E:~ r_leas_cl te ~- p;u!:i!ie sr a!"! e. P:-FS~FLLI

"*<Z ""::- .. ~~ :-:.-.: a ·:a1':' ":--see- te h•- ··" ui'l:!z!!<t f.H~s- -JapFS·-J! sf a? ErRJ:n~2"a8 Q'l£ s~slal. ~Ia f!Sl'HaA sf 'J:lisl'€f.SFt ::l:lsu19 b: ""; ..::~:"'
a: te tl:te R:eSia, aiY'u in •• r~en er crt ffiffi'l. Rifs fle_&ffleFJt, aR"# arwattaei'1ffiet+t{a] lo!eFete, ,"flay esRfiiiR asnfi<ieRfiaf a."14!Jr seRs:¥ive
,.M (J._g_ ,....S''SFRR'ISR' h=d<ElFFNSfiSR, 3."1Ff 6 RB! .·etea~e, FtrTeT, ~et1'3.i:JS.::fl'.;SS.'S."':, ;Je a:-.':;a~fS."' :~'FE? B;· 3!7jSJ2": C~f:re.~#f-F! 'f:re iatcr:J:le:l

J"EGipL.:;[s). Please FiSWj Yrc: semleriffJ:#s ePR<Ji! !JZiS BeeR l'Rk;di.ealeE! aRilofflR'!edial€Jy Scs!rsy a" eFi§{sa!-s a <JEt eep·:::s ef#=Js s.:.,ifla'.

'1Ry ofi:;e!ssur;e s~ !'-is :-';::.·q;a-t -:~r~h:: :yaproe·te"" ~-.:1. U. <:"'_ ':1::1:-!:-ms ae~Ef!Js14er o...,:eetie;;r.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000165

From: To: Cc: Subject: Date:

AILA Inquiries Monday, January 30, 2017 1:08:56 PM

DFOs If you get any questions related to the EO from local AILA chapters, please refer them to Betsy Lawrence at AILA National.

Thanks

J. Ryan Hutton Deputy Executive Director ~and Passenger Programs
~c

e '..\1-arnin~r :t;: s-~'dffi2:-'t i: I !}ll"'l PSG'F!CD.UfOR OfG]'""'l"' I ~~;r 9NP' ''TQI 19]. It ESAtaiA'.:" fi'#9l'l'!'latleA f.l:!a~ ~ay l; G 8Ji2lFf!fJ1
~- o"':"': f":~> rzl~:--se :·;:;:E!er"t-ac Fr::.-.~-FR ef 1A#E!'ffla';a-: '\:~ (f 1 l.i:i.C. 1::"?2).. It l:- te Fe :cR:r:l!e9, S'eFS9, Fm=r4let!:, tRiASR'!ifiteEI, 8i:frP!:rte5, and 8bj:Jese3 af iB ae.::~ffLdE£ ,,""!?. D! !S F3~!:e; .~!a!'Fl.\1 te FG'.."O iRf::;:;:nat:iaR anE.! S ?.et L: be !d:::as_E! t:: ~Be pBbF: er etBev fi: o::::?.::! ,.,:~:de Ra~ Aa·:: a ··a1i9 "HeeG b l'r16'"" "~lli:;,t; H~r appr~·z:l :fan a·Jtl:le!'E'e8 Q!·fr sf.f.i:'af. N: perEE F! s'·tf:lls Fef!S-' sRst!lt' Ee ?dF..isAeEI te #;.s Ffler:Ha, ei'Aer if! tl"R~sf! w ·:af'Eaf f>sFFR. "'J.t"c s#as·-AsFJ', a;;rt ~ay- ::~.:::.:';.r;;;_.,~;::; !?: ..:·-, m:;· :~..~::_., c::.:.~·;t:::--:~::::..' .::--:;;'fc:- s:::-;f#·s
u_.;;, GG"'g_::;:tt;:;G::J' ;...f"P.=J:;t;f/(:1"!, ;;r:~ 4 ;r t::':'! r.... ~ _q;l<;a;;e, .~:~;nh;·.., ~et"rl::J""171h?f;;r:r, 4i£SBr+!;r:t;;~!g~ gr !'!>8 Py 3R}Ie<:JG 9#i'?r #JaR fi:le ir:;tg..,r;fcrJ
. . ;.;, eeij:iie::t(s}. P.'eas~ .:all!) the scRt#uifYl"s ema:.' .\as Sect: m:sef;)e:;tea aRe! ·."i.i'l,~:f:afe'; de::;t. e:r a!: e.i9'::a:s _,,& eep::s sr .":e e.:ffi.ila:.
":.'i':J· iifi-c';-sT o:~ iL:srv: . :::-::~ .r:n··-' Se PJ'i· ::-'" Ey ". ~- t;;,:-:s-:.:: c.;..!" Br:::J:::- .". :~::.::~f:::::.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000060

-

rea QFACM.l USE n~tt~~-/ tA:Vl EtlFORCr!MEUFSENSil=:~:E
I<El':Q.l?J;lS MNI ALSO GONIAIN .UIO!'!Nr't CU!SNT,l'lEl!BEIIATl~l£ At>ID/OR (JTl!!OR AI'PUCA!!l£ I'!'!NJLSDGED M-ATERIAL

• . document I$ UNCLASSlFIEOIIFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U!JFOUOJ. Jt <»n!MIS informaliO!llha! may be e•empt from

public release under the

r ormation Ad: (5 US.C. S5Z}. It is to he contrafied. stored. handled. transmitted, omttibuted, aoo

disposed of_in accordance with DHS policy

• r UO if\frnma1fon ·and Is not lo be rnlemad to the pubt:C ot other personnel \tihQ dn

1101 have a Vllfid "nee<J..Io-know" without prier approval of an a

of!lcial No potjlon or lhls repo~ sllould be fumisbed to tn.

media, either fn wrttten orverttal ftlmt This ®C'Jmenf. am! any attachmenl(SJ • , • fain confidentialanr.J!Or SOOStlivt:: IJS

Ge>ve.rntftell! illfcrr.taffim, &nd is ft.OJ lor re~<wse, rovietv, rotnmsmi&SiO!f, disscm!r4itiorl or UMi t , ...

tfrM file ktttmd!xi rodpwnt($}.

Please n-atity the senderif fhfs emaffhas bean fflisdirected anrfimmediafeiy dewey aff crlgi!lals ar:d copies of the

' ~ di~ Of

ihfs da(unwnt must b!! $ppfOVOdby U.S. Ctlstoms am! Botder Protection

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Monday, January 30,2017 3:06PM

Todd C (AC OFO)

Acting Deputy Commissioner/EAC,
Subject to my oversight, direction and guidance, I hereby delegate to the Deputy Commissioner, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Executive Assistant Commissioner, Executive Director Admissibility and Passenger Programs, Executive Director Operations, Executive D.irector National Targeting Center, Executive Director, NationaiTargeting Center-Passenger, Directors, Field Operations, Port Director, John F. Kennedy Airport, and Port Director, LOs Angeles International Airport, Office of Field Operations, U.S. customs and Border Protection, the authority under§ S(e) of the Executive Order entitled, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States," (January 27, 2017), to admit individuals to the United States as first-time refugees on a case·by-case basis, but ohly if the Commissioner and the Secretary of State, or his designee, jointly determine that the admission of such individuais as refugees is in the national interest and would not pose a risk.to the security or welfare of the United States, Prior to any such admission as a first·time refugee, each such individual must be sUbjected to a thorough examination by an iinnligration officer, to include CBP conduct
of: (b) (7){E)

PRPPER1V OF u:s. 6H5T9Pt't5 Atltl BORSER PR9TE£Ft0l4
EO FOIA CBP 0000000638

FOR 'OFflCIAL USE Qf_ClYl EA\f{QiFORCSAElff SEP45fTi11E
RECORDS MAY AlSO CONTAIN ATTORNEY GHENT, !JILIRERA+l-VE A~!9;'QR OT!lER AP!'bfC!\BU,: i>Rl'Jib69G€lf 1\m+ERIA~
DFOfPDs Starting on January 31 ", the Ports of Miami, Houston and LA will encounter Central American Minors that have been authorized parvle into the United States for a pcriqd of two (2) years. I have attached a list of the individualsscheduled to arrive to include a exemplar of the docun1ent they >Viii present on primary. Just to alleviate any potential confusion, while these are adjudiCated by CIS Refugee Office, these are not refugees, nor subject to the EO.
Please do not hesitate to comac.t me should the need arise.
J. Ryan Hutton Deputy Executive Director Admissibil]Jand Passenger Programs
IIDDJI!JJKIJ
Washington, DC
lir: (b) (6), (b) (?)(C)
:I§:
rBJ:

"<:: ocument is tJNCLASSiFlEO/IF-OR OFFICIAL U'SE.ONLY (Ui/FOUDJ, It t:ontdins lnfoonalitm that may be- exempt frOm

put:ilic ieteas:e undenhe _re

_

Btion Act -{5 U.S.C. fi5Z). _tt Is,lobe (;()n_tr_OU_ed, _Stofed, handfed. tm;tsmttted, cf!Sfrlbufed, and

disposed of in accnrdance wilh OHS policy -te_au

_ 1 ', furrnalion and .is f!ot lei b£!- rE!Iea"Sed.tp the pubb;;.Qt QUi¢t per"senne.l who do

not have _a valid "need~to-knO\-'i" without prior approvaf of an authnrw::-

• I, No portion of this t:e;port:should he furnished t~?_tbe

me-dia. either in written or verbal form. This dOCtiment; _and any attachmenttsJ ltlEtelo. ma . _· __ · entiat-andlorsensitive-US

Government mformatiqn. and IS not for telegse, reVieW. retransmissioo, <Jissemlnaffon or use by anyone ot to

· ed recipient(s).

Pteasa- no!tfY the senCet tf this emaif nas been miSdirected and.rmme-r!iate!y de-stroy a-ll originets.aHd copies or the ongm;Jt. Any

at

this docum&nt must be O-PfJtoYcd by U.S Customs and Bardor Protecffon,

DFo·s Kindly request that you all Enforcement Programs Division (group mailbox) to all waiver
requests. This will helps us track the waivers and alleviate field reporting.
Thank very much for all ofyour flexibility, We are siriving not to burden th~ Field.
J. Ryan Hatton Deputy Executive Director
J>as:scnger Programs
Washington, DC

EO FOIA CBP 0000000639

FOR 0¥I=itl:\l VSE O¥JlN {lA:'I: ENiSREfMENT S!l4!ffiV~ IUC91'IDS MA¥ /U$0 Cfm:fAIN A++O~Nt:Y CU£N1', 9Ellllt:AA'tl\'E
,ll,~ll:l/OR OT~R JlllPIJCJI,S.L~ PRI'llbo!:!G£0 M.'\t[Rf.l',L
(b) (6), (b) (?)(C)

' ·,document Is UNCLASSIFIEDI/FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (UIIFOUO), ~ conlnins infort)lation th•t may be e<empt from

public rolel!So under tho

fonnattM Act (5 U$.0.55Z), llis lobe controlled, stored, handled, transmitted. disliibuted. and

disposed or ln accordance with DHS policy r

- uo intormatton ana is .not lo be tolease-a to the publtc or other personnel wno do

not have a valid ~need-to-knovl' wllhout prlontpproval of aa a _• _ S o:ffN:ial, No portion of !his- toport shOuld be furnished to the

media. either In writterrorverbtlt fOrm. Thisdqcumerit. <mdarty attacnment(sJ n ,

is:ln Ct:mffctentia! andlatsensitiileD_.S,

Govemm({nt information, and is110l fQt roi9&5e, review, retransmissfan, disJMminatiarr cr usa Dy rr _ 1 .:~- tha!J the intendectmdpien1(S)_

·Pluase flOfify tM Mtm:Jer if this cmad has berJn misdirected am! immediately destroy a!f mfgrnafz: and copies of the !$ •
1his document must be appmrod by U~S Ct!SlotnS andBorder Protection

disdosure of

From: HUTTON, JAMES R

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017.9:34 PM

To: HOFFMAN, TODD A

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

DIRECTORS FIELD OPS

(b) (7)(E)

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ

,-,,

(b) (7)(E)

BORDERSECURITY ASST DIRECTORS

(b) (7)(E)

t• "

• a a (b)(6). (b) (7)(C)

•

1

•

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

•

'It• • •· ~, •

~e.- •.~ · . . . . . , • · : · •

•

the United States

Importance: High

DFO's As a follow up from guidance sent last night. In addition to waivers for LPRs, the Secretary of Homeland Security has delegated waiver authority to the Commissioner of CBP for only the
following categories of individuals subject to the EO: • Returning Refugees (to include any 1st time refugees encountered): • Returning Asylees; • Individuals in possession ofa valid I-512 issued by CIS;
• UAC

EO FOIA CBP 0000000640

fOR SFFfCiALUSE OtKY/ LAVtf EJ4FORtrro1EtffSH4SlT1Vt fl:oCORD$ MAY ALSO GQN'I'AfN ATTO!!NEY CUEI•ff_I)RlBEilATIVE
Mm{OR OTIII:R APPLICABlE PRIVILttlGED MATEP.lAL

•
• EACOwen

(b) (6), (b) (?)(C)

• DEAC Wagner

• (b) (6), (b) (7)

• XDHoffman
• (b) (6), (b) (?)(C)
• DXD Hutton

• OFO Field Liaison

l have also attached some samples that were submitted for approval today.

Sample

Subject Line: EO 212{f} Exemption for t..ASi NAME, (f/n) First name

Sp.eeific bullets regarding the specific individual(s), for example:

P~PERT!f OFl:Hi. tuS+OM5 At'/9 .89.RB-tA PftEiltetl9~l
EO FOIA CBP 0000000641

FOR: Of!1CrALUSf: ON(Y /!Ji;W ENI<Ol!CEME!ff SEf4Sli'IVf
Rf:(:ORDS Mll?.'Al£0 CO~ITAI~! A+TORNEY GlEN+, DEUB<ERATJ'JE i\NO,'OR OTHER ,•,Peblt,'l,BLE Pf\iVlhEDGEtl MATERI,tx.J_
J. Ryan Hutton Deputy Executive Director Admissibilitv and Passenger Programs (b) (6), (b) (7)(C) Washington, DC
li': (b) (6), (b) (?)(C)
ilb: iBl:
P~6P Efrr'f eF tJ.5. €UST8.1\:1S:. AtJB BG8aER PRSTEETISN
EO FOIA CBP 0000000642

From: To: Cc:
Subject! Date: Attachments:
Importance:

Monday, January 30, 2017 4:03:01 PM
S Signed Action Memo Refuoees.rxff
Copy of 30Jan-2 Feb Booking Spreadsheet Details (2l.xlsx
2017protectinatheNationfrom T erroristEntrvintotheUnitedStates.eo.rel.docx
High

DFOs In conjunction with Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, approx. 842 refugees (complete list attached) have been authorized to travel to the United States from
January 30th- Febmary znd. These are first time entrants and thus should only anive to the seven (7) designated POEs: JFK Newark Miami Chicago Dulles
LAX
Houston

The Executive Order (EO) does allow for a waiver pursuant to Section 5(e) with concurrence ofthe Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security. The Department of State has provided a copy of their concurrence concurring with a waiver for only the 842 refugees listed in the attached. The Secretary of Homeland Security has delegated his authority to the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The Connnissioner has further delegated his authority (see below) that allows the listed individuals to effectuate said waiver per Section 5(e) of the EO. The below also outlines the guidelines, systems checks etc, on how waivers should be granted: Prior to any such admission as a first-time re1112ee.
tlu>m""'·h examination

J. Ryan Hutton Deputy Executive Director ~and Passenger Programs
~c

EO FOIA CBP 0000000132

lAlart=~iRQ: T!.is See\::l:..~.:t :~ e~:-::....".G£1\l::::D:,'fO:-! o;:;s:A.:... 'JS::: G~:!:...V ~'..:::.-~u:=-;. :~ e:.;.~::.s ir;Te....ati.;.; t-l a! r••a; l::e e<e.1119t

F.el.t ptiGCe rt!ease ...:;;L. :!;~ Fr~:.:Lfl :f ll".!e.m~::e.• /\d (5 :!.S.C. E£'27. !t :s !e Bz eefltre!'e:f, s~e.ct!, h3F51e5, trens-R;:t~:_j, e:s::-e:.:k:J,

anrl 9lspese9 sf iF! :-c-::sr4s::-:-:::a ··~:h 121 J"' ;r::!::y ::'::~':-:; •: fQ'.!Q d:::""'"~'ieA a.H9 •- ;:;e;tc Eo rel:-seS' t:: ~e pb!Blie ar et-Her pc::cn:-cl

<'kle ea Ra-t fKl'oe a 1aliEI "Heei'l ~a Y.Re "· i*lcw! 13fia:- appFe··a! ef aR a!:lltcffi:er:! G'l !8 sffi::'al. He psffie-A sf L'=Es repar4 sRs!ZlEI Ee li-n'lisReEI:

•s ~t;::: rr:.::=::, oi!hzr is"'~::. s:- ·reFBaf feFrfL 'FR ·5 i'iesurReFJl, ar:;d GRj' aif.as.!:JJq~eFJ~s) f:cr<ets, 'Hay e;q~a:s ~arffdz::~:::-' :::.--:::!t:::: FCr:;sif·'B

fl. S. Gcn CIFJJ'fl:,"ffiitlsi7m:rt:I~FJ, a;<;S :.... As~"fs.• :'~~s:, --~·~·~. FEt a..Sfflissfsn, :1:5€cmiFJatieR er ::se !Jy aR}SI'IS eflle· f,';;a.- t.7c In~cr;t#:::9

.. U.-S: fA':e~::.'!jj·9#ci?-F!Ji"e0G~1!;PK~Jee-fst.e'iia-:eWds:eJ:t~1.R;'e~'·;f-n":;";o;~f:nh·f>~.-;e-~.~-~:.-s«~·:'c-/~h~rb·e-r

m~;~s"f";~·;~~;';"'~":c"a""-'.~:-d"B"a_::Fdl~'fr-~~'o";';;-;'~;1.r.e;~~-~-~~··->..

~u
-·

~.;--'Ra'c
• s·-

-·r:;fi

s?jiisc

eftRc

c-'g'F;a'
· ·

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 3:06PM

To: ALLES, RANDOLPH
~@CBP.DHS.GOV>

Cc: (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(bl (6). (b) (7)(C)

@cbp.dhs.gov>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Subject: Redelegation of Refugee Waiver Authority

@dhsgov>

Acting Deputy Commissioner/EAC,

Subject to my oversight, direction and guidance, I hereby delegate to the Deputy

Commissioner, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Executive Assistant

Commissioner, Executive Director Admissibility and Passenger Programs, Executive Director

Operations, Executive Director National Targeting Center, Executive Director, National

Targeting Center-Passenger, Directors, Field Operations, Pmt Director, John F. Kennedy

Allport, and Port Director, Los Angeles International Allport, Office of Field Operations, U.S.

Customs and Border Protection, the authority under § 5(e) of the Executive Order entitled,

"Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States," (Januru.y 27,

2017), to admit individuals to the United States as first-time refugees on a case-by-case basis,

but only if the Commissioner and the Secretary of State, or his designee, jointly determine that

the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest and would not pose a

risk to the

or welfare of the United States. Prior to any such admission as a first-time

EO FOIA CBP 0000000133

RECORDS MA.¥ ALSO CONTAIN ATI@!Ull!Y CUE NT, llRISE'RAJ!Vi; AND/0!< OTI !ER APPI.1CAS6E PllJ\'I.LS!l.bHJ M,•.tE'I%'•L

ATTCHMENTS to Hoffman Email from 1/31

From: HUTTON, JAMES R Sent: Monday, January 30, 2.017 9:1:7 PM To: DIRECTORS FIELD OPS !b) t7)(E) (b) (?)IE) !b) (7l(El

; BORD.ER SECURITY ASST DIRECTORS EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ

Subject: Guidance on Withdrawal- court Compliance
DFO's As pertains to applicants for admission subject to ihe EO, please ensure. Officers within yout AOR receive the below guidance from OCC:

J, RyanHutton Deputy Executive Director
Passenger Programs
'ii': {b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
a;,;
i8l:

Wam1n •

• UNCLASSJF!EoitFOROFF-101ALtJSE ONLY (Ut!FOUO).It conuilns informaUGn that may be exempt" from

public rClaase imdOrth~ FrcCdOm Of non .

:S.C, 5q.Z}. It is to" be controlled, stored( llandJ~, tmli.Smitted. distributed, _an~

disposed .of lrl accordance with DHS policy relating. Ia FO m ·

· n6t to be released to the Public or other personnel who dO

not have a valid "need4o-know'' without prior apprOval of ·an authorized OHS offiCia •

•

!:S report should -he furnished t9 the

medi<t, e_ither iil written .or verbal form. Tllis document, cmd auy eltaahm![!nt(s) hereto. may tontain r:on _er ,

sitive us:

Government informaffon; ?rid is not fot release. ti?View. f$!.far1_Smission. dfssSinin~tlan Or'.u_Se by.;;rriyone_Oth(Jf than t(le lnteo

EO FOIA CBP 0000000635

!'OK OHIEIAL tffl!LOI4tl' /LAIN Eldf'e')ileffMEI<T $EliSFITVt RECGIB!J& MAY ALSO CONTAIN ATIORNE?tel1ENI, 9Uil!ERAIIVC
Mlf:I/OR OT>Iji:~ fil>!'b!C'\lll..€ PR!VtbH}f:;!:!J M:a.t!i:l?t;'\b DFOs In conjunction with Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, approx, 842 refugees (complete list attached) have been authorized to travelto the IJnited States from January 30'"-
February 2nd, These are first time entrants and thus should only arrive to the seven (7) designated
POEs: JFK Newark Miami Chic?go Dulles
LAX
Houston The Executive Order (EO) does allow for a waiver pursuant to .Section S(e) with concurrence of the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security, The Department ofState has provided a copy of their concurrence concurring with a waiver for only the 842 refugees listed in the attached, The Secretary of Homeland Security has delegated his authority to the Commissioner ofU.S. Customs and Border Protection, The Commissioner IJas further delegated his authority (see below) tnat allows the listed individuals to effectuate said waiver per Section S(e) of the ED, The below also outlines the gUidelines, systems checks etc, on how waivers should be granted:
Prior to any such admission os a first-time refugee, each such individual must be subjected to a thorough
extrmi·nal~ion by on immigration officer, to include CBP conduct of: (b) (7)(E)
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Deputy Executive Director
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
FRS PERT¥ SF t::f5w Ctt?TGfotS Ar¥0 SORD:R FROTCCTtSN
EO FOIA CBP 0000000637

From: To: Cc:
Subject: Date: Attachments:

Seaport Operations and Consolidated Guidance
Tuesday, January 31, 2017 7:17:22 AM
Guidance on Withdrawal - Court Compliance.msg Re-De!eaation of EO Section 5 Refuaee Waiver Authoritv.msg Arrival of Central American Minors (CAM) Parolees- Jan 31st.msg RE UPDATED Guidance on Executive Order Protectina the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United
States.msg
UPDATED Guidance on Executive Order Protertina the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entrv into the United
States.msq Signed memo.mso

DiJ:ectors,

Here is a quick summary regarding the Executive Order:

• You have waiver authority for:

o LPRs- still require an individualized waiver for each entry.

o First time refugees.

o Remaining in-scope categories- Cl approval required. Delegation request to

~:r!lJ:ttly with the We

to

•

• Issued WD guidance based on court order.

• Crewman that are now lacking a valid visa and are determined to pose no additional

concerns to the security of the United States may be detained on board the vessel, with

an approved security plan, for the dmation of the vessel's U.S. voyage. Crewman that

pose a concern to the secmity of the United States "1"~

fi • d •

tt tadard

tin • • d

• Cl, C2, EAC Owen, etc., continue to work through a prioritized list of Congressional calls.
• We're working with Department of State to align om EO policies and protocols with additional changes expected soon.
• We'll have FAQs posted via CBP website and a public inquiry call center established later today.

For convenience, I have also attached the previously issued guidance to Field Offices since the

Executive Order:

l/30 email: court compliance on WD

l/30 email: Delegation of Authority Documentation for 842 Refugee Arrivals

l/30 email: Arrival of Central American Minors (CAM) Parolees- Jan3l arrival

1/28 email: ·

·

J@illJl...l.lll~J.Yadded to routing on 1129.

- Signed Memo

I appreciate your efforts dming this implementation. Please let me know ifyou have any

EO FOIA CBP 0000000076

the Crisis Action Team is staffed 24/7 and can be reached at Also, please let me know if you have any reportable issues for the 0900 senior leadership meeting. Todd A. Hoffinan Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs and Border Protection
EO FOIA CBP 0000000077

F8_f\· 6F'Flet-At USE-' eNtY/ tN'fl.t' Efir"Of:S:CttotEtffSENSFAV£ ll!CCOROS MAY AlSO CON+AIN ATTORNE:Y CUEN+, DEUBIORA+!VE
/'.NO/OR G+II!>R APPL!CI\B u; PR!VILEDGHl MAT!::IIIA!.

..(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
. .
'
rmll!•lmlmlii!•lm••!D·

. .
(b) (6), (~~\~~l~~) (7)(C)

.. . '~b) (6), (b) (?)(C) . .

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Will do, I'm reviewing and cleaning up the FAQand will getitoutto OCC before final OC de~ ranee.

Best,
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

.. • From: HUTTON, JAMES R -

••

•

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

am•&mJili••!D•e· (b) (6). <b> <Y><C>

. -

(b) (6), (b) (?)(C)

l •

•• • ••

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Please run any added questio.ns to OCC

From: {b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

To: cc:
Subject: RE: FAQs (Updated)

(b) (6), (b) (?)(C)

1added two questions to the bottom. Would like to be able to release those if possible.

Thanks!

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Office of Public Affairs

U .. I t = • • •.~

I

(b) (6), (b) (?)(C)

From: (b) (6), (b) (7)(C) Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 2:08PM To: Cc: HOFFMAN, TODD A

UTTON, JAMES R

EO FOIA CBP 0000000626

R>OORIJSlii!WAt&O CON+Ai~f J\TroRNrY cm:NT, 9£UBEl<ATl'JE
i\~fl#'l:ll:t 01+1~ API'UGlll!.bi: I'!!NitEOOSJ MATJ:!!!I\l
(b) (6), (b) (?)(C)

•

• •I I t •

(b) (6), tb) (7HC)
let me know if you have anything to add

Thank you,
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (?)(C)

I

I '

•
•

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

••• •

(b)(6). (b)(7)(C)

HUTION, JAMES R

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Subject: RE: FAQs (Updated)

Updated version attached (b) (5)
(b) (5)

From (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Please find the updated FAQs attachecilllr.rill add in the materials (b)(5) and re-distribute so we call get final CBPclearance.
Best,
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Office of the Commissioner
u.s. Customs and Border Protection Office (b) (6). (b) (7)(C) Cell: tbi (61 tbl !711C
PliflllE!Wt' .BF IU. Elf!PI'BMS APIB.I!El!IBER Pll9lEEf18!1
EO FOIA CBP 0000000627

f6R (;pFfefAL USe: 6fJl!/ / lt(*ifV1 Ef4FQRCBv\_E:NI SENS!TfVE R~CORDS M!W AlSO. to~lTAIN ATTGRN!;;Y Cli5NT, l:lWB!iRATI1JE
A!>l9{0R OTHER AP!liiCABI!oE' i>RIVItE£!GE9 M¥EIU.A,b

From: HOFFMAN, TODD A
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 7:23PM To: DIRECTORS FIELD OPS (b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
Subject: FW: FAQs

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HQ

FYSA. Please continue to direct all infonnation requests to HQ.

Todd A. Hoffman Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Progran1s Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs and Border Protection

From: (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Sent: Tuesday, January 31,2017 7:12PM

To:

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6). (b) (7)1C)

(b) (6). (b) (7)(C)

FRIEl,

Cc:
Subject: RE: FAQs

All,
The attached FAQs have been approved by the Commissioner. This will remain an iterative document as we get new/updated questions so please share the question and draft responses so we can continue to keep this document updated. r>lease let me know if you have any additional questions.

Best,
(b) 16). ib) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Office of the Commissioner U.S, Customs and Border Protection Office: lb) (61.jb)I7)(C)
Cell: ib) 16) ibl t7)tC)

i'RSFE!Wf SF U.S. El:IS'FOMS APIB BBR8ER PRSiEE'l'IQPI
EO FOIA CBP 0000000623

'-'•'

.

:·~

- ' .,
.. :.;.

I '
!

FROM~

.:. .
··~·

(b) (6). (b) (7)(C)
I '

SUBJECT:·

~.
'
1.

.. '~

·'

. ,..·

...'..•.:.

.~br-~#.~~~

EO.-FOIA CBP 0000000674

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

February I, 2017

MEMORANDUM TO THE ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE, THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY

FROM:

Donald F. McGahn II- Counsel to the President

SUBJECT: Authoritative Guidance on Executive Order Entitled "Protecting theNation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" (Jan. 27, 2017)

Section 3(c) of the Executive Order entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" (Jan. 27, 2017) suspends for 90 days the entry into the United States of certain aliens from countries referred to in section217(a)(l2) ofthe hnmigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12). Section 3(e) of the order directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of certain foreign nationals from countries that do not provide information needed to adjudicate visas, admissions, or other benefits under the INA.

I understand that there has been reasonable uncertainty about whether those provisions apply to lawful permanent residents of the United States. Accordingly, to remove any confusion, I now clarifY that Sections 3(c) and 3(e) do not apply to such individuals. Please immediately convey this interpretive guidance to all individuals responsible for the administration and implementation of the Executive Order.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000217

U.S. Customs and Carrier Liaison Program
Border Protection

February 1, 2017

CLP@ dhs.gov

Executive Order (EO) Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States
• On 27 January 2017, the President of the United States signed Executive Order (EO) Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist EnflJ' into the United States. o Effective immediately in accordance with the new EO, all innnigrant and noninnnigrant persons of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen are suspended enfl-v into the U.S. for the next 90 days.

• The suspension does not affect foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, NATO visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations and G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-4.

• U.S. Lawful Permanent Residents (green card holders) o In accordance with White House Guidance issued on February 1, 2017, Sections 3(c) and 3(e) of Executive Order Entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" do not apply to Lawful Permanent Residents.
• Dual citizens: EO applies to Dual Citizens, but travelers are being treated according to the travel document they present. For example, ifthey present a Canadian passport, that is how they are processed for entry. ·

• Someone who is in the Federal Inspection Area right now: Each person who may be admissible from one of the seven countries, has to have an individual waiver. Processing the waivers may delay the release of the individual.

• What about refhgees who are considered to be "in transit?" o There are cunently 872 refugees who are considered to be in transit who are scheduled to arrive in the United States this week. The Secretaries of State and DHS have coordinated and will process the 872 individuals consistent with the terms ofthe Executive Order, which we've operationalized by assessing each traveler on a case-by-case basis.

• Documents that can be used by citizens identified by the EO to enter the United States are:
o Any diplomatic visa (A, G, C-2, or NATO) o An I-551 (Green Card) o An advance parole document o Any SQ innnigrant visa
If they are not in possession of one of the above travel documents, they will not be allowed to enter the U.S.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000166

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Carrier Liaison Program

February 1, 2017

CLPrl]'dhs.gov

Executive Order (EO) Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals

• To obtain cmrent and accurate infonnation of an effected individual, or if you have questions, please contact U.S. Customs and Border Protection directly.

Regional Carrier Liaison Group:

RCLG

SERVICE AREA

PHONE NUMBER

Honolulu Miami New York

Asia, Pacific Rim Latin America, Caribbean Em·ope, Africa, Mid-East

808-237-4632 305-874-5444 718-553-1783

•

Director, Travel and Tourism Initiative

or

EO FOIA CBP 0000000167

F9R QfF!Et:A.b bJSE GtLLY/l::l'!'Jl t=-rlF9RE:EJ\1bNT St:P!&I+I\'6 RECORDS MAY ALSO CONTAlN ATIORNEY-CUENT, DEliBERATIVE
AND/OR OTHERAPPLlCABLE PRIVILED.GEO MATERIAL
From: HUTION, JAMES R Sent: Wednesc!ay, Fe

(b) (6). (b) (7)(C) (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Subject: 3 Refugees Subject to EO Enroute to US with DoS Waiver Importance: High

DFO's

Please see -

I I

have been (b) (7)(E)

a • .. dditional refugees coming to your AOR. They Authority to permit exemption per Section 5(e)

of EO has been delegated to DFO (or.TFK.PD). Also attached is the concurrent waiver !Tom

Department of State.

DFOHowe,

I would kindly ask ifPort could confirm when

as cleared inspection and

enroute to U.S. as this case has generated significant Congressional interest.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should the need arise.

J. Ryan Hutton Deputy Executive Director Admissibility and Passenger Programs
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Washington, DC
'ill (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
~:
!8:

Wam

cumont is UNCLASS!FIEo!/FOR OFFICIAL tJSE ONLY (UUFOUO). It oonts:lns infonnntion that may be exempt from

public release ol1der the Fte

' c rmatlOn Acl {5 U.S.C. 552} .. It fs to be controtled, stored. handled. transmitted, distributed. and

disposed ·of in accordance with OrtS policy re ,· .. • t: UO information and is not to be-refease<J to the public or otherpersonnel _who do

not t1ave a valid ·need·to--know" without priot approval of an a , ·,. HS official. No portion of this report should be fumfshed to the

modla. either In written or verbal form._ This document, and any eftachment(s .

contein confidential and/or $ensitrve U.S.

Government informatiOn. and is not for rerease, review. retransmission. dis.~emination ·6t us&

.,- her thM the intended recipient(s).

Please notify the sender if thiS email has bec11 miscfirected and immediately destroy all origin81s and copies ... ·...· t Any discJCtsuro t.f

this document most be approved by U.S. Customs and Borcrer Protection.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000698

rcw srr:.:.::.c. :·:::: ot·:x: :...t·-· ::r:-eP:e:-:> c·q- r::n:·:v ·::
KE~B:1T.i£? L'.'T '~pJ 'i0H1'J T /:tfSF2r:_:Y :;:.c:t:T, RJ:lTI'ff'j 'T"T
.·.w:uiR a:-r1_:~ .:rn:e.:c:.: 1u :::..::; :-ce .z•• :r:~n~L:L 2/03/17 T
Thx. Please infonn CAT as soon as we have confinned boarding. They will let occ and leadership know.
All,
Respectfully,
~r U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(Duty, honor, commitment and fidelity to country arc not just words, tl1ey are tl1e code by which warriors live)
'l/.\R:NING. 'Fhe iHMrm:tbtn ca:zrh::ilicd hetdu .ea.ttiu tt.tdet !I.e tdt.i!:t!lt flhe 9eJ'ftl'4fl'tettt efHdfueleAel ge-iz<trity (DIIS:J, l'!tou::J• J.e Bthe...u vf Eu:;Lc:ns and: Bwdu P:cteetitur {CBP). IL i.t be:.t~ &ii!seu.ltldied fat tHtHtet.i:ec:il L:\u' F'1r.ORCD*El'Tp"=pn~s or'z- TI~i; 'c-4'cnttmafw rba11 no• be P .."'ifi•f•s-' ?·'$·?Vd •l:r;; m;i~iRal sdahiQrtiJiirr ·dtin.wt
priet a::tl:h::H h:ttti&n eith@ et iE;imtkr ss it t:t::t;- ee lttsiu prer:nlittu=r er 1tR9r: ~:iti''IJ twrb iJ;;;'"vMYl?tian ruhj'!C' u· djsseminatjmJn•sH"'i"nt •'m·1~~r•hcTndv sqzrocr "'oi ??1 9 "RI· ~11srny .'d. f1 ir ;:rq-t tql;;i! ri!hf~'a'l ta tk: f:!J~lht on•1 ?"1!' rt..ow• p"';;tn;;-@1 wit!· 1it n;dP "lwii!3 •14 h;po:n'' NkPul8 f>r? &!li"!trli!;l El:illH!St,

')pQprpp• m• ·~s P'CCO>tr •''? POP PUP 2RO"''R'7Jm•

EO FOIA CBP 0000000701

This is a high-profile casse; we've received clearance to autllorize/facilitate boarding for the subject
posted below. Idon't have all the identifiers, but we're coordinating- should have additional info for you later this morning. Subject is female, likely with a J-1 visa; please advise Lufthansa CBf' authorizes boarding.
Pis acknowledge receipt.
To:·--· From: HOFFMAN, TODD A
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 10:46 PM
Please work with tlie -and others to ensure boarding.

l.wi d. It 6£ G.S: CCSi 8.d5 ..:lB B81H4bLrrlrn;(Trn>·

EO FOIA CBP 0000000702

From: To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date: Attachments:

HOFFMAN TODD A DIRECTORS FIELD OPS; EXECtmVE DIRECTORS HO Owen, Todd C (AC OFO); WAGNER, JOHN P; FW: URGENT- FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION- White House Guidance darifying Executive Order on Foreign Terrorist Entry Wednesday, February 01, 2017 11:58:04 AM

Directors,

Per the below, LPRs are no longer subject to the Executive Order. To ensure compliance, please Th1M:EDIATELY distribute throughout your area of responsibility.

Todd A. Hoffman Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs and Border Protection

•
EO FOIA CBP 0000000078

FSR ·erFtEIAL OSE-Bf4LY/ W~ tNi8REEti11EF~f 5Eti51TI'IE RECORDS MAY ALSO CONTAIN ATIORNEI'-CUENT, DEUBERA1WE
AN.D/OR OTHER APPLICABLE !>RMLEDGED MATERIAL

(b) (6), {b) (7)(C) U.S. Customs and Border Protection I(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

From: HOFFMAN, TODD A

Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 12:16 PM

To: cc:

(b) (6), (b) (?)(C)

Subject: FW: UR.GENT ·FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION- White House Guidance C}arifying E~ecutive Order on

Foreign Terrorist Entry

·

l sent immediately. We're in the process of following up with phone calls.

Todd A. Hoffinan Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office of Field Operations
U.S. Customs and Border Protection

From: HOFFMAN, TODD A

DIRECTORS HQ

Subject: FW: URGENT· FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION- White House Guidance Clarifying Executive Order on Foreign Terrorist Entry
Directors,
Per the below, LPRs are no longer subject to the Executive Order. To ensure compliance, please IMMEDIATELY distribute throughout your area of responsibility.
Todd A. Hoffman
Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

EO FOIA CBP 0000000678

From: To: Cc: Subje<.t:
Date:

HOffi'1AN. TODD A: DIRECTORS FIElD OPS· EXECUTIVE DffiECTORS HO Owen, Todd C(AC OFO); WAGNER, JOHN P; RE: URGENT- FOR IMMEDIATE ACITON- White House Guidance Clarifying Executive Order on Foreign Terrorist Entry Wednesday, february 01, 201712:31:58 PM

Chicago Field Office acknowledge
~d Operations

***Sent by Mobile Device***
From: HOFFMAN, TODD A Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 12:58:03 AM To: DIRECTORS AELD OPS; EXEOJTIVE DIRECTOii!!!H Cc: Owen, Todd C (AC OFO); WAGNER, JOHN P; Subject: FW: URGENT- FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION - W ite House Guidance Clarifying Executive Order on Foreign Terrorist Entry
Directors,
Per the below, LPRs are no longer subject to tbe Executive Order. To ensure compliance, please IMMEDIATELY distribute throughout your area of responsibility.
Todd A. Hoffinan Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs and Border Protection

EO FOIA CBP 0000000127

FO-R: OFF!Et.O:L Y£E ONlY/ t;))/ E~Jf9R£1!tMi~l=f ii~i&I+PJE
RECORDS MAY ALSO CONTAiN ATTORNEY·CUENT,. DELIBERATIVE AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE:: PRIVILEO.G:ED MATERIAL

JAMES R; Cc:

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6). (b) t7)(C) (b> <tC) tb) (7liC)

TODD A; HUTTON,

Cor1ferenc:ecall to discuss changes to Executive Order

When: Wednesday, Feb

01 2017 6 30 PM 7 00 PM (UTC OS 00) E t TI (US & Canada).

Where: conference call

(b) (?)(E)

TIME CHANGE- Sorry for the delay-

Hello everyone,

CBP would like to host a short conference call today to discuss changes in the Executive Order.

The phone number is

(b) (?)(E)

The conference line that CBP has listed here has only I00 lines, if you are able to call in jointly, that would be great.

If you have any questions, please letme know. Thank you.

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
J
Travel and Tourism Initiatives Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) Admissibility and Passenger Programs

EO FOIA CBP 0000000696

From: To:
Cc: Subject Date: Importance:

Action: EO Protest C.lls Protocol Wednesday, February 01, 2017 3:11:33 PM High

DFOs,

Please be aware that various locations around the country have begtm receiving a high volume of calls from various individuals and others claiming to be attorneys regarding the recent Executive Order (EO). The callers appear to be reading from a script and they begin by identifying themselves, state they are calling regarding the EO and proceed to ask ifwe are following the law, the EO and ask how many people we are cunently detaining. This is most likely a form oftelephonic protest to the EO.

Please advise all your personnel not to engage the callers nor respond to any questions. Ensure all requests for information are refened to the Office of Public Affairs.

Thank you,

Operations Director, Field Operations Readiness Team Office ofField Operations U. S. Customs and Border Protection

EO FOIA CBP 0000000059

Rt.COROS MAY ALSO CONtAiN ATTORNEY-CLIENT, DEUBERATIVE AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE PRIVILEOGED MATERIAL

From: HUTTON, JAMES R Sent: Wednesday, t-ellmarv
To: DIRECTORS FIELD

ASST DIRECTORS

(b) (6), (b) (7)(Cl
Subject: Canadian landed Immigrants and Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" Importance: High

MEMORANDUM FOR:

Directors, Field Operations Director, Field Operations AcadGmy

FROM:

Todd A. Hoffman Executive Director Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office of Field Operations

SUBJECT:

Canadian Landed Immigrants and Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States"

Effective immediately, Canadian Landed Immigrants that are citizens oflran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syriaand Yemen with a valid U.S. Visa may be considered for an exemption of the 212(1) bar under Section 3(g) ofthe President's Executive Order ifand only if the person
satisfies the following conditions:
I. Proof to the satisfaction of the inspection Officer of person's Landed Immigrant Status in Canada;
2. Possession of n vnlid U.S. visa; 3. Travel that originates in Canada; 4. From only a pre-clearance airport; or 5. Applying for admission at a land border port of entry; 6. And the applicant is otherwise admissible.
The admission ofsuch individuals must be in the national interest of the United States. Prior to any such admission, each individual must be subjected

EO FOIA CBP 0000000672

RECORDS MAY AlSO CONTAIN ATIORNEY·CLIENT. DELIBERATIVE AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE PRMLED(;ED MATERIAL

(b) (?)(E)

ach el(emption must be considered Cln a

case by case basis with waiver submitted to Commissioner of CBP as previously outlined in the

attacl1ed email.

Please ensure that this memorandum is disseminated to all porL~ of entry within your

.

If have any questions or require additional infom1ation, please contact (b} (6), (b) (7)(C)

at (b) (6). (b) (7)(C) or send

.1. Ryan Hutton

Deputy Executive Director

·

Passenger Programs

~: (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Warnt , . ocumentls UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U/IFOUO}, It contains lnfo~atron that may be exempt from

publlc re!ea_sewider the- re ·

atiori Act {5 U.S.C.552}. ft is fo be ccritroiled, s!Ored. h;mdled. transmitted. distribuied. arid

disposed of·fn accordance with DHS )}Oiicy -f ; ·• OUO fnfonnatlon and fs not to be released to the public or other personnel who do

not have a 'la!id "need-tO*lmo\'1' Without prior approval of an

DHS official. No pottlon of !hls report should be furnished to the

media, either in _written or vetba:l form. This document. and an}• anar:;hmen '

may contain confidential and/or sensitive U.S.

Government iniormatfon. and rs not tor release. rsvi~w:, retr:.ulsmissfon, disSemination or

r.e other than the intenDed recipisnt(s},

Please notJfy the sender ifthis email has been misdirected af'ld immecfiately destroy a!! origirlsrs and COfJJ · · inm. AnydiSCiasure of

this document must be approved by U.S. Cu...<:toms andBott:JcrProfce1ion.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000673

FOR OFF!CI 4 t l.JAi QNlY / LAV·l EPllOREEMOJT SEll3tTiVE,
RECORDS MAY ALSO CONTAIN An'ORNEY-CLIENT, DEUB£RATtVE AND/OR O.THERAPPUCABLE PRIVILEDGED MATERIAL

--···Original Appointment---

From: AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION

Sent: Wednesday, February 01,2017 4:12PM To: AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION;

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (?)(C)

WAGNER, JOHN P; HOFFMAN, TODD A; Cc:

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Subject: Conference Call w/CBP to Discuss Changes to the Trave.l "Pause" Executive Order

when:

(US & Canada).

Where:

EO FOIA CBP 0000000671

~ject:
.:atlon:
Start: End:
ltecurrenc:e:
Meeting Status:
Organizer. Importance:

Wed 2!112017 6:00 PM Wed 211/2017 6:30 PM (none)
Accepted AlR TRANSPORT ASSOOATION High

.r-'\

1
EO FOIA CBP 0000000646

~Jiject; ;ation:
Start: End: Recurrence: Meeting Status:
Organi'zer;·
Required Attendees:
Optional Attendees:

Wed 2!1/2017 6:30PM Wed 2/1/2017 7:0.0 PM
(none)
Meeting organizer
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
HUTTON, JAMES R;

(b) (6). (b) (7)(C)

HOFFMAN, TODD A;

(b) (6). (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C) WAGNER, JOHN P

TIME CHANGE- Sorry for the delay -

Hello everyone,

CBP would like to host a short conference call today to discuss changes in the Executive Order.

The phone number is

(b) (7)(E)

The conference line that CBP has listed here has only 100 lines, ifyou are able to call in jointly, that would be
great.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank yQu.
.~ ··=
· ;ave! and Tourism Initiatives Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office of Field Operations
1

EO FOIA CBP 0000000647

From: To: Cc: Subject: Date:
Attachments:

EO - Carrier Uaison Notice Wednesday, February 01, 2017 8:03:02 PM Carrier Notice .docx

DFOs,

The attached notice was shared with wide ranging stakeholders today through the Canier Liaison Program. This infmmation should also be available on CBP.gov later this evening or tomonow morning.

TIHs tleetHHeftt ftfl!4 Etflj aftaek:tne!it(J1 ~ een!t:tffi: remflefe:El, se85it1 :e, EttltJ,'er Itt¥: ettfe:teetHetlt set.witi ;e
i:t:tktffiflfieB: 'heleagi:ttg te tfte U.S. Ce rernmef.l:t Hts Het Nu felease, re cie;Ji;·, retftltl1;B.li:ssie:tt; El!!ts · atie:tt;; er tt:Se a,
ee.yeae etHer tlioft tile imeatieel reei@ieat.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000068

ton OFnClt:l USE Otll¥ 1b¥ll ENFOFH3B~1ENT 5El4SlTi'iE
RECORDS MAY ALSO CONTAINATIQRNEY-CLIENT, DELIBERATIVE AND/OR OTHER APPUCABLE PRIVILEG.EO MATERIAL

r,....J=rom: Sent To:
Subjed:
Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:

HUTTON, JAMES R Wednesday, February 01, 2017 9:26
••
. . • .__fb) (6), (b) (7)(C) • .
Follow up Completed

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Team Sl has concurres with allowing Cl to delegate exemptions to field for 3(g) categories. This means the field now has the authority to adjudicated all exemptions for those subject to EO.
Guidance to field will go out shortly.

From: Owen, Todd C (AC OFO)

sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 9:19:37 PM

To: MCALEENAN, KEVlN K· WAGNER JOHN P· HOFFMAN TODD A· HUTTON JAMES R

Cc: ALLES, RANDOLPH D;

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

SUbject: RE: Redelegation

Thank you. We will advise the DfQs accordingly.

\ Todd C. Owen Executive Assistant Commissioner Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs & Border Protection

From: MCALEENAN,JCEVJN K . .. .. Sent Thursda~, Februaly02,,~017ifl4!5~.;4Jy1. ~ To: Owen, Todd C (AC OFO); WI<ONERilOI:IN P; HOFFMAN, TODD A; HUTTON, JAMES R Cc: ALLES, RANDOLPH D; Subject: Redelegation
Acting Deputy Commissioner/Executive Assistant Commissioner,
SOURCE OF AUTHORITY BEING DELEGATED
Homeland Security Act of2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002), as amended (6 U.S.C. § 112); Title 8, U.S.C. Section 1103, "Powers and duties of the Secretaty, the Under Secretaty, and the Attot'ncy General" [Immigration and Nationality Ac~ § 103(a)(l)]; Title 8, U:S.C. Section 1357, "Powers of immigration officers and employees" [Immigration and Nationality Act,§ 287]; Tile President's Executive Order entitled, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," (January 27, 2017); Title 8,U.S.C. Section 1182, "Inadmissible aliens" [Immigration and Nationality Act,§ 212]; Delegations from the Secretary to the Commissioner effective that pursuant to the referenced Executive Order (January 28·29, 20 17):. Memorandum from Counsel to the President to the Acting Sectetll!jl of State, the Acting Attorney General, and the SecretarY of Homeland Se<:urity, entitled "Authoritative Guidance on Executive Order Entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entty into the United Sblles (Jan. 27, 2017)" (Felmlary 1, 2017).
~"DELEGATION
Authority under Sct:tion 3(g) orthe Executive Order to -iSsue a visa or Other immigration benefits to nationals ofcountries for which
fifih9F'ERTY OF U.S. 9l:18"F9kis /' tJQ QOPOFR pprtrcct!<'>f.i
EO FOIA CBP 0000000669

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY I LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE RECORDS MAY ALSO CONTAIN ATTORNEY-CLIENT, DELIBERATIVE
At~flieR ell!ER Af'PLISM3<LE PRIVILEGED M.O.Tiii<J.OA. visas ll1d benefiiS are otherwise blocked under Section 3 oflhe Executive Order, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest ofthe United States. Prior to taking Ill)' such aetion,lhe individual who is the subject ofthe actioll must be subjected to a ~ thorough examination by an immign~tion officer. Pursuant to clarifYing and authoritative guidance received from Counsel to the President on Feb111ary 1,2017, Sections3(t) and 3(e) of!he Executive Order do not apply to !awful permanent mldcnts ofthe United
~le$.
Authority under Scctlon S(e) of!he Executive Order to admit Individuals to tbe United States as first-time refugees on a cue-by..,.,.., blsis, but only ifthe Commissioner (or appropriate designee pursuant to this dclegotton) and the Secretoly ofState, or his desi&Jiee,
jointly detemlirte111at the admission ofsuch individuals as refugees is in the national mlen:st and would not pose a risk to the S«Uri1y
orweUWe ofllle United States. Prior to any such admission au lint-time
This authority may not be fi11111erdeleg8ted.
\

PROPER

I

V OF

U.S.

2
CtJSTOM8

Al~fl

BBRBER

PRe'FEG+JQf>l

EO FOIA CBP 0000000670

. .

'

..

. JiCii\ 0FFICli\t U3E- ONt:'i i fJ:<vV ef~i0Re&v1Ef4T 6EN5FtrtE

,-.,.-,.,,,IT'.,<kt

cCUENT, DEUBEP-ATIVE ANDfOR OTHER APPLICABLEPR!VILEGED MATERtAL

(b) (6), (b) (?)(C)

• Sent:
To: Subject:

ALLES, RANDOLPH D Wednesday, February 01, 2017 9:35 PM MCALEENAN, KEVJN K RE: District Court Order in Mohammed v. Trump, No. 17-cv-00786

Sorrv for slow response. SI said comply with order and (b)(5)
~

SIF R. D. Alles, (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 9:07:59 PM To: ALLES, RANDOLPH D Subject: RE: District Court Order in Mohammed v. Trump, No. 17-cv-00786
How does it sound?

~'--------------------------------------------------From: ALLES, RANDOLPH D

Sent: Wednesday,

To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN

Todd C (AC OFO);

WA•GNER, JOHN P liOI'FMAN. TODD

A;

HUTION,

JAt4ES

R; (b)

(6).

(b)

(7)(C)

Subject: RE: District Court Onder in Mohammed v. Trump, No. 17-cv-o0786

Gene is discussing with S I right now.

S/F
R. D. Alles, (b) (6), (b) (7){C)

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K
ToddC(ACOFO);WA~
ALLES, RANDOLPH D;~
in Mohammed v. Trump, No. 17-tv-00786
(b)(5)

From:

(b) (6). (b) (7)(C)

sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 8:31PM

1
FPlOPEFt'Pf SF U.S. Gttt)T9rA& s?:Uii' i?P?"ER ppd?TCIIO~!
EO FOIA CBP 0000000650

FOR UFFitfAt OSb: ONLT 1' LAVG ENFOACdV!t!NT S~MStTIV!! RECORDS MAY ALSO CONTAIN ATTORNEY..CUENT, DEliBERATIVE.
AND/OJWTHERAPPUCABLE PRNllED.t:;ED MATERIAL

mentis UNCLASSIFIE!Jl!FOR OfFiCIAL USE ONLY (V!IFOUQj. It con:ains lnfommtton that may .be exempt from

public release tmder thi! to

' "' tm(lticn Act (5 U.S<G. 552J. it 1$ to be controlled. S[o-md, handled. tr.msmi!te-d. distributed. .and

disposed a·r in accordance with DHS policy re ,

0 information and is not to be ;eleasect to the public or other personnel who do

not nave a valid "nee_d-to-knovt without prior approval of an au '

officlat, No portion of th!s_ report should be furnished to the

media, ei1her rnwrilten or verbal fomt 'il<fs document and any irlla:;trmem(s) l~ti{ , •• ,rlfah confidentfe!Mdlor sen.:litwe U.S

GavemmBnf infr:mr.ation. artd is not for retease review. retransmis$on. dissemination or IJSt: by.<m} ,_ ' ,.,. han the intended recipienl{s).

Please no:ify the ·senef&r 1f this email nas heen ·m'sdm5ct!Ui artd immediately destroy a:t originals and copies of itle
tnfs document mus: b.t:appraved by u.s. Cuswms cmd Border PJ:Qteetfon

• '' 1scicsure of

From: HOFFMAN, TODD A Sent: Wednesday, Febru•'

DIRECTORS HQ

(b) (6}. (b) (7}(C}
WAGNER, JOHN P

Owen, Todd C (AC OFO)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS DIVISION

(b) (7)(E)

Subject: FW: Redelegation of 3(g) Authority

Directors,

Per this delegation order, you may now adjudicate all exceptions related to the subject Executive Order.

From: HUTTON, JAMES R Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 7:16:55 PM To: HOFFMAN, TODD A Subject: Redelegation of 3(g) Authority

J. Ryan Hutton Deputy Executive Director
Passenger Programs
Washington, DC
(b) (6), (b) (?)(C)

PROPERTY SF tLS. EUSTOI\45 AP_.O_BORtlpt PRQTifri.I0-~1
EO FOIA CBP 0000000656

FOR OFFICIJltL t15E OrH:Y /lAW' El~FOftCEMEN'f5!'Jq3J rivE
RECORDS MAY ALSO CONTAJN ATTORNEY-CLIENT, DEUBERATIV~
AND/OKOTHER APPLICAB.LE .PRIVILEDGED MATERIAL

Warning: This o , ' . UNCLASSIFIED//FOR, OFFIC!AL USE ONLY (LiffFOUO). It cotitains information tha_! m~y be exSlmpt from

public releas_e under the Freedom of ln

ct (5 U.S.C, _552). lt Is to be controlled. stored. handled. transmnted. distributed, and

disp'bSed ·of in accordance with DHS policy relating to

ation and is not to be released to the public or other personnel who do

nofhave:a valid "need~to·knOw" without prior ap·proval of an authorizeo

~ ial. NO portion of"U:tis:report Should be furnished to the

media, either in written or verbal form. This document and any atlachment(s) hereto. n · • 'n caflfidential and/Or sensitive US.

Government information, and is not for rerease, review. retransmission; dissemination or use by anyo. .... .. f n the intendedrecipient(s).

Piea$e notify the sendef if this email has been misdirected and {mmediatety destroY a!f originals and copie_s of the oog

,_ isc!osure·ot

this document must be,approved by u.s. Customs and Border Protection.

SUBJECT:. Protecting the. Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

DELEGATED BY Commissioner

DElEGATED TO
Deputy Commissioner Executive Assistant Commissioner, Field Operations
Deputy Executive Assistant Commissioner, Field Operations Executive Director Operations, Field Operations Executive Director, National Targeting Center-.Passenger Directors, Field Operations Port Director, John F. Kennedy Airport Port Director, Los Angeles International Airport

SOURCE OF AUTHORITY BEING DELEGATED
Homeland Security Act of 2002., Pub. L No. 107-2.96,_ 116 Stat. 2135 (2002), as amended (6 U.S.C. § 112.); Title 8, U.S.C. Section 1103, "Powers and duties of the Secretary, the. Under Secretary, and the Attorney General" [Immigration and Nationality Act,§ 103(a)(1)]; Title 8, U.S.C. Section 1357, "Powe.rs of immigration officers and employees" [Immigration and Nationality Act,§ 287]; The President's Executive Order entitled, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," (January 27, 2017); Title 8, U.S.C. Section 1182,'"Inadmissible aliens" [Immigration .and Nationality Act,§ 212]; Delegations from the Secretary to the Commissioner effective that pursuant to the referenced Executive Order (January 28-29, 2017); Memorandum from Counsel to the Presidentto the Acting Secretary of State, the Acting Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, entitled ''Authoritative Guidance on Executive Order Entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States (Jan. 27, 2017)" (February 1, 2017).
DELEGATION
Authority under Section 3(g) of the Executive Orderto issue a visa or other immigration benefits to nationals ofcountries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked under Section 3 of the Executive Order, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest or the United States. Prior to taking any such action, the individual who is the subject of the action must be subjected to a thorough examination by an immigration officer. Pursuant to clarifying and authoritative guidance received from Counsel to the President on February 1, 2017, Sections 3(c) and 3(e) of the Executive Order do not apply to lawful permanent residents of the United States.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000657

FOR OFFiCiAL USE Ol<icf'/ U\\JV EtqFOF<CEftiiCl~T ~Ei4~1fJV'f RECORDS MAY ALSO CONTAIN ATTORNEY·CUENT, DELIBERATIVE
ANO/OR OTHER APPUCASLE PRMLEOGED MATERIAL

Authority under Section 5(e) of the Executive Order to admit individuals to the United States as first-

time refugees on a case-by-case basis, but only if the Commissioner (or appropriate designee pursuant

to this delegation) and the Secretary of State, or his designee, jointly determine that the admission of

such individuals as refugees is in the national interest and would nbt pose a risk to the security or

welfare of the United States. Prior to any such admission as a first-time refugee, each such individual

must be subjected to a

examinatiori by an immigration officer, to include CBP conduct

This authority may not be further delegated.

From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Commissioner

Subject: RE: Redelegation
(b) (5)

(b) (6). (b) (7)(C)

From:

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 9:54:00 P~1

To: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Owen, Todd C (AC OFO); WAGNER, JOHN P; HOFFMAN, TODD A; HUTTON,

JAMES R Cc: ALLES, RANDOLPH D;

(b) (6), (b) (?)(C)

Subject: RE: Redelegation

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

EO FOIA CBP 0000000658

fOR OffiCiAL USE etJLY / LAVi EfiFdREEtvtEf4T 5ENSffi¥E RECORDS MAY AlSO CONTAIN AHORNEY-CL!ENT, DELIBERATIVE
AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE l'RIVILEDGEOMATERIAL
From: (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
see updated guidance posted below; please let me know if you have any questions: Returning refl!gees or asylees who are nationals of the seven EO countries are not permitted to board, Returning refugees & asylees from countries not affected by the EO are permitted to travel, First time refugees, regardless of nationality, cannot travel unless they are included within the group of 872 previously approved by the Department of State,
CAT
EO FOIA CBP 0000000653

RE65fit:BS lel*YM:SS eerJT~tlfJ A. t 8RIJEY-6L!ENT, BEUBERAT!'c'E At4DJOIC 0 i i 121 CAP FeiCnblf! l ld 0lEE6f!!lS IS!* I EFU){t
From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 12:09:50 AM To: ALLES, RANDOLPH D; Owen, Todd C (AC OFO); WAGNER, JOHN P; HOFFMAN, TODD r"',JAMES R

HL11TON,

Acting Deputy/Executive Assistant Commissioner,
Please see the below guidance from counsel on implementing an order from Federal District Court in the abovereferenced case. Please confirm receipt and action.

3 PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000777

\
'I PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTIONEO FOIA CBP 0000000778

rOR GPFh...li"\L d>=~E Qt,.c i i LAJO !i4f'O~C!Iv1t!l4'f 3l!JalllTI¥E

iieSCRSS W<f/Jd:Se COUTJ.Ud /?FTCF!fdEf QUEll:, 8EU:s:·'j:TP/S

........ :':UB!8~ er:-1 iER AP'PLI8:'t8LE PAtUtbEf!iE!!i M\TEiit'0:L ~------------------------

~rom:

HOFFMAN, TODD A

I( Sent:

Thursday, February 02. 2017 5:41AM

To:

DIRECTORS FIELD OPS

Cc:

Owen, Todd C (AC OFO); WAGNER. JOHN P;

RANDY J;

ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS OMSION;

Subject:

FW: Mohammed v. Trump, No. 17-cv-00786

Follow Up Flag: Flag Sbo1us:

Follow up Completed

From:

sent: lllursday,

2017 2:37:59 AM

To: HOFFMAN, TODD A

Cc: HUTTON, JAMES R

Subject: RE: Mohammed v. Trump, No. 17-cv-Q0786

MEMORANDUM FOR:

Executive Directors, Office of Field Operations Executive Director, National Targeting Center Directors, Field Operations

~FROM: -'
\

Todd A. Hoffman Executive Director Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office ofField Operations

SUBJECT:

Mohammed v. Trump, No.17-cv-00786

The Federal District Court has made an order in the litigation, Mohammed v. Trump, No. 17-cv-00786. The Department ofJustice will make a formal request from the plaintiffs for confirmation ofpassport numbers and dates of birth. 1n the interim, the 38 individuals below should be permitted to board commercial carriers bound for the United States and on arrival should be processed for an exception to the Executive Order and admitted, unless inadmissibility unrelated to section 212(f) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act exists.

Upon reeeipt ofthe court's order, CBP Los Angeles should provide, via email, a copy ofthe order to all international carriers at Los Angeles International Airport. Additionally, Regional Carrier Liaison Groups and the National Targeting Center should update records to ensure there is no impediment to these individuals boarding commercial carriers and take any other appropriate steps to facilitate travel.

1)
2)
3) 4) S) ~ 7) 8)

PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTlONEO FOIA CBP 0000000775

rsn 61FI6b'tlUSE SftLY I blc\¥ EIJFSRSEME!tT S:!J8!TPJE
9)
10)
~~II)
~12)
~·· I134))
15) 16)
17) l S) 19) 20) 21) 22)
23)
24) ?_ )' )
26)
27) 28)
29)
30) 31)
32) 33)
~"'34)
35) 36) 37)
38)
If you have any questions or~ infonnati()n, please Operations Duty Director, a t - - - or send inquiries to
CBPHQ EO Crisis Action Team
From: MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 9:11:09 PM
To: ALLES, RANDOLPH 0; Owen, Todd C [AC OFO); WAGNER, JOHN P; HOFFMAN, TODD A;
Subject: RE: Mohammed v. Trump, No. 17-cv-00786 ·~· . . Adding DFO LA and APD LAX
PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSToM's AND BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000776

From: To: Subjecn Date:

DIRECTORS FIELD OPS; EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS HO EAC/DFO/XD Call Thursday, February 02, 20171:35:19 PM

DFOs,

Reminder ... There is EAC/DFOIXD Conference Call scheduled for today, Thursday, Februa1y 2, 2017 at 1500 to 1530 (EST).

Call in number is on your calendars.

Protection
TIHs .4ae'ttfflmt tmtll!Hj ntfa: ' etttEs) 11i85 eefttaffi l'estt>iete8; setitiiH, e, Mi:S/eF ln;; eMe:reel'nent s~ft.i .-e iftfal".B:l:MieH: BeleHgiH0 ~e tl:.te U.S. Ge'i e!!Huen'b It is B:et :fal' release. fe •ie ..-, fetfftft5!Hissi6ft, Eltssefl:!:i.tlMi:Btl; BI ttSe 135 aayefle ether tB:fl:fl the iftteadeel feeifJient.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000067

From: To:
C£:
. Subject; Date:

"::""':"'-:""i!i HOFFMAN, TODD A: HliTTON, JAMES R: EXEaJTI\IE DIRECTORS HO
BORDER SECURITY ASST DIRECfORS; TRADE OPERATIONS ASST DIRECTORS; MISSION SUPPORT ASST DIRECTORS EO Guidance Thursday, February 02, 2017 7:57:Sl PM

DFOs

The EO guidance discussed on the our conference call today will not be issued tonight. It will hopefully be issued mid-day tomorrow.

lire<,tnr Operations (Acting) Office ofField Operations
Customs and Border Protection
Tir.is eleetHH:eH:t B:B:el aB:y a:tta:ehmetit(sj ffHl'Jr eeHtai:B: t·esfl:·ietea~ seHs~ve, aH6/er ltnv eftfereemeat se:H:stw.-e ffi48rtat..tiea BeleHg-i:B:g ts f.B::e U.S. Ge:o::effJ:ffleftt. ±tis ftat fey release,. reviev:, ref:Tt:tH:S:E:tissieH, Elissemi:a:tdie:H:, Bf' =sse hy fiftyea:e ethe£ t-hBH: the iHfe:H:tlecl reeiflie:H:t.

EO FOIA CBP 0000000070

United States Department of State Deputy Assistant Secretary for l'iscr Sen·ices Washington, D.C. 20520
February 3, 20I7
Pursuant to the authority delegated to me under section 22 I(i) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, and taking into account the nationwide injunction issued by a federal district court in Washington State on enforcing section 3(c) ofthe January 27, 20 I7, Executive Order on Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, I hereby reverse the provisional revocation ofall visas provisionally revoked by my letter ofJanuary 27, 2017, which implemented section 3(c) ofthe Executive Order on Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals. This document is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Edward J. Ramotowski Deputy Assistant Secretary Bureau of Consular Affairs Department of State
EO FOIA CBP 0000000740

From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Importance:

HOFFMAN TODD A DIRFC[ORS FIELD OPS; EXECllTIVE DIRECIQRS HO
Potential EO Guidance Friday, February 03, 2.017 6:42.:2.6 PM High

Directors,
(b) (5)
will send out policy guidance and reach out via phone tree.

Todd A. Hoffman Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office of Field Operations U.S. Customs and Border Protection

. Once I receive word, I

EO FOIA CBP 0000000114

rom: Sent: To: Cc: Subjl!ct:

MCALEENAN, KEVIN K Friday, February 03,2017 6:58 PM Nielsen, Kirstjen: Metzler. Alan; Hamilton, Gene; Higgins, Jennifer, Maher, Joseph Fulghum. Chip WDWA Injunction Pending

Team, See link below suggesting that the WDWA District Judge has enjoined the entire EO.

http://www.seat!letimes.com/seattle-news/politicsffederaHu dge-in-seattle-ha!ts-tnumos-imm igrationorder{?utm source=email&utm meclium=email&utm campaign=article left 1.1
Thank you,
KM

I
PROPERTY OF U.S. GYG'FGMS ,O,NO BORQER p:p;:gn>GTIO~I
EO FOIA CBP 0000000704

From: To: Cc:
Subject: Date: Attachments:
All,

Friday, February 03, 2017 8:23:20 PM image001.png image002.png

Per the Department of Justice:

Accordingly, effective immediately, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will suspend any and all actions implementing the affected sections of the Executive Order 13769 entitled, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" (January 27, 2017). Field Offices are instructed to immediately resume inspection of travelers in accordance with standard policy and procedure.
This will include actions to suspend targeting system niles that flag travelers for operational action subject to the Executive Order including the State Department's letter revoking visas based on that Executive Order (attached).
Please commmlicate this suspension as appropriate with key stakeholders such as airlines.

Thank you,
Kevin K. McAleenan
Acting Commissioner U.S. Customs and Border Protection

EO FOIA CBP 0000000087

FQR GfffCf,O:L 61i£ 0 PlL¥ / LONJ !:PJFORC!:~4!)!T g~~l~l+IV! g~RQ& MP¥ Ab&Q t;Qti+.\I~J At:n:QPt~JJ!Y 'kl'"~f+,_ DlikiQI!R 11 TI' 1&
ANB/OR OT! fER APPLICABLE PRI¥1LEDGE8 MA+ERUtL
Subject: RE: OCA OPA Statement Please review the updated:
Importance: High
Attached and below. OCA/OPA SUBMISSION FOR CLEARANCE.
PI\OPI!rtTI 01! tJ.!..CttSTOMl Ar~o !01\"!ft: PRMECFieN:
EO FOIA CBP 0000000727

(A )Director Enforcement Programs
7\~fAR'l;;Jfiq(J. This docmneut i.s LA 'Vi-' 84fOR:CEtcfENT SB4SfTIYE ,md is designated fur
OFFICh\I. USE 01'JLY. It contaitrs irrfonnatiou that ntay be cxeJttpt l1ontpt1blie re1etue ttader the freeSsm sf IaFen:aatieR: .'\et (5USC5S2). This Eieettftlent is te he eeafrellecl, hat~dleS! trftti:StHiiteS, clistt~l:n:tteci~ attd di!ifUj!leti of.tn aeee1 dttnee .vith DIIS pelie,· rele:tittg te FOUO infefft--tatiaa, a:nel is FJet ts Se
releaseS ta tRe f)Gl?Jie er }38FSOaael Wfte Eie fl9t kaYe a ·.-aliEf naeet:i te lat91Nu 11:'i19:eat prier a,r;revat frettt C'BPs Offiee afFietet Of'efaeie.ns.
I'RO!'E!tli' OF 1:1.5. ei:ISi'SMS II:NB SORBER PRO=rEEifiON
EO FOIA CBP 0000000728

POl\ o~rtiCIA~... U~!! Ol4ti f tt<wt EI4POfteEMEfW JcNS!, rvc
RECORDS Ml<'fi\L$0 COI<TA!N 1\ITORIIE\' CLIENT, SE618ERJITIVE
A~dS}OR 0+1 IERA-PPUCASlE PR!V!LEDGED MATERIAL

All, Please see updated statement

AC Friel- please coordinate with DHS OPA.

Subject: RE: OCA OPA Statement

ALL: HOLD FROM FORWARD

by.

Enforcement Programs Washir1gto>n, DC, 2022 9

J.VAR!'IJ.}!G: TRis Eieeamettl is L:Ac\V l2?lFORCk~4&l>lT S£~JSITIVI5 aHEl is BesigRateS Fer
orrrcrA.:t. usE O?tL'r.
EO FOIA CBP 0000000729

f9R OFFICIAL OSE 9PJLY / !:NN EPJIORCEMENT SEPlS!"!"!YE !'tEEei\00 IIllA'!' ALSO €ONTAiN AITBRNEY CLIENT, 9Eb!BEflATIV!i
f\N9/9R Q:l=f UER APPUEABLE PRIVtlEDGED MATERIAl It eentains ia.fartTtatien tol:'oat Mety l:Je e;tett;pt freH1t'ttblie release t1nf!er the :Freeelen1 ef hrforttrariun Act (SUS€552). Tlris docutttcnt is to be conttcrllcd~ lwndlcd, ltatt31nitted1 eli3ttibttted,
enS cHspeseel efia aeeerEla:aee '""Hh DliS poliey relatin-g te POUO iafeane:tiea: aBel is :Aette Be teleased to tit-.. pttblic 01 pct.s01.ntel V\llo do ttot lta< c a \-alid ''treed to knot\'' t\-ithotlt p1 iot
appJ ovai flum CBPs Office offield Operations.
+Kim Lowry
R; HOFFMAN, TODD A;
Subject: RE: OCA OPA Statement'
Please review the updated:
~1\0PI!:Im' 0~ tl.S:. ttJSfi9MS ANB El6RBER PR6TEE'FION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000730

FOR OFflCfA!.. USE ONLY/ lAV'l ENFORGEME~n: SEPJSfTI\'E
£?ECOaOS ~4"V tlbSQ CQ~J+AIN ,o.:n:QRN~Y CUHJT. Ql!biQfR/\TIVe AF:8;'9R Erfl 1ER APFHU!:BLC PRt\fllEDGED MATER tAL

Importance; High
Attached and below. OCA/OPA SUBMISSION FOR CLEARANCE.

TODD A

.~.

Enforcement Programs
20229

FftOPEfrN Of tJa!~ eli5f8M5 ANB 80R5ER PR6TECTIOrt
EO FOIA CBP 0000000731

FOI'l OFFitiA"t USE ONL! fLAW' Ef41'fHleEMENT ::iENSITIVE ru:eono:51VIAi At30 COiffAitQ ATfOitl~Ei*EUENT, E>EUBERATi'v'E
AtJS;'OR STI lER APPLICABLE PRIVILEDGED h1ATER!AL
WAR:l\FNG. This document is LAW B<FOR:CEMENT SENSITIVE ant.! is t.!esignateEI fef OFriCIAL USE ONLY. It cmttairts infm1nation that nmy be excntpt flmn pubHc telease mtdet the rteedoni of IfifeJtttntion Aet (SUSC552). Titis document is to be cmtttoiied, lmJtdled~ tiatrsntittcd: disttibated~ and di!posed of in aceOidancc "ith DHS policy telating to FOUO iaf()J mation, and is nElt to be releasetl te tbe J91:il9lie er f)ersefl:ftel v't·fl:e ele Het he:;e a vali6 "need: te kHe\;" otithel:lt J3rier tlflllnlYal frem CBPs Offiee of Field Opettttious.
PROPERTY OF U.S. CUSTOMS ANB BORBER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000732

FOR Off!C!AL USE Otll¥ / ~N ENfORCEMEPIT SE~SFR\'E RECORDS M>'<'{ AlSO WfJ'fi!dt4 ATFORIOE'foCLIENT, EIEUBERATf'o'E
AN9/0R OT!IERAPPUGU1lE PHI',~li:CDGEQ MA.T£RfAL

Please hold, Cl edits pending. From: FRIEL, MICHAELJ

Subject: RE: DCA DPA Statement ·
10-4.

Cc: HUTTON, JAMES R; Subject: RE: DCA DPA Statement
All,
Please see updated statement-

AC Friel- please coordinate with OHS OPA.

I'ROI'I!:R rt OF tl.~. CtJSTOMS :41~0 BO!tO!II: ~!!OTtCTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000733

~\')It Ol'l'lt:IAL t!SE 014LY I tft:{{ ENI'ORCEMEN'f 5ENS11WE
RECSR:BS MAY ALSO COfffAIN MTORttEY CLIENT. DELIBERATIVE APJ B}OR OTIIER NFPLIEABLE PRfdiLEBSEB I~ATERIAL

Subject: RE: OCA OPA Statement . ALL: HOLD FROM FORWARD

Stand by.

Enforcement Programs
.~.
Vh\R:?H?JG. Tlti3 doetttnent is LAVl E?<FORCE!TfENT SEHSITIYE turel is desigrte:teel far OFFFCIAL USE OHLY. k eenEaias infsr=rna:tien that t:-~a;· be exetnpt ftanr pttblie teleMe ttrtdet the Fteedeta eF
ee ll"tffirtnatieH Aet (5USG5S2). 11ris eleetHnent i:s te ee:t'ttrelleS, bMSJeel~ trat15rt!i*e6, eHsWi8ttte6,
aaei €lisf'raSeel efin eeeotelattee ,, itlt DilS policy relating to FOUO itrfvrrtration~ mtd is trot to be releaseS te tfte f9tt8lie er l"ersemnel ,sh6 ele t~et hfiZ;e t1 YttHei "neeci te Ia1e\/' vdH".eHt fJFiar tiJ'l'f8vttl fflll'll: CBPs Offiee ef Fielel Operatieas.

+Kim Lowry

PROPElRTY OF l:I.S. Cf:IS:rOMS ANB BSRBER PROTECFt0~4
EO FOIA CBP 0000000734

Ftl~ BfiriCrAL USE 014LY / Lk# Cl4F6RCEMENT SEFJSlTl't/E RECOI'ICJS llioA! AL50 COiffAm 1\'ffell':fvfY·eliENT, ElELIBER*TI''E
APdD/OR OTI !EH APPUCABlE PRPI!lEDGED MkTERIA:L
Cc: HUlTON, JAMES R; HOFFMAN, TODD A; Subject: RE: OCA OPA statement
Subject: RE: DCA OPA Statement
Please review the updated:
PROPERT'iOF tf~S. CUST9MS APIB BBRBER PR:OTECTIOPJ
EO FOIA CBP 0000000735

FOrt OI'Fiti~L USE ONLY/ tJNo' ENiSREEioiEN'F SEPISii!'.'E
REEORBS MA:Y AlSO eSIJTAfP4 ATTORNEY~CUENT, BEUBER:tiTIVE AUO{OR:' OTt IER APPUE!-.BLE PRI'lllEDGED MATffitAL
Attached and below. OCA!OPA SUBMISSION FOR CLEARANCE,
(A)Director
Enforcement Programs
WAR.t'\flNG: This docuurcnt is LA\7/ EiJFOR-€EivfElff SB<JSITIYE aud is designated fut OFFIGL\L USE 01>1LY. It eematns infaiTAaeien_ that n1t1y he ex:etnl't &ern_ 11ttblie telease unde1 the Fteedetn af fufm mation Act (5USC559). 'fhis document is to he wutrolled~ handled~ ti a11sruitted~ disb ibated~ at=J:S eHsr~eseQ sf ia ase.erS.aAee with Qll£ fl eli.ey rel&ting to POUO iHfeFlTlatien~ ead is aat te Be tdca:sed to tlte public m pc1 smmel nlw do Dot Jm vc a \ nlid 11lleeel to kno <\·11 nitls6ut prior tt~pre~·e:l fil~fn GBPs OfHt!e ef FielEl 0)3e~atisHs.
I'P:OP!~,.;· OJi t.f*:S: C:tf!TBM5 Af4B BORClER FROTECTION
EO FOJA CBP 0000000736

FOR Off!GIAL !dSE OPJlY / bO.!Jl E~JFORC!!:PA~~!TSEPJSITilJ~ REE':eRB$ ftiAY ALS6 eef4T#dN ATTORf4EV=EUENi", SEUBERATI\fE
AND/OR OTWEI( 6 PPbiC0 QbS PRlVrlEBGI!i:Q MA+KRIAL
JAMES R; HOFFMAN, TODD A;

From: Sent:
To:

Subject:

CBP Call on EXECUTIVE ORDER--9pm DC time tonight

All:

CBP has asked me to set up a call to discuss some changes to the Executive Order for

9pm DC time.

·

Sorry for the short notice.

Call in number is:
(b) (7)(E)

Access code: (b) (7)(E)
(b) (6). (b) (7)
c

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

PROPERTI' OF 1:1.5. E!:E5FOMS ANS 89RBER PR9+EE+I9Pl
EO FOIA CBP 0000000726

FOft OFFICI#<L USE ONLY/ Lfo<W :PJiORCEMENT SEPISI'!1VE RECDR05 MAVALSO CONTAIN Ar+OR:~JEV Gllt~JT, D5LISEQATt\IF
nMo/OR o:rw~R 6 Prlb!C 6 QU! PRI\'Ibl!:GG~o M 1 :r&RI 4 b

Subjf?ct: Conference Call with CBP When: Friday, February 03, 2017 9:30 PM-10:00 PM (UTC-05:00} Eastern Time (US & Canada].
Where: See number below
CSP would like to have a conference Call to discuss Changes in the Executive Order There are 100 lines.

Director Travel and Tourism Initiatives Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) Admissibility and Passenger Programs Office of Field Operations

.~.

PROPEifFt OF t:J.S. eJST9MS APiB BSRBER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000725

,~ject:
· ;ation:
Start: End: Show Time As:
Recurrence:
Meeting Status:
Organizer: Required Attendees:

C6P C;>ll on EXECUTIVE ORDER--9pm DC time tonight
(b) (7)(E)
Fri 2/3/2017 9:00 PM Fri 2/3/2017 9:30 PM Tentative
(none)
Not yet responded
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
HUTTON, JAMES R; HOFFMAN, TODD A; (b) (6), (b) (?)(C)

From: Sent: To:
.ubject:

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Friday, February 03, 2.017 8:43PM
(b) (6), (b) (?)(C)
(bJ (oJ, (bJ (f)(CJ (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
CBP Call on EXECUTIVE ORDER--9pm DC time tonight

All:

CBP has asked me to set up a call to discuss some changes to the Executive Order for 9pm DC time.

Sorry for the short notice.

Call in number is:
(b) (?)(E)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

,~entvia the Samsung GalaxyS7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
1
EO FOIA CBP 0000000648

+~ject:
O:ation:
Start:
End: Show Time As:
Recurrence:
Meeting Status:
Organizer: Required Attendees:

Conference Call with CBP See number below
Fri 2/3/20179:30 PM Fri 2/3/2017 10:00 PM Tentative
(none)
Not yet responded

CBP would like to have a conference Call to discuss Changes in the Executive Order There are 100 li!les.

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Director
Travel and Tourism Initiatives Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) Electronic System forTravel Authorization (ESTA) Admissibility and Passenger Programs
Office of F~ie~ld~-=m•
(b) {t>), {D) (?)(C)
i

EO FOIA CBP 0000000649

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY/ 6'<'.\' ENFGRG!:M<;P::r ~~~I§:ITiltlt RECORBS MA'fALSO COtrfAIPl AFFS!WE't ELIEPJT, 8E!:IBERA~I\'E
ArtBlOR OT! IER APPUCABtt PRI'o'ILEOBED fclATERlAL
Thank AC Friel- Please let the group know once you get clearance from DHS OPA. Thank you.
Subject: RE: OCA OPA Statement
PROPERTY OF 11.5, GYSTQMii APIQ liOROiiR PROTEC+ION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000737

FOR: OFFfCfAL t:JSE OfJL¥ / LNN ENFOREEMEPCT SENSITIVE REEORBS M:A:'t AI:SO CON'FAIPI AHeRNEY CliENT, BELIBERA'FIVE
ANB/6R 6TI iER MPHCABLE PRI'~lLEBGEB MATEFUM:

Deputy

Chief Counsel

Office of Chief Counsel

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

LOWRY,

From. Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 8:50 PM
-

------

• • • It: ! ~~

~

• • ~~! ~ • ' .. !

LOWRY,

l"ftOrE!tli OF 1:1.$, C:t:l$1 OflllS AI~O BORDER PRO IECIIOIQ
EO FOIA CBP 0000000738

t=OR OFFtGIAL USE 0 f4LY / LNN ENFOREEf~1 ENT SEf4StTI'o'E RECORBS MAY AtSO CONTAiU A'Ffflf\IJE'r'-eUENTt B~tiBEi\ATWE
A:FJB{OR S'FllER APPLiCABLE PRN'IlEOGED MATERrAL
Please hold, Cl edits pending.
From: FRIEL, MICHAELJ

10-4.

All,
Please see updated statement-
Best,

AC Friel- please coordinate with DHS OPA.

PROFERTf Of U.S. el1STOM5 Af~tJ 86R:f)ER FRMEeTIOfC
EO FOIA CBP 0000000739

NUTZHORN, JOSHUA B
.:rom: Sent:
To: Cc: Subject:

MCALEENAN, KEVIN K

Friday, February 03, 2017 10:24 PM

Nielsen, KirsMtajheer.-Jnose·ph; Hamilton, Gene; Fulghum, Chip; Metzler, Alan

Browne, Rene;

Homan, Thomas

RE: Washingto .

unction of Executive Order

I can confirm thatCBP has complied with the injunction, including taking the following actions to suspend implementation of the Executive Order:
• Notified all Field Offices who have confirmed receipt ofthe instruction to suspend implementation of the EO;

Confirmed that State Consular Affairs has res,cimied
visas from the 7 countries;
• Convened a call with air carriers and associations to notify them of the changes under the suspension of EO implementation.
Thank you.

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen Sent: Friday, Fetlru;arv To: Maher,
Subject: RE: Washington v. Trump I Injunction of Executive Order

Ho1na1~.Thomas

From: Nielsen, Kirstjen

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 8:32:50 PM

To: Maher, Joseph; MCALEENAN, KEVIN K; Hamilton, Gene; Fulghum, Chip; Metzler, Alan

Cc:

Homan, Thomas

~ Subject: RE: Washington v. Trump 1Injunction of Executive Order

1 EO FOIA CBP 0000000721

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY/ l/JNtl nJFDREEPAENT SE~lS!TlV~ RE€0RElS MM' ALSEI eEIN IAII9 AJ t01\NE t-ell~lff, bi"LIBEI'iATiv E
AND/OR OTIIER APPLICABLE PRIVILEDGEEJ MATERIAL
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Office ofPublic Affairs
Public Affairs Guidance
Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry to the United States
Last Updated: Februwy -1, 2017
PLACEHOLDER- WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT
PLACEHOLDER- DHS STATEMENT
CBP STATEMENT:
At the direction of Secretary Kelly, U.S Customs and Border Protection has immediately reestablished procedures to enforce the President's Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.
The Executive Order applies to nearly all individuals traveling on passpotis from Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen who are applying for entry to the U.S. at any port of entry-air, land or sea.
CBP is identifying any individuals on flight or vessel manifests bound for the U.S. who are subject to the Executive Order and recommending to carriers that they not be allowed to board.
Individuals who have already boarded aircraft bound for the U.S. prior to reinstatement of the Executive Order [day and time] will be processed in accordance with the Western District of Washington Circuit Court's Temporary Restraining Order.
CBP will continue to grant waivers, as outlined in the Executive Order, to individuals whose admission into the country is in the national interest, and who do not pose a national security threat.
CBP is committed to implementing the Executive Order humanely and with professionalism. All international travelers traveling to the U.S. are subject to CBP inspection to detennine admissibility upon arrival.
PRePERrt OF tJ.S. €t:JSTOMS ANB BSRBER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000744

FOR OFfiCIAL \:iSE 9Nl'.' /LAW EIIFORCEMEIIT SE,ISITI'o'E
RECORBS P.TiAY A:l:5o CONTAIN ATI6RNEY CUEPaT, DEUBERAT!VE
~Nhl/011 QT>l~R 1\PPbiGA!lLii !'I<IVIbli9GHl MATgRIAl
Key Messages
• In order to protect Americans, and to advance the national interest. the United States must ensure that we have adequate information about individuals seeking to enter this country to ensure that they do not bear malicious intent toward the United States and its people.
• Approximately 80 million international travelers enter the United States every year. Less than one percent of the more than 325.000 international air travelers who arrive every day were
inconvenienced after the Executive Order was signed while enhanced security measures were
implemented. These individuals went through enhanced security screenings and were processed for entry to the United States, consistent with our immigration laws and judicial orders.
• U.S. Customs & Border Protection will faithfully execute the immigration laws, and we will treat all of those we encounter humanely and 'vith professionalism. No foreign national in a foreign land, without ties to the United States, has any unfettered right to demand entry into the United States or to demand immigration benefits in the United States.
Talking Points
• All international travelers arriving to the U.S. are subject to CBP inspection. This inspection may include electronic devices such as computers, disks, drives, tapes, mobile phones and other communication devices, cameras, music and other media players and any other electronic or digital devices. Keeping America safe and enforcing our nation's laws in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully examine all materials entering the U.S.
• "U.S. Customs and Border Protection realizes the importance of international travel to the U.S. economy and we strive to process arriving travelers as efficiently and securely as possible whjJe ensuring compliance with laws and regulations governing the international arrival process. Any international traveler who seeks resolutions regarding difficulties they experience can use DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program www.dhs.uov/dhs-trip.
Freguentlv Asked Questions:
I. When did enforcement of the Executive Order start? The Executive Order became effective on January 27, 21017.
2, Docs this affect travelers at all ports of entry? Yes, this Executive Order applies to nearly all travelers, except U.S. citizens, traveling on passports from Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen who are applying for entry to the United States at any port of entry-air, land or sea.
3, How many people are cun·ently detained at Ports of Entry as a result of the Executive Order?
PROPEiff¥. SF l:tS. EI:JSTSMS ANB BORDER PROTECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000745

FOR OFFICiAL USE ONLY/ LA\.\' ENFORCEMEfiTSENSrft\iE RECORDS M:\\' Ab59 EOPfFAI~.· A:rTORNEY CliEPlT~ 9EblBERATIVE
AND/OR STIIER Afl'I'LICA8LE -~fi\lifltl:EJC31!EJ MAl t:RtAL
CBP is not currently holding in its custody any individual solely based on the Executive Order. However, at any given time there may be a number of people going through inspection who full
within the scope of the Executive Order. All individuals who arrive in the United States are
subject to inspection.
4. What do the two exemptions in the Executive Order mean? How arc they applied to individual cases? DHS and State can review individual cases and grant waivers on a case-by-case basis if that individual's admission to the United States is deemed to be in the national interest and if they do not pose a national security threat.
5. \Vhat is the process for considering an individual for an exemption under the Executive Order? Senior DHS personnel can review individual cases and grant exemptions on a case-by-case basis if that individual's admission to the United States falls within the parameters of the Executive Order. CBP is processing exemptions consistent with the Secretary's guidance.
6. Docs "from one of the seven countries" mean citizen, national or hom in? Travelers are being treated according to the travel document they present.
7. How does the lawsuit/stay affect DHS operations in implementing this executive order?
The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump's Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump's E.xecutive Orders remain in place-prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public salety. President Trump's Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America's borders and oational security.
8. Docs this Executive Order apply to green card holders from one of the seven countries listed? Under the recent guidance from the White House, we will continue to ensure that lawful permanent residents are processed through our borders efficiently. Under that guidaoce, the Executive Order issued January 27, 2017, does not apply to their entry to the United States. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to execute its mission to protect the homeland in its processing of all individuals at ports of entry.
9. Will nationals of restricted countries with valid green ca1·ds (Ll'Rs) be allowed to return to the United States? Under the recent guidance from the White House, CBP will continue to ensure that LPRs are processed through our borders efficiently. Under that guidance, the Executive Order entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" does not apply to
LPRs' entry to the United States. Prior to this guidance, and as of February I, 2017, CBI'
processed 1,610 waivers for LPRs to re-enter the United States.
PROPERTY QF ll.S. €115'F9MS APID BORDER PREITECf!ON
EO FOIA CBP 0000000746

FOR OFFICIAL !JSE OPll'( /lAW ENFORCEMENT SHl&l'fWE RECORDS M,<W .~LSO CONTAIN ATIORPIEY CUEN 1, 8EUBERA'!WE
/1~11)/GR O+IIER APPt!GABl:E PRIVIlEElGEEl fQIA'fEF;IAL
10. How many Lawful Permanent Residents have not been allowed to enter pursuant to the exception to the Executive Order? Two. One, who was entered into proceedings based on a criminal record. Another individual chose to return to Canada and withdrew their request for entry.
11. Has CBI> been pressuring detainees to either withdraw their applications for admission into the country or sign documents rescinding their green cards? There arc reports that CBP is confiscating green cards. CBP is committed to following the law. Any withdrawal of an application for admission must be voluntary. The withdrawal process is not new and CBP officers are well trained to ensure that individuals make voluntary decisions.
12. Docs this Executive Order apply to dual nationals of the seven countries who want to enter the United States? If they apply for entry based on their citizenship from one of the countries NOT on the list, will they be allowed entry'! Travelers arc being processed and, when eligible, admitted according to the travel document they present.
13. Can a dual national traveling with a passport from an unrestricted country travel to the United States? Dual nationals with a valid immigrant or nonimmigrant visa in a passport issued by any country not restricted under the Executive Order will be permitted to apply for admission to the United States.
14. Can a dual national who holds nationality with a restricted country and is curr·ently overseas, apply for an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa to the United States'! Department of State's Posts are allowed to process visa applications and issue nonimmigrant and immigrant visas to otherwise eligible visa applicants who apply with a passport from an unrestricted country, even if they hold dual nationality from a restricted country. Please contact the Department of State with any questions related to the issuance ofvisas.
15. How does the E."l:ecutivc Order affect college students from the seven countries, such as Fl!Jl/Ml visa holders? Are they included in the Executive Order? What kind of guidance is being given to foreign students from these countries legally in the U.S.? Fl/Jl/Ml visas are currently provisionally revoked due to the Executive Order. Individuals who were in the U.S. at the time of the signing of the c,~ecutive order are not affected by the order. However, individuals who were out of the country at the time of the signing, or who travel out of the country and attempt to return will not be allowed to return for this temporary period because of a lack of valid travel documents. The Department is evaluating whether those who are precluded from returning as a result of the Executive Order will be considered to have ·maintained their status as Fl or Ml students.
16. Can USCIS continue refugee interviews of religious minorities and for countries with which we have an agreement?
I'RORER+¥ Of IJ 5, C' 1S170MS 1\NI:! llORC&R PROHCTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000747

lOR 9FFIEIAL t:IS_E ONLY/ LA'N ENFORC£ME~JTSENSffi¥E RECOf\tlS 1\>h!IY #11:56 e6Nftllf<l!ffffiftNEt·eLIEI4T, OELISEI\A IIVE
AP4D/OR OTilER fo<PPUCABLE PRI'v.tLEBGEB MATERIAL
DHS and DOS continue to review the Executive Order and will conduct interviews as appropriate and consistent with the Exe.cutive Order.
17. Will the U.S. accept emergency 1·cquests to process a refugee who will then travel? DHS and DOS \viii coordinate the processing of individual refugee cases which may be appropriate for travel consistent with the Executive Order.
18. Can the exception for refugee admission be used in 1-730 cases (family members following to join) for the petition of refugee/asylee relatives'? These cases will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
19. What about refugees who are considered to be "in transit?" There are currently 872 reftrgees who are considered to be in transit who are scheduled to arrive in the United States this week. The Secretaries of State and DHS have coordinated and will process the 872 individuals consistent with the terms of the Executive Order, which we've operationalized by assessing each traveler on a case-by-case basis.
20. Docs the Executive Order apply to those currently being adjudicated for naturalization? No. USCIS will continue to adjudicate N-400 applications for naturalization and administer the oath of citizenship consistent with prior practices.
21. Will Canadian immigrants affected by the Executive Order be eligible for entry to the United States? Landed immigrants of Canada (not including refugees) who hold passports of a restricted country can apply for admission to the United States, ifthe individual presents that passport with a valid immigrant or.nonimmigrant visa and proof oftheir landed immigrant status, and only if the travel both originates in Canada and is through a land border or Preclearance location.
22. Can Canadian immigrants affected by the Executive Order apply for an immigrant or nonimmigmnt visa to the United States? Landed immigrants of Canada (not including refugees) who hold passports of a restricted colllltry can apply for an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa to the United States, if the individual presents that passport and proof of landed immigrant status to a consular officer. TI1ese applications shall be made at a U.S. consular section in Canada.
23. Will Iraqi Passport holders with a valid Special Immigrant Visa be eligible for entry to the United States? The entry of Iraqi nationals with a valid Special immigrant Visa to the United States is deemed to be in tbe national interest and such individuals can apply for admission to tl1e United States. Accordingly, absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, possession of a Special Immigrant Visa will be a dispositive factor in case-by-case determinations. Iraqi nationals can also apply to a consular officer for Special Immigrant Visas, and, if otherwise qualified, can be issued a Special Immigrant Visa.
PROPER'f¥ Of U.S. CI:JSTOMS ANB SORBER FRO'FECTION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000748

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONl'l / I::MV ENfORCEM EliTSENSIT!VE
AND/OR 9TJ IER A-PPLICABLE FRIVILEDGED Fo~AiERlAL
24. How many aliens with special immigrant visas have been denied entry? None
25. Has CBP issued clear guidance to CBP officers at Ports of Entry on the Executive Order and the court orders? Yes, CBP issued guidance to the field expeditiously upon the signing of the Executive Order. CBP has and will continue to issue any needed guidance to the field with respect to court orders. All individuals, including those affected by the court orders, are being given all rights afforded under the law.
26. What coordination is being done between CBP and the carriers'! CBP has been and will remain in constant communication with the airlines through CBP regional carrier liaisons. In addition, CBP has held multiple executive level calls with the airlines in order to provide guidance, answer questions, and address concerns.
27. What additional screening will nationals of restricted countries {as well as any visa applications) undergo as a result ofthe Executive Order? In adjudicating both admission to the United States and issuance ofvisas, both DHS and DOS will continue to apply all appropriate security vetting procedures.
28. Does CBP have the authority to search individuals' electronics? All international travelers arriving to the U.S. are subject to CBP inspection. This inspection may include electronic devices such as computers, disks, drives, tapes, mobile phones and other communication devices, cameras, music and other media players and any other electronic or digital devices. Various Jaws that CBP is charged to enforce authorize searches and detention in accordance with
8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 19 U.S.C. §§ 1499, 1581, 1582. All persons, baggage, and merchandise
aniving in, or departing from, the United States are subject to inspection, search and detention. This is because CBP officers must determine the identity and citizenship of all persons seeking entry into the United States, determine the admissibility of foreign nationals, and deter the entry ofpossible terrorists, terrorist weapons, contr.olled substances, and a wide variety of other prohibited and restricted items. Keeping America safe and enforcing our nation's laws in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully examine all materials entering the U.S. Additional information on electronic searches is available· here and here.
29. Is a first time arrival on an immigrant visa eligible for an exemption? It is important to understand that there is a distinction between holders of immigrant visas and Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs)- individuals overseas with immigrant visas are not LPRs. The Executive Order currently applies to travelers arriving for. the tirst time to the United States with immigrant visas. 30. Arc all returning Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) eligible for an exemption? Under \'!/bite House guidance issued on February I, 2017, Sections 3(c) and 3(e) of the Executive Order entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" do not apply to LPRs and their entry into the United States. As such, LPRs do not require
EO FOIA CBP 0000000749

.~

'

'

FOR: eFFielt%L USE er~t:Y / urv·v Ef9FOR:CEMENT SEf451Tl~E RECORDS MN( AlSO EOPJTAf¥1 A:n:GRN&Y GUE~l+, 9ELIBER/'.:f1VE
Af<EJ/OR OTIIER AP.PtiCJ!xBLE PRiv'ILEElBEEJ MATERIAL
an exemption. CBP will continue to execute its mission to protect the homeland in its processing ofall individuals at our ports of entry and will continue to ensure LPRs are processed through our borders efficiently. 31. Are Trusted Travelers (Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI, and FAST) affected by the Executive Order'? 1l1ere is no exemption in the Executive Order for Trusted Travelers. On February I, 2017, the White House issued guidance stating that lawful pem1anent residents (LPR) were not subject to the Executive Order entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States." Prior to that guidance, CBP suspended Trusted Traveler membership for approximately 500 people. After the guidance was issued, CBP worked to reinstate members who were no longer subject to the Executive Order. Those members have been fully reinstated as of february 2, 2017. Some members of NEXUS and FAST are still subject to the Executive Order. As such, their memberships will remain suspended.
Public Affairs Objective: To effectively communicate to the traveling public through the media, CBP's role in the implementation of the Executive Order: Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States
Background The Executive Order signed on January 27, 2017 allows for the proper review and establishment of standards to prevent terrorist or criminal infiltration by foreign nationals. The United States has the world's most generous immigration system, yet it has been repeatedly exploited by terrorists and other malicious actors who seek to do us ham1. In order to ensure that the United States government can conduct a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the national security risks posed from our immigration system, it imposes a 90-day suspension on entry to the United States of nationals of cet1ain designated countries-countries that were designated by Congress and the Obama Administration as posing national security risks in the Visa Waiver Program.
In order to protect Americans, and to advance the national interest, tl1e United States must ensure that those entering this country will not ham1 the American people subsequent to their entry, and that they do not bear n\malicious intent toward the United States and its people. The Executive Order protects the United States from countries compromised by terrorism and ensures a more rigorous vetting process. This Executive Order ensures that we have a functional immigration system that safeguards our national security.
This Executive Order, provided the Department with additional resources, tools and perso1111el to carry out the critical work of securing our borders, enforcing the immigration laws of our nation, and ensuring that individuals who pose a threat to national security or public safety cannot enter or remain in our country. Protecting the American people is the highest priority of our government and this Department.
The Department of Homeland Security v.~ll faithfully execute the immigration laws and the President's Executive Order, and we will treat all oftl10se we encounter humanely and with professionalism.

PIH;;ll>e!ITY 9F IJ.S. £1JSWMS t,N£J B9R£JER PR9'f£E'FION
EO FOIA CBP 0000000750

From: To: Cc:
Subject: Date: Importance:

b 6. b 7 (C
PROGRAMS DIVISION
FW: EO Reporting Saturday, February 04, 2017 12:55:43 PM
High

HUTTON, JAMES R; ENFORCEMENT

Directors:

As a result of CBP halting all actions implementing the affected sections of Executive Order, "Protecting the Nation fi:om Foreign Ten·orist Entry into the United States"; the EO-CAT is suspending reporting requirements associated with said order.

We will advise the field with updates as soon as they become available.

Thank you all for your continued support.
!!!!I
Enforcement Programs Division US Customs and Border Protection Washington, DC

From: HUTfON, JAMES R Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 8:55PM To: DIRECTORS FIELD OPS

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C) (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Subject: EO Reporting Importance: High

@CBP.DHS.GOV>; (b) (6), (b) (7)(C) @cbo.dhs.goV>

@CBP.DHS.GOV>;

DFO's Kindly request that all POEs within your AOR provide report to Enforcement Program Division for all encounters of those individuals subject to EO from last repmiing period (noon
-February 3rd) to 21 :30EST.

Thank you

J. Ryan Hutton

Deputy Executive Director

·

Passenger Programs

EO FOIA CBP 0000000071

'Atarning: TF.is e::::_ __ ::A: i:: ~.:~IG!....~~se~:~cr;v'rC't=r GF!l"!f'L 1-!SG ou~'! ~1...''-'fO'-''C:'~- !: ::::::::.--::~:--s :r.~:Fffiati-:B: •l:!:' "".'~/ Ee eHemf!'"
f.s~ ;:-::~F: r-elease :.·R:fer g,e ;;>-:::::::::: :::: 't=:~srF.ut:eH ~~~ tE 'd.~ .C. BS~;. •t :: !s 9::: ~~~?1:351, c'e. _;, ~.::--::!!:::::, !RJ:-.s:-::w~:, cFsT:-:.:'"1, eAE Sispess::! e;f;r; ::c::e::d:::-ee ··:#!; Q! 1£ fJelig Fe!a*!Ag te f0~8 i<=~fsm.at'eR SFHoi 's A:::t •e ':::: Fe1ease9 te t.':e p~:~S!i- e: etReFJ'eFSenRel
··"Be efe Ret 11- : a ·alJ-l ":'eea te 1:RB"" "i:§:la!:l~ pAer tlf'pFe··a! 84' an a!:ltl:lsi'E:e9 91 !€? eFf.le'31. Ne f'Sttlef! sf ~.B:: F?peF:t ~fls:.rld :-:: TWF.!;s!:lsd ts L':::: meeCa, eitHer in HFitLn a:-, zF.::a' TsFm. +h's dseu,rne.-:;t, a!'lei aHj atfaeJrrr ::R:[s) f:ie~c:ts, mt=t:r e;snbin C£Fifiof.enfa! J."iid':::-s:ss:!;..,c ~}_ "'· r-eua~::IJRe.~ f::l:"c.r:t':'atian, -Rr:i ·e REF' ffr "C 1£ae::, r:e·ie:", re!:"an.:-.q:;s:h=l, r4feecr:;daa#cFI er l'f'i"iC ~;<y GRJ'fll'l!? ;ff:lar tf:!aR '.t;c i'lf.eFJf:!'s;i cea ·f3 ·eFJtfs1. P.'easc :1sfif}' tJre seFJefer if :!J:s eFF!aFI lies J;;eeR m'sflimz'efl eFJf! :Fflntefliatz!} Ses-t. &} aH e·i-§.',,_;5 z;p,ef e::p:e., e<T :ft- el'i§b:;a.'. 11 t=Yy ;U-:::te:uro off;!:;i~ r#5NL'+~?.':ii~ ~"sf I!Jc app"?vo<fl,y t'_ g_ ('"g;#;:;;,; J?:ff g;_::_,.,.J;y P"?f?"::fio~-
EO FOIA CBP 0000000072

FOR OFFICIAL uSE 014LI / LMv £1<lrO!l:aM~!ff 3EN!il I l'v'E f\ECORBS MA'f Al.:SO CONTAIN ATFSR!JPf CUatT, DEUBER:t:F!VE
ANB/9R O'fl lER APPI:f€AQbl£ PR:P/U:EQC[Q ~_4PTiR:l 0 b
HUTTON, JAMES R
I'm sure the CAT has already shared what we're working on/status, but want to make sure you have visibility. I'm trying to get as much consolidated for your review as possible before 9:30pm.
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C) IU.S. Customs and Border Protection (b) (6}. (b) (7)(C)

All, Please find first inputs attached. CAT leadership is looking to review at 9:30pm tonight- then we also need to coordinate DCC review.
(b) {5)
(b) {5)
(b)(S)
Thank you!

(b) (6). (bl (7)(Cl

(b) (6). (b) (7)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection

PIUi'PiR:rY-Qt: U,,, CUiTQMS .t\NC SORDia PROUCIJQN
EO FOIA CBP 0000000758

reR OFFt€1#\L USE eM LV/ LA\~' Er4iSRCEWrENTSEP4SlTf'tlE ~fiGiQR9& M "" :':6&9 GONTXIP! A:rfQRMEY CLIENT, QEUBERAfiVE
APl&-;'OR Ofl IER ,C\PPE::TCAB~E PR:IVflESGED M,trFERiAL

Please find the draft outline attached (b) (5)
(b) (5)

Thank you!

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b)(6), (b) (7) U.S. Customs and Border Protection

PRE-DECISIONAL All,

Best,
PROP ERn' OF U.S. C!:Js:FOMS APIB BORB4R PRo:FEGT'IQN
EO FOIA CBP 0000000759

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

~";'~::.;;
'

' ' ' ' ' ' '
'

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' '

'

~ ''

d

' ' '

8

8

'

~"''" ~'"'"

-Ji,' '
' '

' '

,•.~~.

,'EIll

·~;;~:"- ·;::;::;- """"a ::~;; ~~::.
'

' ' ' '

'

' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

I ~
IEBBll

' ' '

'

~

' '

~

'

i ~''

'

~

''"""'"
i
iii
I
~
~
~
= '

·~::;~~- ":,:::::'-
'

u
~

' ' '

~

~

' '

'

'
'

' '

~

'

~

'
'

' '

' '

j

' '

"~~':"
' ' '
~

,~,;;,:~:.,.,

a d

' ' ' '

~ '

a
g

' ' ' '

' ' '

~

= ~

~

~

I

' '

Ill' '

' '

' ' ' '

~

'

'

'

' '

' ' '

' '

' '

i i

~

'
! ' '

'

'

''''

~

' '
' '
'

The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000029 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

'"~'""-
'
(
' ' ' ' '

~.~~
3' (

'"""-

' ' ' '

'

' '

' '

--,;.-

' (

' ' '

~

'

'

' '

(

(

'

' '

'

~ '

'

'
' ' (

' (

= ''
=~~

'

' ' ' '

'

'

' ' '

'

(

~

' '· '

'

(
' ' '

''·''''''

'

•~-

'

~

ooc~:";"-

·::::,'-
i ~
' '

:~~7f; :::::.

·::~.~;~-

";~:~:~

j

A
~ '~

* '

~

~

'

8 c-

'

'

'

'
I

''

'

" ''

'

(

' "

' ~

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

' '

'
(

'''

'

'

' ' '

'

' '

~ ~

'
' ' ~
' '
,,
'
(
-~

''';".';"
~
I
~
'
~
'

... ,~,~:~

The and

following information identifying document

has been numbers

withheld from this document: have been withheld pursuant

Five columns of information to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One

regarding column of

travelers' first names, last names, internal file identification numbers

dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000030 has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E).

Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

'"~"""

~.~:,~;;

'~'"

L<~"~

~ ''
± :t=lil

~

' ' ' ' ' '

' '
' ' ' ' ' '

'
.

'

i''''

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

~
=i
~

' ' ' ' ' ' '

~
~

=- - ~

'
' ;;<A

'

'

'

' '

~

' ' '

' ' '

' '

'·

'
'

'
'

'

' '

'

'

•~ I l l

·~~':"'-

·;::~;;;-

"""'"~

;:;;:;,
~

:::~:;;

~:

I I

'

I

·~:.7::::-

' '

~

~ I I~II

I I

I

~ '

' ' '

' ' '

'

' '

' ' '

'

' '
' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

'

'

'

' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' '

~

~
I

' ' '
' '
'
~
'~

"':~:::::·-

'''<!:"

IK,::::,:,

~ ~

i i l i i i '-----
J '

'

~

'

' ' '

'
'

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000031 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

~ ro-•••

"""

;---- -,.;;-

'

1--

' ' '

' ' '

' '

'

~
' '' '
'

' '

'
'

' '

' '

' ' '
'

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

i

= ==

'
' ' '
' '
·' ''
'
' ''
'

ooc~~:"-

¥

'

'

' ' ' ' '

'

' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' '
'

~

~

:~::::. :::::.

' '

' ' '

~

' ' '

' '

'

' ' ' '
3lt
~

'

;;;;;:.~

";::.;~;~-

""_i;';;"

,.,;;:~;.,.,

' ''

j ~"
' ,,

'' '' ' '

' '

'

'
'

'

'

'
i:

'
~
'
j:

'

The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000032 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6} and (b)(7)(C}. One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E}. Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6} and (b}(7}(C}.

~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
,t:-:-:-:
:=
f= f=
1--
f=
1-
ft:=:::
=- =

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

~.'::.
i

iii

'~;::,rn•_

'~:::::-
~

"' •~n

:~.::.
'

::~::.

"'"'""

'~;~";:~~-
''
" ' ''
'

'~,::;,~:·-

m_:;::;•

" ' ''

'
'

'

'

' '

' ' ' '
' ' ' ' '

. ' '

'

' '

'

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ''
'
'
' '

'

' ' ' ' '

' ''
' '

'

'

'

' '

'' ' ' '

' '

'

' '

'

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' '
'

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' '

'
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' '

'

'
'

' '

' '

' ''

' ' '

~ ''

'' '

' ''

' '

'

' '

'

' '
'

'

'' ''
~

,~:.:~::.,.,

The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000033 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

R""

~.~:.~;;;-
' ' ' ' ' ' '

""'"

'

' '
' '

' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
'
'

'

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

'
'
'
'
' ''
' ' ''
' ' '
' '
'

' ''

' '' '

'

'

3

'

'

'
'

'

'·

' ' ' '

'

'

'

' ''

·:::::::- "~:'::"-

'" '"n :~:;; ;:~::.

'

' '

' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' '

' ' ' '

' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' '

' ' '
' '
'

'

' ' ' ' ' ' '

' '

'

'
=I

'"~'""

·;;:;;~~-

·~:.:::.:~
~

'

'

'

' '

'

"

' '

' ' '

~

m

' '

~· ~::·
' '

,.,:;:.~:~.,

The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000034 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(?)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(?)(E). Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(?)(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

'"~""

~.~:.~,;
'

'" '""

' '

·~:::-:"'-

·::~:::-
'

"" '"~

~~~~:;

::~;;,

"""'"

~

":.:::;::~
'

,., :::·
'

..::.~·

' '

' '

' ' '

' ' ' '

' ' '

'

'

'

'

' '

' '

' '

'

'

'

'

- :-- -
1--
' ' ' ' ' '
=, = ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

' ' ' ' ' ' '

' '

'---

' '

'

'

'

'· ' '

'
' '

' ' '

'

' '

'

'

'

j

'

'

'

'

'

' ' ' '
' '

' ' ' ' ' ' '

' '

'
'

' '

' '

~

'
~

'
' i· '
'' ''
'

ffil

'

' ,, '

' ''
'

The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000035 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and .(b)(7)(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

rn~•••

-:;:.~.;;

"on

' '
= = -'
- i-- -
' ' '
' ' t--'''

' '

' ' '

'

'

t--'

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
t~:::

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' '

f=

' '

I--

''''''''

'' '

'-"!

'

''

' '
'

'

'

' '
'

'

'

'
' ' ' '

'

' ' ''

'

'' '

'''

' '

'::::::- ooc~':!"-

""'- ~.~:;; .:::~~:.

' '
'
' ' ' '
'
'

' '
' '
' ' '

' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

~

·~,;;~~;·-

""-~;;"

,.,;;:::.,.,

~

' ' ' '

'''' '

~

' '' ' ' ''

' ''
'

' '
'
'

'

'

' '

'

~

'

The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000036 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b}(7)(E}. Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

r=~
f= f= f=

';',:;,~,;;
' ' ' I ' '
'

"""'

' '

'

-

' '
' ' '

= -

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' '

' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' '
J

' ' ' ' '

'

' ' ' ' '

ooc~';;"-

'::~:::-

I
'

' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' '

'

'

' '

' '

'

'

' '

' '

'

' '

' ' '

' '

'

' '

'

' '' '

' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' '

' ~

' ' ' '

'

' '

' ''

~;~:. .::~~:.

'
' '
' '
' ' '

"' moo

:::~.:~

' '

;I ;I

I ;

' '

":.::~~~-
' ' ' ' I
'

' '
~
'
' '
'

~
'
~ '
'
'

'':o'::"

~~;::~:.,.1

The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000037 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

'"~'"'
'

~-':.".0
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' '

~

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' '

' ' ' '

'
'' '

'

'

'· ' '
'

'

' ''

'' ''

ooc~~:"- '::~:::- """'n ~:::. :::~~:. ' '

' ' '

f

'
'

' '

'' ' ' '
' '
' '
'
'

' '

'

'

' 'IIi

' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' '
' '

~

' ' ' ' '

' ' ' '

~

'

'~::,;::- '~:.:~~~-

" ' ,,_~·

' .•~?.~~-

'

'
'
~"
'

'
'
I
' '
~

'
'I'

'
' '

'

'

The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000038 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

' '::.'~:.-
'
'
' '
' '

~t3l'

3

'

B

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

'

'

-~ E! ---..;-

'

' '

'
'

i

' ' ' ' '

~

' ' ' ' ' '

~·· ' ' ' '
'
'' ' ' '
'
' ' '
'

'

' '

w.

'

'

'
' ''

' '

' ' ' ''

II!

'"';',';;"- ·::=-

~:~::. ::~::.

'

' '

~

i ' '

i =i

'

'

' '

'

'

'

' ' '

'
i
' ~ ~

ik
~

::::::- ":~:~~;~
' ' ' '

' '

'
'
'

"

' ' '
''''

'
'
" "
'

~

'
' '

~
'

-~;',:;"

·~,:::~~.,..

' ' ' '

The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000039 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E).
Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

'"~''''''' """
' ' ' ' ' ' '
::::i
'
'
' ' ' '
' ' ' '

'.:'~::;
'

"'"'"

' '
'

'

·~~-;,~·-

·~~~::;-

'

' ' ' ' '

' '

'

;;::;;, ::~;~.

"" ""'""

"~;;:;:-
:;l;' ' '

"':~:~~:·-
'
'

··:-c.::-

·'

' ' '

'

' '

'

'

' ' '

' '

' '

' '

'

'

'' '

'

'

' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' '

'
11 ~ '

' '

'· ''

'

'·' '

'

f.R:

'"'
'

'
' '

' ' ' '

'
'

' ' ' '

' ' '
' '

' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' '

' '
' ' '

I ~
~

i

' '
'
'
' ' ' '
i
"

~

'

'

'

'
~

-

~
~

The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000040 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

--"".".'

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

'"~'"""

ooc~':,~-

':::~::':-

' '

' ' '

'

' ' ' ' ' ' '
'

' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

'

'

:~::. ::~::.

"""""

,~::;;;:,·

3ili:
'
'' :!:
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' '
' '

' '

. '

'' '

'·

' '

' '

The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000041 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

This document lists all ~ecutive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

' ' ':';:':::,:; "'"'"
' '

..oc, a"''
'

ooc~":;"-

·~:::::-
~

=ii= ~ ""''~n

~

' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' '

~
'
'
' '

' '

'

' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
~ t=il'''''''
~ '''
' ' ' ' '

' '
--~· . '
'
' ' ' '' '

'

' ' '

' ' ' '

'

' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

''' :i=

' '

'

' '

' '
'· '
~'· ':
'

I '

~

~

'
'

' ' '· ''

i

·~~~;!~-
'
'
'
'
' '
,,
'

.,,,,;·-
~
'

'

'

' ' '

'

'

' ' '

'

' '

~

,, '

··:~:~·

~
'

... ,~,~::::

The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000042 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.
''""'~
' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ,,,,
The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000043 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E}. Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b}(7)(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

m~•••
' '

"""

'

'

'

'

' '

' '

' '

' '

' ' '

···~'""

''

It

It

It

I!

it

It

' '

'' ' '

' '

'' ' '' ' '
' '
' ' ' '

The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000044 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

~ ,o;_:;,::;;; "'~

' ' ' ' '

'

~
1111

ooc~~"-

+= ·~:::::-

:~~:.

;;~.;;,

' ' ' ' ' '

mocm"

·~~~:-

":,:::~:~

I

I

'":-to':"

'" ··~:.

I~'''

~

I '
I
'

' ' ' ' '

'

I '

i ' ''

d d

§ '

a
R

'
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

f=

' ' '

I '

I

3

~ Blfr

' ''

I

I

""'

~ '

-~ -iii'~ ' '

'

'

' ' ' ' ' '

I ' ' '
'
' '

'

' '

'
'

' '

' '

'
' '
' '

' I ' '

I ~

~

~ ~
t ~

'

' '

I

'

' '

' '

'
I

'

'

I
'

I

:m:

' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

•~'
iii '

j i

'

'

' '

=!

'
'

The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000045 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

~";':~
'

"""

= =

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

i ''

'
' ' ' ' '

~
3ili:
~

' 3ili:

' ' ' ' '

l

,_'''' -

' ' '

' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' '

.. =.,
' ' '
'
'
'
'
' ,, '
'
' '
' '
' '''''
' '
' '
'
'
' '
I I '' ' ' ' '

·~~'::"-

·~::.':'-
'

"""'w~
'

:~::.

::~::.

' ' ' '

' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' '

ili: ~

i
~

~

'

~

'

' '
'
' ' ' ' ' '

' '
'
' ' '

'

~

·~:.:~~:·-

··~.::-

.~,;;::.~~.,..

' ' '
' '

"

'

'

' '

~

" ' ''

' '

''' '

~

~

' '

'
'

~

The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000046 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7){C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

';',":::;:; ' '

t~ ::::::::

' ' '

' '

' '

d

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

'

~"'

' '
ii

·' ' '

' '

' '

·~~-;:"-

·~::::;-
'

""'' """

:::::::.

.:::~~:.

' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' '

'

' '

'

' '

' ' ' ' '

'
=i

' ' '

'

·~:::~:::-:- ·~.::~:~

'"~!:·

,,::;.~~.

'

'

' ' ' '

' '

~
'!!

'
Iii.

l3ffi: '

"

' ' '

p = '

' '

r---=l

~
'---

-

' j
' ' '

'· '
' '
' ' '

' ' '

i

'

~

'

~

",, '

' '

'' '

~

~

" ' ''

' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' '

' ' ' ' '
' '
=

'
~

*

' ' '

' ' ' '

' '

The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000047 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and {b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

'"''''~'"" '

'::.~:.~;;-
=i
~

"'"'"

)
'

~

~ '

-~

.

~

'' '

·~:~"'-

·::~;;;-
iff

~"""''"IT

::::;;

:::~~:.

~
=i

••ro•moo
~

~ ·~:.~~~~
' '
' '
" ''

'";;,',::"

'

..:::~~. )

)
' ) ' ' ' ' ' '
d

' ' '
'
""

' ' '
)
'

' '

--E-~•-

' ' ' '

'

' '

'

' ) '

' ' '

' )

' ' '

' '

'
' '

' ' '

' ' ' '

~

'

~

" ')

'

'

'

'

'

'

) '

'

)

'

' '
~

'
'' '

The following infonnation has been withheld from this document: Five columns of infonnation regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOJA CBP 0000000048 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time infonnation have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7}(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

'"~"""

~';'_;,:;;;

'"~"

·::::::- ooc~~"-

~'"~:'= :~'-"''

' ' '

' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' '

~

'

' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

II
Ill' ~ ' ' '
II lIl '

i
=*

~
~

f''

~

'

'

'

'

Eilfr

' ' '

'

' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

'

' ' ' ' '

~ fiii
-ia-Illll

'
I

' '

'

' ' ' ' '

' ' '

' ' '

' ' ' '

' ' ' ' '

I=
1--

' ' ' ' '

~' ·'
'

' '
'

' ' ' ' '

-----=- ·~:,~::::-
' '

~

,.;;~~:'

' ''

''' ' ''' ''' '

,, '
" "

' ''' ''

~

" '

" ''

' '

" '
,,
' ' '
'

' '

~ '' ''

' '

,,

'

'

The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000049 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

m•''' """
r--
r----,

,";:;,;,;;
' ' ' ' ' '

""~

'
'

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

'
' ' ' ' ' ' '

~
'
'
' ''
'
'
' '
'
'
' ' '

:::::;; ooc~';;"'-

'~:~::.·-

"'"' ""n

;:~::.

' ' ' '
'

' ' ' ' '

'

' ' '

~'''''''

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

'

'

' ' '

' '

' '

' ' ' '

' '

'

' '

'

'

' '

'

'

' '

"'~'"'"

·;;:.';;;:.",'-
'
' '
' ' ,,
"

~
' '
' '

w. ,~.
i§:

~

'

'

'

'

'

!!=

' j

,~:.:~:~.

' ' ' ' '

I=*

' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
'
'

' '

•'· '· ' ' ' '
' '

*;== ~
i ~

' ' ' '' '
' '
' ' '' " ' ''
I "" ''

The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000050 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

::±~ om""

i

'

' ''

;;"'-

';:::~::;-
~

"' '"n. ~:::;;

;:~~~-

'""""~

i

=¥,!:

'~;;;~~~
' '

'~.::~~~-
~

"_:;'::"

,~,;::~~. '

i
~
' '
' ' '
'
' ' ' '

'' '
'

'
' ' ''

i ' ' ' ' '

'

'

'

' ' ' '

'
'
j ' ' '
'
'

~
d Fi

=i

' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
'
' ' ' '

'

i''
~f

'

I I' '

' '

' ' ' ' '

1 ' ' ' '

'

'

' ' '

' ' '

' ' '

' '

' '
'

' '

' ' '

'' ' ''
' '
:i
' '

' '

'

'

The following information has been withheld frOm this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOlA CBP 0000000051 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

This document fists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

'"'''''''''~""
' '

~."~:0

'"':,':.rn'- ·;;;:.~::::-

:~:~~:. :::::.

' '

'
' '

~ ~

'

' '

'

~

;;;;;~:~

·~,;:;:~-

i *

' '

" '' '
" ~'

""_i;';;"

,,;;.:~:,,.,

f= f=
1-

f=i
d

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

'

' ' ' '
~

' ' ' ' '

'

~ Ill
--~

-;a;;
'

'
,.,-,;
'' ' '
'
'
'
'

' ' '

' ' '

' ' '

' ' ' '

' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' '

'

'

'

'

'

' '

'

' ' ' ' ' ' '
'
'

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
'

~

' '

~

'

'

'

~

~

~

'
'

:!

'

'
' ' ' ' '
'
' ' '

'' ''
' '
'· ' '

' ' ' ' ' '

~
=i
j:

'

'

~

'
~

~

The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000052 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

'~''' ""'

' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' '
' '

II

I I

" '' '

'" ''

r--'

'~

I~

d

'

'

'

'

' '
I

' '
'' ' '' '
I. ii'
' '

The following infonnation has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarPing travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000053 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time infonnation have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.

~,:Ill~,',

' ' ' '

' ' ' '

' ' ' '

8

B

.I
,(
.I
.I

o~;;,:~~-

1

' ' ' '

' ' ' ' '

"~'::"
' ' '

~
~

'' ~ '''''

:~

' '

i i '' '''

'

' ''

I

The following information has been withheld from this document Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000054 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.
The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000055 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

This document lists all Executive Order related travelers who were encountered at CBP primary inspection in the air, land, and sea environments from January 27, 2017 to February 4, 2017 and were referred for secondary inspection.
The following information has been withheld from this document: Five columns of information regarding travelers' first names, last names, dates of birth, EO FOIA CBP 0000000056 and identifying document numbers have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). One column of internal file identification numbers has been withheld pursuant to (b)(7)(E). Six columns including date and time information have been withheld pursuant to (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).

Executive Order Tracking
Field Office:

Cumulative Total
Date:

Executive Order Tracking
Field Office:

Reporting Period Total

Date:

Reporting Period:

EO FOIA CBP 0000000162

Executive Order Tracking - Cumulative Totals

Field Office:

Date:

Report Time:

Executive Order Tracking- Reporting Period Totals

Countr~
Iran Iraq Libva Somalia Sudan Syria
Yemen

Number of NonImmigrant Encounters

;\Jumber of lmmignmt
Encounters

Number of LPR
Encounters

Number of Refugees Encounters

Number of \\ idthdran Is Granted

Number of Expedited Remo,als

Number ot Expedited
Remo,als \\ith Fear
rh•im

Number of LPRs not granted nahers

Number ot
LPR \\ahers Granted b)' nr.o

EO FOIA CBP 0000000163

ARRIVALS- 30 JANUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000169

ARRIVALS- 30 JANUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000170

ARRIVALS- 30 JANUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000171

ARRIVALS- 30 JANUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000172

ARRIVALS- 30 JANUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000173

ARRIVALS- 31 JANUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000174

ARRIVALS- 31 JANUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000175

ARRIVALS- 31 JANUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000176

ARRIVALS- 31 JANUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000177

ARRIVALS- 31 JANUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000178

ARRIVALS- 31 JANUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000179

ARRIVALS- 31 JANUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000180

ARRIVALS- 31 JANUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000181

ARRIVALS- 31 JANUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000182

ARRIVALS- 31 JANUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000183

ARRIVALS- 31 JANUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000184

ARRIVALS- 31 JANUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000185

ARRIVALS -1 FEBRUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000186

ARRIVALS -1 FEBRUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000187

ARRIVALS -1 FEBRUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000188

ARRIVALS -1 FEBRUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000189

ARRIVALS -1 FEBRUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000190

ARRIVALS -1 FEBRUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000191

ARRIVALS -1 FEBRUARY 2017

EO FOIA CBP 0000000192

2-Feb-17
EO FOJA CBP 0000000193

2-Feb-17
EO FOIA CBP 0000000194

2-Feb-17
EO FOIA CBP 0000000195

2-Feb-17
EO FOJA CBP 0000000196

2-Feb-17
EO FOIA CBP 0000000197

2-Feb-17
EO FOIA CBP 0000000198

2-Feb-17
EO FOIA CBP 0000000199

2-Feb-17
EO FOIA CBP 0000000200

2-Feb-17
EO FOIA CBP 0000000201

2-Feb-17
EO FOIA CBP 0000000202

2-Feb-17
EO FOIA CBP 0000000203

2-Feb-17
EO FOIA CBP 0000000204

EO FOIA CBP 0000000209

EO FOIA CBP 0000000210

EO FOIA CBP 0000000211

Disposition Waiver Request pending submission to HQS Waiver Request pending submission to HQS Waiver Request pending submission to HQS Waiver Request pending submission to HQS Waiver Request pending HQ decision Waiver Request pending HQ decision Waiver Request pending submission to HQS Waiver Request pending submission to HQS Waiver Request pending HQ decision Waiver Request pending submission to HQS Waiver Request pending submission to HQS Waiver Request pending submission to HQS Waiver Request pending submission to HQS Waiver Request pending submission to HQS Waiver Request pending submission to HQS Waiver Request pending HQ decision Waiver Request pending submission to HQS
ER/CF TOT ICE ERO ER/CF TOT ICE ERO
WD WD WD WD ERCF IN CUSTODY/PENDING INTERVIEW IN CUSTODY/PENDING INTERVIEW IN CUSTODY/PENDING INTERVIEW IN CUSTODY/PENDING INTERVIEW IN CUSTODY/PENDING INTERVIEW IN CUSTODY/PENDING INTERVIEW Requesting Waiver Requesting Waiver Requesting Waiver Requesting Waiver Requesting Waiver Requesting Waiver Requesting Waiver Requesting Waiver Requesting Waiver Requesting Waiver Requesting Waiver Requesting Waiver Requesting Waiver

Departnre Flight/Time TBD, if necessary TBD, if necessary TBD, if necessary TBD, if necessary TBD, if necessary TBD, if necessary TBD, if necessary TBD, if necessary TBD, if necessary TBD, if necessary TBD, if necessary TBD, if necessary TBD, if necessary TBD, if necessary TBD, if necessary TBD, if necessary TBD, if necessary TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
TBD if necessary TBD if necessary TBD if necessary TBD if necessary TBD if necessary TBD if necessary TBD if necessary TBD if necessary TBD if necessary TBD if necessary TBD if necessary TBD if necessary TBD if necessary

j(b) (6). (b) (?)(C), (b)

EO FOIA CBP 0000000212

Requesting Waiver

TBD if necessary

Requesting Waiver

TBD if necessary

Requesting Waiver

TBD if necessary

Requesting Waiver

TBD if necessary

Requesting Waiver

TBD ifnecessary

ER/CFI I Pending waiver request response NA

NA

NA

Waiver/Approved-Cred Fear, coordinating w!E TBD

Examination in Progress

TBD

WD

1125 (CST)

WD

1125 (CST)

WD

1125 (CST)

WD

1125 (CST)

WD

1125 (CST)

ER

1125 (CST)

ER

1125 (CST)

WD

1125 (CST)

WD

1125 (CST)

EO FOIA CBP 0000000213

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C). (b) (7)(E)
EO FOIA CBP 0000000214

ricpnrtmcri.t {)f rlOmclnnd Se~urifl~ u:s~ CitizenShip arid Immi,;_rntiOn Scnic¢s __

· I~Sl2L, Authorization for Parole.· .of !!:ltAlien Into the Unit~d State~

. AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSPORT FOR PAROLE OF AN AIJEN

.

INTO THE UNITEDSTATES

.

. Date Issued:

Aug 7, 2015

This Docunient Valid Until: · Sep 7, 2015

Name of Bearer:
Date/Place ofBirth:
Bearer's A-Number:
. Gender:
Passpott Number:

John SMITH
Jah 1, 2000. A088888888 ·Male . AA 88888888

San Salva<jor, El Salvador

f

'

TO: TRANSPORTATlON COMPAi't'Y
TO: U.S. CUSTOMS AND BOiRDJ~RlPR.C>TE:CT(O~i.(CBPj OFFICER ~T PORT~OF-ENTRY

TheDepartmenl. o(Homel~l1d Security, U.S. CitizeJrrsh[p PAROLE FORTWO (2) YEARS into the Uni:tedSta Immigration and Nationality Act. USCIS h"''""';,;,.,b

'

.

'

.

' i

: .

]Jhil~ratiion :Seniices. (USCIS), hasAUT~ORlZED .• ··.

he::ll>ove narn.(!d . . Section205(d)(A) ofthe

~Plll:tl!·es forparole purposes only. . -.

· . -

Presentation oftl1e origina]ofthis documenfwill authOrize: a

.· 'lineto ac~~·pt the ~amed beare;, whose

to photograph is.embeddedbelow,onboard fortravel the . . ..·· .

before Sep 7,2015 svithout)iability

· under Section 273(b) ofthe Immigrotion and Nat.ibfiality Act fortraruipoifi1lg an ali('!n without a Visa tothe United · ·

States.

CustomsandSo;4~; Presentation ofthe original ofthis document i•ill informthe

Prote,ction offirer at ; pott of .

entry that USCIS has authorized the above named bearerto.enter theUniteilStates on or. beforeSep 7,2015 as an

alien paroled pursuant to Section 212(d)(S} of the Immigrotion and NaticinalityAct for a period ofMo (2)years

commenCing with the alien's arrivalin the United States.

· · ··· ·

. ·

Issued by:. Roger 0 .Thornhill Field Office Director San Salvador, El Salvador
.Telephone: 503 25012999 ·

.. . Forfui·512IJ(Rev. OS/3l/05)Y •..
EO FOIA CBP 000000021.5

EO FOIA CBP 0000000220

EO FOIA CBP 0000000221

EO FOIA CBP 0000000222

EO FOIA CBP 0000000223

EO FOIA CBP 0000000236

EO FOIA CBP 0000000237

 
 Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 78 Filed: 03/14/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:706

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

) )

No. 17 C 2768

) )

Judge Dow

)

)

)

)

DEFENDANTS’ MARCH STATUS REPORT Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) respectfully submit this Status Report pursuant to the Court’s Order of November 21, 2017. Defendants report as follows: 1. Between February 1, 2018 and February 28, 2018, CBP assigned the equivalent of 29 full-time first and second level reviewers to the review of records potentially responsive to 22 FOIA requests related to Executive Orders 13,769 and 13,780, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” of which 19 were submitted by various ACLU affiliates, including Plaintiffs. Decl. of Patrick Howard ¶ 6. For purposes of calculating this number, the agency counts any individual reviewer assigned to the review project on a halftime basis as the equivalent of 0.5 full-time reviewers. Id. 2. In addition to the time spent by first and second level reviewers, between February 1, 2018 and February 28, 2018, CBP Office of Chief Counsel attorneys spent

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 78 Filed: 03/14/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:707

approximately 507.65 hours on the review of records potentially responsive to various FOIA requests related to Executive Orders 13,769 and 13,780. Id. ¶ 7.
3. Between February 1, 2018 and February 28, 2018, CBP finalized the processing of 996 pages of records and eight spreadsheets related to the four priority custodians in this case. Id. ¶ 8. Due to an administrative oversight, these pages were released to Plaintiffs on March 1, 2018, instead of by February 28, 2018.

Dated: March 14, 2018  

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR. United States Attorney
THOMAS P. WALSH Assistant United States Attorney
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Director, Federal Programs Branch
/s/ Chetan A. Patil CHETAN A. PATIL Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel.: (202) 305-4968 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: chetan.patil@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

 
 Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 80 Filed: 04/16/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:712

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

) )

No. 17 C 2768

) )

Judge Dow

)

)

)

)

DEFENDANTS’ APRIL STATUS REPORT Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) respectfully submit this Status Report pursuant to the Court’s Order of November 21, 2017. Defendants report as follows: 1. As of March 1, 2018, CBP had assigned the equivalent of 29 full-time first and second level reviewers to the review of records potentially responsive to 22 FOIA requests related to Executive Orders 13,769 and 13,780, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” of which 19 were submitted by various ACLU affiliates, including Plaintiffs. Decl. of Patrick Howard ¶ 6. Many of these reviewers were detailed to the FOIA division through “temporary duty assignments” or the “temporary detail” program (TDY), and between March 1, 2018 and March 19, 2018, the temporary details for many of these TDY personnel expired. Id. Accordingly, between March 19, 2018 and March 31, 2018, CBP had assigned the equivalent of 13 full-time first and second level reviewers to the review project.1

1 The agency has added several new reviewers to replace the TDY personnel whose details expired and anticipates continuing to bring additional new reviewers onboard. See id. ¶ 7.

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 80 Filed: 04/16/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:713

For purposes of calculating this number, the agency counts any individual reviewer assigned to the review project on a half-time basis as the equivalent of 0.5 full-time reviewers. Id.
2. In addition to the time spent by first and second level reviewers, between March 1, 2018 and March 31, 2018, CBP Office of Chief Counsel attorneys spent approximately 52.05 hours on the review of records potentially responsive to various FOIA requests related to Executive Orders 13,769 and 13,780. Id. ¶ 8.
3. Between March 1, 2018 and March 31, 2018, CBP finalized the processing of 1,006 pages of records related to the four priority custodians in this case. Id. ¶ 9.

Dated: April 16, 2018  

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
JOEL R. LEVIN Acting United States Attorney
THOMAS P. WALSH Assistant United States Attorney
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Director, Federal Programs Branch
/s/ Chetan A. Patil CHETAN A. PATIL Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel.: (202) 305-4968 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: chetan.patil@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

 
 Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 102 Filed: 08/29/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:759

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) No. 17 C 2768 ) ) Judge Dow ) Magistrate Judge Weisman ) ) ) )

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL Pursuant to a settlement agreement executed by the parties on August 28, 2019, it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties and their respective counsel that the above-captioned case is voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice, against Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). SO STIPULATED AND AGREED THIS 29th Day of August, 2019.

/s/ Natalie J. Spears Natalie J. Spears Gregory R. Naron Kathleen V. Kinsella DENTONS US LLP 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 876-8000 natalie.spears@dentons.com gregory.naron@dentons.com kathleen.kinsella@dentons.com

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 102 Filed: 08/29/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:760

REBECCA K. GLENBERG Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc. 180 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 201-9740 rglenberg@aclu-il.org
FREDA J. LEVENSON ACLU of Ohio Foundation, Inc. 4506 Chester Avenue Cleveland, OH 44103 (216) 472-2205 flevenson@acluohio.org
AMY A. MILLER ACLU of Nebraska, Inc. 134 S. 13th St. #1010 Lincoln NE 68508 402-476-8091 ext. 106 amiller@aclunebraska.org
ANTHONY E. ROTHERT ACLU of Missouri Foundation 906 Olive Street, suite 1130 St. Louis, Missouri 63101 arothert@aclu-mo.org
HEATHER LYNN GATNAREK ACLU of Kentucky 315 Guthrie Street, Suite 300 Louisville, KY 40202 (502) 581-9746 heather@aclu-ky.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General

JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR. United States Attorney

THOMAS P. WALSH Assistant United States Attorney

ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO

 

Deputy Director, Federal Programs Branch

Case: 1:17-cv-02768 Document #: 102 Filed: 08/29/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:761
/s/ Chetan A. Patil CHETAN A. PATIL Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch P.O. Box No. 883 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Tel.: (202) 305-4968 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: chetan.patil@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

 
 United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:17-cv-02768

American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois et al v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al Assigned to: Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

Date Filed: 04/12/2017 Date Terminated: 09/03/2019 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff
American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois

represented by Natalie J. Spears Dentons US LLP 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 (312)876-8000 Email: natalie.spears@dentons.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Anne Miller ACLU of Nebraska #1010 134 S. 13th St. Lincoln, NE 68508 (402) 476-8091 Email: amiller@aclunebraska.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory R. Naron Dentons US LLP 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 (312)876-8000 Email: gregory.naron@dentons.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen V. Kinsella Dentons Us Llp 233 South Wacker Drive

Plaintiff
American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana

Suite 5900 Chicago, ID 60606 (312) 876-8000 Email: kathleen.kinsella@dentons.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick S. Kabat Dentons Us Llp 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 876-8000 Email: patrick.kabat@dentons.com TERMINATED: 08/25/2017
Rebecca Kim Glenberg Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc. 150 N. Michigan Ave. Ste. 600 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 201-9740 Email: rglenberg@aclu-il.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Natalie J. Spears (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Anne Miller (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Naron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen V. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick S. Kabat

Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa
Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/2017
Rebecca Kim Glenberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Natalie J. Spears (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Anne Miller (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Naron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen V. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick S. Kabat (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/2017
Rebecca Kim Glenberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Natalie J. Spears (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Anne Miller (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Naron

Plaintiff
American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Bennett Gordon American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota Suite 180 2300 Myrtle Avenue St. Paul, MN 55114 (651) 529-1689 Email: jgordon@aclu-mn.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen V. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick S. Kabat (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/2017
Rebecca Kim Glenberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Natalie J. Spears (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Anne Miller (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony E. Rothert Amercian Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation Suite 1130 906 Olive Street St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 669-3420 Email: arothert@aclu-mo.org PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska
Plaintiff

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Naron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen V. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick S. Kabat (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/2017
Rebecca Kim Glenberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Natalie J. Spears (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Anne Miller (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Naron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen V. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick S. Kabat (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/2017
Rebecca Kim Glenberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio
Plaintiff

represented by Natalie J. Spears (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Anne Miller (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Joseph Carey ACLU of Ohio Foundation 4506 Chester Ave Cleveland, OH 44103 (614) 586-1972 Email: tsabo@acluohio.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Freda J. Levenson ACLU of Ohio Foundation 4506 Chester Ave. Cleveland, OH 44103 (216) 472-2220 Email: flevenson@acluohio.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Naron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen V. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick S. Kabat (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/2017
Rebecca Kim Glenberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota
Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin

represented by Natalie J. Spears (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Anne Miller (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Naron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen V. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick S. Kabat (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/2017
Rebecca Kim Glenberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Natalie J. Spears (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Naron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen V. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick S. Kabat (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/2017
Rebecca Kim Glenberg

Plaintiff
American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Natalie J. Spears (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Anne Miller (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Corey M. Shapiro ACLU of Kentucky 315 Guthrie St. Suite 300 Louisville, KY 40202 502-581-9746 Email: corey@aclu-ky.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Naron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather Lynn Gatnarek ACLU of Kentucky 315 Guthrie St. Suite 300 Louisville, KY 40202 (502) 581-9746 Email: heather@aclu-ky.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen V. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick S. Kabat (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/2017
Rebecca Kim Glenberg (See above for address)

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

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Ellis Sharp ACLU of Kentucky 315 Guthrie Street Suite 300 Louisville, KY 40202 (502) 581-9746 Email: sharp@aclu-ky.org TERMINATED: 04/10/2018 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Matthew Joseph Berns United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Federal Room 7214 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 616-8016 Email: matthew.j.berns@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 11/15/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AUSA - Chicago United States Attorney's Office (NDIL - Chicago) 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604 Email: USAILN.ECFAUSA@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chetan Adinath Patil U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Federal Programs P.O. Box No. 883 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 305-4968 Email: chetan.patil@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
U.S. Customs and Border Protection

represented by Matthew Joseph Berns (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AUSA - Chicago (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chetan Adinath Patil (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/12/2017
04/12/2017 04/12/2017
04/12/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief for Violation of The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. filed by American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, Inc., The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, Inc.; Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-13062151. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Spears, Natalie) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Spears, Natalie) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, Inc., The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, Inc. by Natalie J. Spears (Spears, Natalie) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
4 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by All Plaintiffs (Spears, Natalie) (Entered: 04/12/2017)

04/12/2017 04/12/2017 04/12/2017 04/12/2017 04/12/2017

5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, Inc., The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, Inc. by Gregory R. Naron (Naron, Gregory) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
6 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, Inc., The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, Inc. by Patrick S. Kabat (Kabat, Patrick) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
7 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, Inc., The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, Inc. by Kathleen V. Kinsella (Kinsella, Kathleen) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
8 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, Inc., The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, Inc. by Rebecca Kim Glenberg (Glenberg, Rebecca) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. (nsf, ) (Entered: 04/12/2017)

04/12/2017 04/13/2017
04/14/2017 04/17/2017 04/19/2017 04/21/2017 04/21/2017 05/01/2017
05/01/2017

SUMMONS Issued as to All Defendants, U.S. Attorney, and U.S. Attorney General. (kms) (Entered: 04/12/2017)

9 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: Initial status hearing is set for 6/28/2017 at 9:00 a.m. and parties are to report the following: (1) Possibility of settlement in the case; (2) If no possibility of settlement exists, the nature and length of discovery necessary to get the case ready for trial. Plaintiff is to advise all other parties of the courts action herein. Lead counsel is directed to appear at this status hearing. The parties are requested to file a joint status report at least two days prior to the initial status. For further details see the Court's website available at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 04/13/2017)

10 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13071311. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Description of inactive status)(Levenson, Freda) (Entered: 04/14/2017)

11 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13075413. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

12 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13084260. (Sharp, William) (Entered: 04/19/2017)

13 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13097188. (Miller, Amy) (Entered: 04/21/2017)

14 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13097431. Gordon, John (Gordon, John) (Entered: 04/21/2017)

SUMMONS Returned Executed by American Civil Liberties Union

15

of Nebraska, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, American

Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, American Civil Liberties Union of

Wisconsin, American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, American

Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, American Civil Liberties Union of

South Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, American

Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union

of Missouri as to U.S. Customs and Border Protection served on

4/13/2017, answer due 6/12/2017 (Spears, Natalie) (Entered:

05/01/2017)

16 SUMMONS Returned Executed by American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union

05/08/2017 05/08/2017 05/08/2017
05/10/2017 05/10/2017 05/11/2017
05/12/2017 05/12/2017 05/15/2017

of Missouri as to U.S. Department of Homeland Security served on 4/13/2017, answer due 6/12/2017 (Spears, Natalie) (Entered: 05/01/2017)
17 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security by Matthew Joseph Berns (Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
18 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security by Patil Adinath Chetan (Chetan, Patil) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
19 NOTICE by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security of Motion filed with the JPML to Transfer Action Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407 (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Transfer Motion, # 3 Exhibit Supporting Memorandum, # 4 Exhibit Schedule of Actions)(Chetan, Patil) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
20 MOTION by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint,,, 1 (UNOPPOSED) (Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
21 NOTICE of Motion by Matthew Joseph Berns for presentment of motion for extension of time to file answer, motion for relief 20 before Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr. on 5/16/2017 at 09:15 AM. (Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
22 DEFENDANTS' Motion for Transfer of actions Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 for coordinated or consolidated Pretrial Proceedings (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in support of Defendants' motion for transfer of actions Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, # 2 Schedule of Actions, # 3 Proof of Service) (ph, ) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
23 MOTION by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security to stay proceedings pending decision on motion to transfer (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
24 NOTICE of Motion by Matthew Joseph Berns for presentment of motion to stay 23 before Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr. on 5/18/2017 at 09:15 AM. (Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
25 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: Unopposed motion by defendants for extension of time to respond to complaint 20 is granted. Notice of motion date of 5/16/2017 is stricken and no appearances are necessary on that date. Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 05/15/2017)

05/15/2017
05/18/2017 05/25/2017 05/30/2017
05/30/2017

26 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: Freda J. Levenson's motion for leave to appear pro hac vice on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio 10 is granted. Anthony E. Rothert's motion for leave to appear pro hac vice on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri 11 is granted. William E. Sharp's motion for leave to appear pro hac vice on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky 12 is granted. Amy A. Miller's motion for leave to appear pro hac vice on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska 13 is granted. John B. Gordon's motion for leave to appear pro hac vice on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota 14 is granted. Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 05/15/2017)
27 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: Motion hearing held. Mr. Jason Bastill participates by telephone. Plaintiffs are given until 5/30/2017 to respond to the Defendants' motion to stay proceedings pending decision on motion to transfer 23 . Defendants are given until 6/7/2017 to reply. After the Court reviews the parties responsive pleadings, the Court will either issue a ruling by mail or the courtroom deputy will contact counsel to set a mutually agreed upon date for further hearing on the motion. Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 05/18/2017)
28 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: On the Courts own motion, status hearing set for 6/28/2017 is stricken and reset to 6/29/2017 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
29 RESPONSE by American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsinin Opposition to MOTION by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security to stay proceedings pending decision on motion to transfer 23 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Kabat, Patrick) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
30 NOTICE by American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of

06/02/2017
06/06/2017 06/07/2017
06/07/2017 06/19/2017 06/22/2017

Wisconsin (Plaintiff's Notice of Opposition and Joinder in Request Filed with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Kabat, Patrick) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
31 AMENDED NOTICE of Appearance by American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service, # 2 Notice of Appearance, # 3 Proof of Service, # 4 Memorandum of Law, # 5 Proof of Service, # 6 Request, # 7 Proof of Service, # 8 Proof of Service, # 9 Statement) (mma, ) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
32 NOTICE by All Defendants of Filing JPML Reply Brief (Attachments: # 1 JPML Reply Brief)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
33 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority by American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kabat, Patrick) (Docket Text Modified on 6/8/2017 by Clerk's Office) (eaa, ). (Entered: 06/07/2017)
34 REPLY by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security to MOTION by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security to stay proceedings pending decision on motion to transfer 23 (Chetan, Patil) (Entered: 06/07/2017)
35 NOTICE by All Defendants of Decision in Related Case (Attachments: # 1 District of Maine Order)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
36 Notice of Recent Decisions by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Attachments: # 1 Central District of California Opinion, # 2 District of Oregon Opinion)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 06/22/2017)

06/23/2017
06/26/2017 06/27/2017
06/28/2017
06/28/2017 07/05/2017 07/10/2017 08/02/2017 08/04/2017

37 Notice of Supplemental Authority by American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Kinsella, Kathleen) (Entered: 06/23/2017)
38 NOTICE by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security of Decisions in Related Cases (Attachments: # 1 Eastern District of Virginia Order)(Chetan, Patil) (Entered: 06/26/2017)
39 STATUS Report Joint Status Report by American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin (Kinsella, Kathleen) (Entered: 06/27/2017)
40 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: Defendants' motion to stay 23 is granted. The parties are directed to inform the Court as soon as practicable after the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issues its ruling on the pending motion to transfer. If the transfer motion is denied, this case will be set for further status hearing on the first available date. The status hearing on 6/29/2017 is stricken and no appearances are necessary on that date. For further details see the Order. Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 06/28/2017)
41 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. on 6/28/2017. Mailed notice(cdh, ) (Entered: 06/28/2017)
42 NOTICE by Rebecca Kim Glenberg of Change of Address (Glenberg, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
43 AMENDED NOTICE of Presentation or Waiver of Oral Argument filed by Thomas R. Burke (ew, ) (Entered: 07/11/2017)
44 ORDER DENYING TRANSFER. (jjr, ) (Entered: 08/02/2017)
45 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: Status hearing set for 8/10/2017 at 10:45 a.m. Mailed notice (ber, ) (Entered: 08/04/2017)

08/18/2017
08/18/2017 08/21/2017
08/22/2017 08/22/2017 08/23/2017
08/23/2017 08/25/2017

46 MOTION by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin for extension of time to file (Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Joint Status Report) (Spears, Natalie) (Entered: 08/18/2017)

47 NOTICE of Motion by Natalie J. Spears for presentment of motion for extension of time to file,, 46 before Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr. on 8/29/2017 at 09:15 AM. (Spears, Natalie) (Entered: 08/18/2017)

STATUS Report (Joint) by American Civil Liberties Union of

48

Illinois, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, American Civil

Liberties Union of Iowa, American Civil Liberties Union of

Kentucky, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American

Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, American Civil Liberties Union of

Nebraska, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, American Civil

Liberties Union of South Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of

Wisconsin (Spears, Natalie) (Entered: 08/21/2017)

49 ENTERED in Error. ANSWER to Complaint by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security(Berns, Matthew) Docket text modified on 8/23/2017 (ags, ). (Entered: 08/22/2017)

ANSWER to Complaint by U.S. Customs and Border Protection,

50

U.S. Department of Homeland Security(Berns, Matthew) (Entered:

08/22/2017)

51 MOTION by Attorney Patrick S. Kabat to withdraw as attorney for American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin. No party information provided (Spears, Natalie) (Entered: 08/23/2017)

52 NOTICE of Motion by Natalie J. Spears for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney,, 51 before Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr. on 8/30/2017 at 09:15 AM. (Spears, Natalie) (Entered: 08/23/2017)

53 ORDER: Joint motion for extension of time to file joint status report 46 is granted. Plaintiffs' motion to withdraw appearance of

09/15/2017
09/15/2017 09/15/2017 09/20/2017
09/22/2017 09/22/2017

Patrick S. Kabat 51 is granted. Notice of motion date of 8/30/17 is stricken and no appearances are necessary on that date. Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 8/25/2017. Mailed notice (ew, ) (Entered: 08/25/2017)
54 MOTION to Set Production Schedule by American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin (Kinsella, Kathleen) (Docket Text Modified by Clerk's Office)Modified on 9/15/2017 (pk, ). (Entered: 09/15/2017)
55 MEMORANDUM in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Set Production Schedule (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Kinsella, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
56 NOTICE of Motion by Kathleen V. Kinsella for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief,, 54 before Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr. on 9/20/2017 at 09:15 AM. (Kinsella, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
59 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: Status hearing held. Mr. Chetan participates by telephone. By 9/21/17, Mr. Chetan will send Ms. Kinsella and Ms. Spears the list of the 12 positions so that counsel may meet and confer on the selection of custodians and other issues that will move the discovery forward in this case. Every week going forward, parties are directed to have a conversation regarding the search terms and any other issues. By 10/20/17, parties shall submit a joint status report with an update on discovery progress, proposed search terms, and proposed deadlines for production. After reviewing the status report, a status hearing will be set before Judge Dow and/or Magistrate Judge Weisman, to whom this case is referred for all discovery motions and supervision and settlement conference if requested. Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
57 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case referred to the Honorable M. David Weisman for motion # 54 . Signed by Executive Committee on 09/22/2017. (bg, ) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
58 MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Weisman for the purposes of discovery supervision, to conduct a settlement conference, and all discovery motions, including plaintiffs' motion to set production

09/28/2017
10/02/2017
10/11/2017 10/17/2017 10/17/2017 10/20/2017

schedule 54 . Motion hearing set for 9/28/17 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (ao,) (Entered: 09/22/2017)

60 MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Motion hearing held. Plaintiff's motion to set production schedule 54 is entered and continued. Status hearing set for 10/2/17 at 11:00 a.m. for continued discussions on plaintiff's motion 54 . Defense counsel may appear by phone and shall provide contact information at least one day prior to the hearing to the courtroom deputy, Alyssia Owens, at Alyssia_Owens@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (ao,) (Entered: 09/29/2017)

61 MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Magistrate Judge Status hearing held. For the reason's stated on record, the Court request the following: (1) Defendant should file a memorandum of law on aggregation to the court for its review; (2) Parties shall continue to follow the weekly meet and confers ordered by Judge Dow; (3) Although, the parties have agreed to start with a review of 12 custodian, it is understood by agreement that plaintiffs are not limited to those 12 custodians in seeking its relief; (4) Parties will agree on certain "search terms" to use to identify responsive documents. Plaintiff's motion to set production schedule 54 is entered and continued. Status hearing set for 10/24/17 at 10:00 a.m. Any counsel so wishing may appear by phone and shall provide contact information at least three day prior to the hearing to the courtroom deputy, Alyssia Owens, at Alyssia_Owens@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (ao,) (Entered: 10/03/2017)

MEMORANDUM by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S.

62

Department of Homeland Security re Aggregation of FOIA

requests (Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 10/11/2017)

63 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13689023. (Gatnarek, Heather) (Entered: 10/17/2017)

64 MOTION by Attorney William E. Sharp to withdraw as attorney for American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky. No party information provided (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sharp, William) (Entered: 10/17/2017)

65 STATUS Report (Joint) by American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Spears, Natalie) (Entered: 10/20/2017)

10/23/2017
10/24/2017 10/31/2017
11/06/2017 11/13/2017

66 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of
Wisconsin to memorandum 62 (Response to Defendants' Memorandum of Law Regarding Aggregation) (Spears, Natalie) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
67 MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Magistrate Judge Status hearing held. The Court sets the following briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' motion to set production schedule 54 : Defendants' response shall be filed by COB on 11/6/17. Plaintiff may file a reply by the COB on 11/13/17. Motion hearing set for 11/15/17 at 2:00 p.m. Parties shall be prepared to present oral arguments at the hearing. Mailed notice (ao,) (Entered: 10/24/2017)
68 MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: A recent solicitation from the ACLU to join the ACLU that the Court received at my residence, prompted the Court to remember attending an ACLU luncheon in circa 2015 (prior to joining the bench) and having appeared in a 2013 case in which co-counsel included a member of the Roger Baldwin Foundation of the ACLU. See Lee v. Orr, 13 C 8719 (N.D. Ill.). The Court does not see this issue as a conflict but informs the parties of it in case any party has a different view. See, e.g., Promega Corp. v. Applied Biosystems, No. 12-cv- 049-wmc, 2012 WL 12995793 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 4, 2012). For completeness of the record, the Court also notes that I spent approximately 15 years working for the U.S. Department of Justice in various positions prior to joining the bench. Mailed notice (ao,) (Entered: 10/31/2017)
69 RESPONSE by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Securityin Opposition to MOTION 54 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Transcript of Proceedings, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Declaration)(Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
70 REPLY by American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin to response in opposition to motion 69 (Plaintiffs Reply in Support of

11/15/2017 11/15/2017
11/20/2017 11/21/2017

Motion to Set Production Schedule) (Spears, Natalie) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
ORAL MOTION to withdraw Matthew Joseph Berns as attorney for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (ao,) (Entered: 11/16/2017)
71 MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court enters and continues Plaintiffs' motion to set production schedule 54 to 11/21/17 at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiffs' counsel shall meet with her client to confirm that Plaintiff accepts the current set of search terms as constituting a "reasonable effort" by Defendant, subject to extraordinary circumstances that would be needed to justify future search requests. Defense counsel shall consult with client to determine Defendants' production capacity and the type of information that can be accurately represented in a monthly report to the Court describing the allocation of resources used to complete the FOIA review and production in this matter and/or related litigation. Defendants' oral motion to withdraw Matthew Berns as counsel for Defendants is granted without objection. Any counsel so wishing may appear by phone at the next hearing and shall provide contact information at least three days prior to the hearing to the courtroom deputy, Alyssia Owens at Alyssia_Owens@ilnd.uscourts.gov. The Court appreciates all counsel's efforts to reasonably resolve the issues presented in this matter. Mailed notice (ao,) (Entered: 11/16/2017)
72 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin to order on motion for miscellaneous relief,,,,,, order on motion to withdraw as attorney,,,,,, motion hearing,,,,,, set motion and R&R deadlines/hearings,,,,,, add and terminate attorneys,,,,, 71 (Plaintiffs' Response to the Court's Request in it's Minute Order of November 16, 2017) (Spears, Natalie) (Entered: 11/20/2017)
73 MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion to set production schedule 54 . By the 15th of every month or the closest business day thereto, Defendants shall file a brief status report with the Court regarding the following information from the previous month: (1) the number of full-time employees at both the Level 1 and Level 2 review levels who have worked on the

01/04/2018 01/12/2018

FOIA request as to the Executive Order itself over the preceding month; (2) the number of hours that the OCC attorneys worked on the project during the preceding month; and (3) the number of pages processed of the four "priority" record custodians in this case. As of 11/21/17, Defendants shall process 950 pages per month, with the first reporting period ending 12/31/17. Defendants' first status report is due 1/16/18. Plaintiffs agree that the current set of search terms is reasonable for the expedited review of the email accounts of the four prioritized custodians. Plaintiffs confirm that they will not request that Defendants run additional search terms as to these four prioritized custodians absent exceptional circumstances. Status hearing set for 6/20/18 at 9:15 a.m. Mailed notice (ao,) (Main Document 73 replaced on 11/28/2017) Modified on 11/28/2017 (ao,). (Entered: 11/28/2017)
74 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 10/24/2017 before the Honorable M. David Weisman. Order Number: 28813. Court Reporter Contact Information: ALEXANDRA ROTH, alexandra_roth@ilnd.uscourts.gov, (312) 408-5038.
IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.
Redaction Request due 1/25/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/5/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/4/2018. (Roth, Alexandra) (Entered: 01/04/2018)
75 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 11/21/17 before the Honorable M. David Weisman. Order Number: 29557. Court Reporter Contact Information: Patrick Mullen, (312) 435-5565, patrick_mullen@ilnd.uscourts.gov.
IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

01/16/2018 02/15/2018 03/14/2018 04/10/2018 04/16/2018 05/15/2018 06/08/2018 06/15/2018 06/20/2018
09/05/2018

Redaction Request due 2/2/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/12/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/12/2018. (Mullen, Patrick) (Entered: 01/12/2018)

76 STATUS Report by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 01/16/2018)

STATUS Report by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S.

77

Department of Homeland Security (Attachments:

# 1 Declaration)(Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

78 STATUS Report by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 03/14/2018)

79 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: Heather Gatnarek's motion for leave to appear pro hac vice 63 is granted. Attorney William E. Sharp's motion to withdraw as counsel 64 is granted. Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 04/10/2018)

80 STATUS Report by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 04/16/2018)

81 STATUS Report by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 05/15/2018)

82 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky by Corey M. Shapiro (Shapiro, Corey) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

83 STATUS Report by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

84 MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Magistrate Judge Status hearing held. Parties reported that a full production of all responsive records has been made. By 7/31/18, Defendants will produce an additional 1,200 pages of non-priority custodian documents. Status hearing set for 9/10/18 at 9:15 a.m. At the next status, parties shall address any issues related to document production. Mailed notice (ao,) (Entered: 06/22/2018)

85 NOTICE of Motion by Chetan Adinath Patil for presentment of before Honorable M. David Weisman on 9/10/2018 at 09:15 AM. (Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 09/05/2018)

09/05/2018 09/06/2018
09/28/2018
10/16/2018 10/31/2018
11/30/2018 12/18/2018

86 MOTION by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security to continue Status Hearing (Joint) (Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
87 MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Defendants' joint motion to continue status hearing 86 is granted. Parties shall file joint status reports on 9/28/18, 10/31/18, and 11/30/18 to keep the Court apprised of the parties' efforts to resolve or narrow the issues in dispute in this case. Status hearing set for 9/10/18 is stricken and reset to 12/18/18 at 9:15 a.m. Motion hearing set for 9/10/18 is stricken. Mailed notice (ao,) (Entered: 09/06/2018)
88 STATUS Report Joint Status Report by American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin (Spears, Natalie) (Entered: 09/28/2018)
89 NOTICE by Chetan Adinath Patil of Change of Address (Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
90 STATUS Report Joint by American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin (Spears, Natalie) (Entered: 10/31/2018)
91 STATUS Report (Joint) by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 11/30/2018)
92 MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Magistrate Status hearing held. Parties reported that they are optimistic about resolving the matter, both substantively and with respect to attorneys' fees. Status hearing set for 2/6/19 at 9:15 a.m. If defense counsel would like to appear by phone at the next hearing, he must provide contact information at least three days prior to the hearing to the courtroom deputy, Alyssia Owens, at Alyssia_Owens@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (ao,) (Entered: 12/19/2018)

12/26/2018 01/08/2019 01/28/2019
02/06/2019

93 GENERAL ORDER 18-0028 dated 12/26/18: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, effective December 26, 2018, that all civil litigation involving as a party the United States of America, is immediately suspended, postponed and held in abeyance continuing for a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this General Order (For Further Details See Attached Order). Signed by the Honorable Ruben Castillo on 12/26/2018: Mailed notice. (sm, ) (Entered: 12/30/2018)
94 AMENDED GENERAL ORDER 18-0028 dated 01/08/2019: On December 26, 2018, General Order 18-0028 was entered. It appearing that the lapse of congressional appropriations funding the federal government continues, therefore General Order 18-0028 is now amended. (For Further Details See Attached Order). Signed by the Honorable Ruben Castillo on 1/8/2019: Mailed notice. (sm, ) (Entered: 01/08/2019)
95 GENERAL ORDER 19-0004: RESETTING OF DEADLINES IN CIVIL MATTERS INVOLVING THE UNITED STATES AS A PARTY. IT APPEARING THAT as a result of the partial federal government shutdown, this Court amended General Order 18-0028 suspending as of December 21, 2018, all civil litigation in which the United States of America, its agencies, its officers, or employees were parties, with the stated intention of clarifying schedules in such cases upon the expiration of the lapse in appropriations; and IT FURTHER APPEARING THAT appropriations having been restored to fund the Department of Justice and other Executive Branch agencies, with employees beginning to report for work beginning on January 28, 2019; accordingly IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the stay entered by General Order 18-0028 is hereby lifted, and any and all deadlines in the affected civil litigation (whether established by order, rule, or agreement.), including but not limited to any scheduled discovery and pleading dates, are extended by 42 days. (For Further Details See Attached Order). Signed by the Honorable Ruben Castillo on 1/28/2019: Mailed notice. (mgw, ) (Entered: 01/28/2019)
96 MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Magistrate Status hearing held. Parties reported that they have reached an agreement as to the substantive issues involved (i.e. the adequacy of the Government's document search). The only remaining issue to resolve concerns attorneys' fees. Status hearing set for 4/9/19 at 9:15 a.m. If defense counsel would like to appear by phone at the next hearing, he must provide contact information at least three days prior to the hearing to the Courtroom Deputy, Alyssia Owens, at Alyssia_Owens@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (ao,) (Entered: 02/07/2019)

02/13/2019 02/13/2019 04/09/2019
05/23/2019
07/10/2019
08/29/2019 09/03/2019 09/03/2019

97 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-15480766. (Carey, David) (Entered: 02/13/2019)
98 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: David Carey's motion for leave to appear pro hac vice on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio 97 is granted. Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 02/13/2019)
99 MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Magistrate Status hearing held. Parties reported on the status of negotiations regarding attorneys' fees. Status hearing set for 5/23/19 at 9:15 a.m. If defense counsel would like to appear by phone at the next hearing, he must provide direct contact information at least three days prior to the hearing to the Courtroom Deputy, Alyssia Owens, at Alyssia_Owens@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (ao,) (Entered: 04/10/2019)
100 MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Magistrate Status hearing held. Parties reported on the status of settlement discussions and are optimistic about resolving the issue of attorneys' fees. Status hearing set for 7/10/19 at 9:15 a.m. If defense counsel would like to appear by phone at the next hearing, he must provide direct contact information at least three days prior to the hearing to the Courtroom Deputy, Alyssia Owens, at Alyssia_Owens@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (ao,) (Entered: 05/28/2019)
101 MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Magistrate Status hearing held. Parties reported that they have reached an agreement with respect to attorneys' fees. Status hearing set for 9/5/19 at 9:15 a.m. for docket management. Defense counsel may appear by phone at the next hearing by providing direct contact information at least three days prior to the hearing to the Courtroom Deputy, Alyssia Owens, at Alyssia_Owens@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Parties may jointly email Ms. Owens to request a later status date if they require additional time to finalize the settlement. Mailed notice (ao,) (Entered: 07/10/2019)
102 STIPULATION of Dismissal (Spears, Natalie) (Entered: 08/29/2019)
103 MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Pursuant to the stipulation of dismissal 102 , all matters relating to the referral of this case have been resolved, this matter is returned to the District Judge. Status hearing set for 9/5/19 before Magistrate Judge Weisman is hereby stricken with no appearance required. Referral terminated. Mailed notice (ao,) (Entered: 09/03/2019)
104 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and the stipulation of

dismissal 102 filed on 8/29/2019, this action is dismissed, with prejudice, against Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"). Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 09/03/2019)